Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The exceptions are the problem. I have had representations from a number of constituents who are still suffering under convictions going back 30 or 40 years, when they were completely different people. Under the legislation the Minister is proposing, those people will still only be able to get one spent conviction, so it will be of no value to them and will not make any difference to their lives. That is the crux of the problem. In our criminal justice system, we should be setting out and recognising that people can be rehabilitated, that people can change their lives and turn their lives around, rather than constantly penalising them because of mistakes they made in the past. That is the problem with this legislation.

As a result of the unlimited number of road traffic offences, the Government is distinguishing between classes of people who might be able to avail of spent convictions. It will have a significant detrimental impact and will lessen the positive impact this legislation could have for people. The Minister is right in saying the vast majority of convictions can now be classed as spent. That is because the vast majority of convictions in the District Court are road traffic offences. It does not really matter and it does not really help the people who need the help. It does not really help the people we as a society have failed.

If we look at the legislation that has been put through here in recent months, particularly the Criminal Justice (Burglary of Dwellings) Act, people who are given custodial sentences for burglaries - young teenagers and people in their early 20s - are more likely to reoffend. They are less likely to reoffend if they do not get a custodial sentence. A young person may get a burglary conviction this year and another one next year. Why would they bother applying for a spent conviction? They can only get one of them spent. The second one stays on their record forever.

The Minister has spoken in her response about the rights of employers. Are they the only people we are interested in? What value is it to an employer to know that somebody might have had one or two convictions for assault 20 years before that? They have become a completely different person in those 20 years, but what we are saying to them is that they are not, they never will be and they will never be considered as that. We are saying the right of their employer to know they made a mistake 20 years ago is more important than their right to be able to contribute to society.

See this speech in context