Tom Fleming (Kerry South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Irish Human Rights Commission has produced a considered and reasoned analysis of the Bill. I am glad that the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, has taken cognisance of many of its observations and proposals, a number of which have been included in the legislation, as drafted. The Bill has the capacity to deter criminality, detect crime when it is committed, prosecute offenders and ensure court decisions are served. Crucially, it recognises that when a person has paid his or her debt to society, it is in the best interests of society and the offender for him or her to be rehabilitated and reintegrated with all speed. The Bill will enhance the ability of people to secure and retain employment after leaving prison.

The explanatory memorandum states the main purpose of the Bill is to assist the rehabilitation of offenders who often experience difficulties in securing employment as a result of having a conviction. Its primary aim is to remove the employment discrimination that affects people who have convictions. The highest level of protection must apply when those who have committed serious offences seek employment that involves contact with children or direct contact with vulnerable persons. The stated purpose of this legislative approach - to remove employment barriers from people with previous convictions - does not appear to be met by the Bill. I suggest this measure should be accompanied by a corresponding strengthening of equality legislation.

It is important for people who have been convicted of minor offences to be able to obtain employment, thereby aiding their rehabilitation and reducing their risk of reoffending. Those who have come into contact with the justice system face serious challenges in obtaining employment. Discrimination on the basis of previous convictions is a real issue that has a serious impact on former offenders. According to a survey conducted by the National Economic and Social Forum in 2002, just 52% of employers would consider employing ex-offenders. A report drawn up by the Law Society of Ireland on a proposed rehabilitation of offenders Bill quoted research carried out by the Small Firms Association in 2007 which indicated that an average of 76% of companies were unwilling to hire ex-offenders.

Once a criminal conviction is imposed, it follows the individual for life and may inhibit his or her access to education or employment and his or her ability to obtain licences, insurance and housing. It may also restrict his or her ability to travel. The grounds of discrimination in the Employment Equality Act 1998 should be extended to include discrimination on the basis of a criminal conviction. This should be accompanied by a restructuring of the vetting system, as recommended by the Data Protection Commissioner. A system to expunge previous convictions after a fixed period of time should be seriously considered.

I question the provision requiring that a conviction cannot be considered spent outside the jurisdiction of the State. If a conviction is regarded as spent under Irish law, it is unclear why a person would not be entitled to have it considered spent outside the jurisdiction. The impact of a criminal conviction on a person's ability to travel to certain countries is well recognised. If this provision were removed, the authorities in another state would still be in a position to seek information from individuals on whether they had been convicted at any time in another jurisdiction. However, Irish law should prevail. For the purposes of Irish law, the individual's conviction for a minor offence will be expunged from the public record. The legislation should explicitly refer to convictions obtained outside the State as being included for the purposes of the legislation. It is particularly important that an offender can obtain employment and access education as soon as possible after completion of his or her sentence. This is particularly important in promoting reintegration, accelerating rehabilitation and mitigating the risk of reoffending.

Under the Bill, a conviction will be considered spent after a period of seven years following a custodial sentence of nine to 12 months and after a period of five years following a custodial sentence of six months or less on condition that the person concerned had had no further sentences imposed on him or her during the relevant rehabilitation period. The Bill also provides for a period of three or four years in relation to a fine or a community service order and three years in the case of a non-custodial sentence. The proposed rehabilitation periods are too long and inconsistent with the Council of Europe's recommendation that member states provide for an automatic period of rehabilitation after a "reasonably short period of time". A shorter rehabilitation period would maximise the possibility of rehabilitation and reintegration into society. In the case of a conviction that results in a fine, it is far from clear why an extended period of rehabilitation would need to apply. I refer to cases in which the State considers the offence to be at the most minor end of the scale such as a failure to possess a television license or non-payment of the household charge.

It could be argued that the proposed periods of rehabilitation are disproportionate to the legitimate aims of public safety and preventing disorder or crime. The case of Cox v. Ireland is relevant when we consider the length of the rehabilitation period. The court held that a blanket exclusion from Civil Service employment for a seven year period of all people convicted of membership of an illegal organisation was too wide and indiscriminate. While the Bill does not expressly exclude a convicted person from accessing any form of employment, the requirement to disclose a criminal record for up to seven years following the conviction may greatly reduce the convicted person's chances of securing employment.

The Law Society of Ireland's report on the rehabilitation Bill proposed recommended that the relevant period for non-custodial sentences be the duration of the sentence plus one year and in the case of sentences of less than two years it should be the duration of the sentence plus two years. In order to adhere to the principle of proportionality and maximise the possibility of rehabilitation of convicted persons, the proposed legislation should provide for shorter periods of rehabilitation that are proportionate to the sentence imposed. The recent changes to the relevant legislation in the United Kingdom could be instructive in this regard.

Measures taken to seek the rehabilitation and reintegration of convicted persons must be balanced against the broader societal interests of public safety, the prevention of disorder and crime and the need to have due regard for victims. There are sufficient safeguards in the Bill to justify an increased sentencing threshold, including a period of rehabilitation prior to the possibility of non-disclosure; a requirement to disclose in all circumstances if the person seeks a position in certain categories of employment, including employment involving the care, supervision or teaching of vulnerable persons, including children; and a requirement to disclose in criminal proceedings and other identified procedures such as those relating to adoption or fostering. It has been established in the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights that in certain circumstances the State may legitimately exclude offenders from specified areas of employment. However, any measure taken must have regard to the constitutional rights of the citizen and be proportionate to the legitimate objectives pursued. The State is required to treat differently people whose situations are significantly different.

A number of items that need to be addressed in legislation are not included in the Bill, as it stands. It has come to my attention that many motor insurance companies are not prepared to insure drink-driving offenders, even those who exceeded the legal limit by a minimal amount. We need to address in the Bill the manner in which such offences are held against people when they try to obtain insurance. A similar provision seems to be written in the small print of house insurance policies. It comes to light if it transpires that a member of the household was convicted in the courts at some stage.

If the house is burgled or there is another harmful effect, it appears there is a condition written in the very small print which excludes insurer liability or payment by the insurance company. We need to ensure close scrutiny of these very important matters which will affect many households.

Michael Conaghan (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to share time with Deputies Anne Ferris, Michael McNamara and Brendan Ryan.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Michael Conaghan (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For too long in Ireland, even the most minor criminal conviction hasa mounted, in effect, to a life sentence. A person may not be condemned to spend the rest of his orh er life behind prison walls, but he or she is condemned to a lifetime of stigma, lost career opportunities and serious difficulties in rebuilding a normal life. The Bill before the House is a most welcome step in the slow process of reorienting the criminal justice system away from a system which merely serves to penalise wrongdoers towards one which will allow them to be rehabilitated in the interests of the entire society.

Much of what is considered normal in Irish prisons should not happen in a civilised country. The job of reforming the prison system is a massive one. The Government has committed to closing St. Patrick's Institution for young offenders, which has been condemned for many years by many expert groups as completely unfit for purpose. More than this, the Government has, in a time of austerity, done what Fianna Fáil failed to do when it was throwing money around, namely, make the necessary funding available to make the closing of St. Patrick's Institution a reality. However, there is much more to be done. The prisons are overcrowded; practices such as slopping out are not acceptable and broader reform of the system is necessary. It is in this context that I welcome the Bill.

By international standards, Ireland is years behind other countries. The United Kingdom first introduced spent convictions legislation nearly 40 years ago in 1974. Last year Mr. Liam Herrick of the Irish Penal Reform Trust was able to write: "The fact that Ireland remains the only EU state without any system of spent convictions is only one example of how we condemn even minor offenders to lifetime barriers to employment." I welcome the comments of the Minister of State, Deputy Lucinda Creighton, who, in opening the debate on behalf of the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, said this spent conviction legislation was only one strand of a suite of policies to avoid the creation of a gap between offenders and "normal society". Other aspects include a focus on youth diversion programmes and the use of non-custodial alternatives such as probation, community service and restorative justice measures. These are very fine policy priorities and I look forward to having the opportunity to discuss them at a later stage.

We must ask what is the purpose of the criminal justice system. Is it just to punish? Certainly, this is one element, but so too is rehabilitation. Unfortunately, this is not a strong enough current of thought. One shining light in this area is the prison education system. Curriculums devised by the City of Dublin VEC play a valuable role in allowing people to leave the prison system with much greater literacy and numeracy skills. Many prisoners really do engage with the education service. They want to better and prepare themselves for the world outside. I pay tribute to the teachers and City of Dublin VEC for this remarkable aspect of their education service.

Serving a custodial sentence is, in reality, only one part of the equation. Recreating a normal life outside of prison can present further serious difficulties. For example, the obligation to inform an employer of a conviction sets off an alarm bell that is impossible to quieten. It is an employers' market. In a choice between two candidates of equal merit - one with a conviction and one without - there will be only one winner and it would be hard to blame the employer. According to the Law Reform Commission, only 52% of employers would employ an ex-offender. In similar research the Small Firms Association claim this figure rises to between 76% and 87%.

People must have the opportunity to reintegrate fully into society. Finding a job is an essential part of getting back to a normal life. Where someone is determined not to reoffend, it is only right that, after a certain period, he or she be allowed to leave his or her past behind. Where someone cannot find work, it is possible that old habits might re-emerge. Without hope, the likelihood of a return to criminal activity increases. There might be an economic incentive to return to crime. If we are serious about reducing recidivism, we must be serious about rehabilitating prisoners and ensuring they have hope on their release.

The Bill will not put in place a mechanism to have any conviction to be expunged and will not wipe clean a person's criminal record; rather, it will put in place a system under which certain convictions, at the less serious end of the criminal spectrum, will not have to be disclosed in certain circumstances where a person does not reoffend for a set period of time. The time period after which a conviction must not be disclosed varies, depending on the severity of the crime, the length of sentence involved and so on. A sliding scale will be put in place, from a maximum of a five year rehabilitation period in the case of a 12 month custodial sentence down to a two year period for less serious offences.

The measures contained within the Bill do not apply to every criminal conviction and there are necessary safeguards. Serious offences such as murder, manslaughter, sexual offences and others are excluded from the remit of the Bill. A conviction involving a sentence of more than 12 months cannot be considered spent under the Bill. Neither will repeat offenders be able to have their convictions considered spent. No individual can have more than two spent convictions, even if they meet all of the other criteria. Similarly, there are safeguards in place regarding the types of employment where the measures outlined in the Bill do not come into effect. For example, where a person seeks employment which involves working with children, vulnerable persons or certain State bodies and Departments, all convictions must still be disclosed. In 2011 there were over 11,000 prison committals with sentences of up to 12 months which would fall within the remit of the Bill. The Bill will give those convicted hope that, once they make a commitment not to reoffend, they will be able to leave their past behind and rebuild their lives. It achieves a balance between giving hope to those who seek rehabilitation and maintaining the need for disclosures in the public interest. I welcome the Bill as a positive step towards a criminal justice system that will have rehabilitation and reintegration into society as its core objective.

Anne Ferris (Wicklow, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak about this very progressive legislation. The Bill is one which, when enacted, will allow those who have made mistakes in the past the opportunity to move on with their lives. Last week, as Vice Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality, I visited Midtown Community Court in New York, which deals specifically with citizens who are in court having committed "quality of life" offences. I asked what these offences were and was told they included, among other offences, spitting, jumping turnstiles, graffiti, being drunk and disorderly and shoplifting. Instead of sending these offenders to prison, they are given community work to carry out. A dedicated judge deals with these cases and if the offenders carry out their community work and do not reoffend for six months, their cases are dismissed and records sealed. Midtown Community Court also deals with each individual on a personal basis and has social workers, clinicians and other professionals to help people deal with their problems.

I also met four Supreme Court judges who strongly advocated the community court model. They each specialised in certain areas, for example, drugs, mental health issues or war veterans; therefore, offenders coming before the courts appear before the judge appropriate to their own situation. The system aims to treat the person, rather than just pass sentence for committing a crime. In addition, I visited John Jay College of Criminal Justice, where I heard from the director and other professionals teaching community outreach programmes how community courts could be more effective than simply locking up offenders and throwing away the key. This progressive way of treating people who have committed minor crimes is something from which we in this country could learn.

That said, I am happy the Minister has pursued the Bill and commend the work that has gone into it. However, while I am pleased with the overall intent, there is space for improvements. The Mercy Law Resource Centre has raised a number of further issues that I would like to see addressed. As I am sure the Minister knows, it is an independent law centre and charity which provides free legal advice and representation in the areas of housing and social welfare law for persons who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. Research undertaken by Focus Ireland and PACE illustrates that the relationship between homelessness and crime is complex. Homelessness did not inevitably lead to criminal behaviour among the sample researched.

For some, being homeless led to crime which in turn led to imprisonment. For others, it was being released from prison that led directly to homelessness. The Mercy Law Centre states that the link between homelessness and crime cannot be ignored if either is to be successfully tackled, a statement with which I agree. In highlighting the benefits that this Bill can give to those seeking employment, I feel it is just as important to ensure that access to social housing is not unduly burdensome. As it stands, sections 14 and 15 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1997 and local authority policy allow for the exclusion of persons from availing of social housing on estate management grounds as a result of information received from the gardaí. We all understand that good estate management is important but the information disclosed must be proportionate with the aim. Currently, minor offences, cautions, investigations without charge or dismissals under the Probation Act 1907 can be disclosed. The Mercy Law Centre advocates that only information relating to unspent convictions be disclosed to the local authorities as it would protect the presumption of innocence and adhere to fair procedures, a position I am inclined to support.

The matter of enforcement has also been brought up and a question has arisen as to whether the investigative powers of the Data Protection Commissioner should be extended to complaints under this scheme. With these criticisms outlined, I must say that I do support the overall intent of this Bill and I look forward to its enactment.

People who have made minor mistakes in the past should have the right to move on with their lives without the constant reminder.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Like my colleagues, I commend certain aspects of this Bill. Unlike them, I do not look forward to its enactment because there is a real risk that it will not bring very much clarity to the law. This Bill is being introduced in Ireland in response to a recommendation of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the criminal record and rehabilitation of convicted persons. That recommendation dates from 1984 so almost 30 years later this august Legislature finally gets around to addressing the matter. The recommendation advocates that provision be made for automatic rehabilitation after a reasonably short period of time.

As Deputy Connaughton pointed out, the purpose of this Bill is quite similar to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act in the UK, which was passed in 1974, almost 39 years ago. One could ask what on earth people in this Legislature were doing in the mean time but that is a different question. A fine is rehabilitated in the UK after 12 months after the date of conviction, a custodial sentence of six months or less is rehabilitated after 24 months, a custodial sentence of six to 30 months is rehabilitated after 48 months after completion, a compensation order is rehabilitated on the date on which the payment is made and a community rehabilitation order is rehabilitated 12 months after the last day of the effect of the order. This Bill provides for a period of three to four years in respect of a fine or community service order and three years for a non-custodial sentence.

As pitifully late as it is, there must be a question as to whether or not it fulfils the requirement of providing for an automatic rehabilitation after a reasonably short period of time. The time periods provided in this Bill are an improvement on what went before which was nothing. It is not that difficult to improve on nothing but it is an improvement and should be welcomed. However, I wonder whether the drafters and framers of this Bill in the Department of Justice and Equality have taken account of recent case law in the UK. In MM v. The United Kingdom, which was heard in the European Court of Human Rights, the matter of respect for privacy and family rights relating to the recording of offences was considered in detail by the grand chamber. The judgment has handed down on 13 November 2012 and was considered by the Court of Appeal in the UK in the case of R. (T and others) v. Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police and others. This judgment was handed down on 29 January 2013. T was born in 1991 and received two warnings from the Greater Manchester police force in connection with two stolen bicycles when he was 11. At the age of 21, he applied to do a university course in sport which would ultimately have led him to work with children. Therefore, the warning that he received in connection with two stolen bicycles was not spent because he would be dealing with children.

A similar provision is contained in our Bill. Section 9 of the Bill provides that section 5 shall not apply where a person applies for, seeks or is offered relevant work. One must look at the opacity of the Irish drafting because relevant work is further defined instead of just being defined in the section as one might expect because legislation should be understandable to the greatest number of people. Relevant work includes work with children so somebody in a similar situation to T who receives a warning in connection with stolen bicycles at the age of 11, for example, and subsequently goes to university to study sports science at the University of Limerick would not have the conviction spent when they then go to work as sports science teachers because they are dealing with children. The fact that T's conviction was not spent was found to be disproportionate and, therefore, contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. I very much hope that on the day this Chamber passes legislation after a very long delay, it is not found to be contrary to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights to which this State is bound.

While I welcome the Bill for being an improvement on nothing, it could and should go much further in respect of the time periods in which particular convictions are spent, the requirement to divulge certain convictions and the fact that certain convictions should arguably be spent and not remain on the record in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Brendan Ryan (Dublin North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I think it is positive legislation which is long overdue. This Bill is designed to assist the rehabilitation of offenders in securing employment. It will bring us into line with the majority of EU member states in providing a system under which certain convictions can be disregarded after a number of years have elapsed since they were imposed. This is not job creation legislation. However, it will provide a small piece in the architecture of what this Government is trying to create, namely, a jobs-friendly economy. It will make it easier for people with minor past convictions to obtain and secure employment.

I do have one issue regarding the Bill which I would like to focus on and that is the provision allowing for only two convictions to be spent. I believe the reasoning behind this provision is aimed at repeat offenders or so-called career criminals, however, I do believe there are a number of people who will undeservedly fall foul of this provision. I am speaking particularly of individuals who may have three convictions which relate to the one isolated event or transgression. One incident can include three or more relatively minor convictions. For example, an individual may have been involved in a traffic incident as a young person. That one transgression could lead to that person being convicted of three offences such as driving without insurance, leaving the scene of an accident and driving while on a mobile phone, which is fairly relevant today. I want to refer to an email relating to this issue which I received from a constituent. The email stated that:

Briefly my one incident was that I reversed into another car in the car park of a local disco as we were leaving the dance. I was uninsured and did not remain at the scene. The damage was minor. I broke my rear lens and damaged the other person's car wing. I fully compensated the other person. However, at court I was convicted on 3 charges:

1. Sec 106, RTA 1961. Failure to stop at scene of accident. 3 Months disqualification.

2. Sec 53, RTA 1961. Dangerous driving. Licence endorsed.

3. Sec 56, RTA 1961. No insurance. Licence endorsed.

It must be said that the safeguards within the Bill are strong and ensure that those with serious convictions including those in respect of sexual offences and offences tried by the Central Criminal Court are excluded from the benefits of the Bill.

This Bill is not about allowing serious criminals expunge their record. In summary, I ask that the Minister review the provision stating that no more than two convictions can be spent. I ask him to make that amendment on Committee Stage. I have explained the effect of the anomaly which was not intended when the Bill was drafted. I am more than happy to meet with the Minister to discuss this matter further. I welcome the intention of the Bill and the majority of its provisions.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank sincerely the members of the Technical Group for allowing me some of their time to speak on the Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions) Bill 2012. Like some of my colleagues who have spoken, while I welcome the Bill, I have reservations that in certain aspects it does not go far enough. Through my work over many years, I have come across what I consider to be very genuine cases. For example, a person may have made a mistake in his or her younger years - something that is possible for all of us. A person could have been arrested for being drunk and disorderly but this now hangs over him like a dark cloud throughout all the rest of his life. This is unfair. I agree there should be ways and mechanisms for cleaning the slate.

An offence committed in youth can have frightening consequences with regard to employment. Garda vetting of personnel is required for quite a number of positions of employment. All prospective employees of the HSE or the State, including contract workers, must be vetted by the Garda Síochána. Many people are unable to comply with the requirements because of a misdemeanour committed in their earlier years which may have been out of character and is a once-off offence. I do not mean that the record should be expunged for what one would call criminals. A previous speaker outlined a harmless type of incident in a person's youth. To think that this would follow a person through all the days of his or her life, is wrong.

There are certain professions for which it will always be necessary to declare a criminal conviction as these professions confer a position of power or of trust on a person. It will remain a legal requirement to ask an applicant about his or her convictions when that person is applying for relevant work as defined by the Bill. All convictions must be disclosed. Relevant work relates to work with children, vulnerable persons and work in certain State agencies and Government Departments. There is no blanket exemption for Civil Service or public service jobs. All convictions must be disclosed when making certain licence applications.

The proposed time period required before a sentence is declared spent ranges from three years for a fine of up to €500, to seven years for a custodial sentence of up to 12 months. The time period is also described as the rehabilitative or waiting period. Only two convictions can be spent for any individual. All other convictions must be disclosed even if the person meets the rest of the criteria for the spent conviction. In cases where a person is convicted of a third offence during the relevant period, then the first and second offences cannot become spent. All of these offences will have to be disclosed. I take exception to some aspects of the legislation dealing with the disclosure of offences. I would have liked to have seen the Bill go further in that regard.

Even though the Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence, Deputy Shatter, and I, would not agree on a lot of other issues, I welcome his statement that rehabilitation and participation in normal society must be an objective of our penal system and in which a spent conviction regime has a role to play. It is not often that we are both in agreement on certain aspects of his work, considering his support in pushing through the closure of more than 100 Garda stations this year, throughout the length and breadth of this country. The gardaí and the people working in the judicial system are all seeing the effects of this decision. Time will tell that this was a significant blunder.

I am disappointed at the lack of data on the number of individuals who will be eligible for spent convictions as defined in the Bill. Neither is data available from the Courts Service containing a level of detail that allows for a breakdown of the relevant custodial and non-custodial sentences defined in the Bill. The Irish Prison Service statistics provide a partial picture of the proportion of custodial sentences that may come within the scope of the Bill. Because these figures relate solely to those serving prison sentences, they are limited in their application. As defined, also excluded are those who received other sanctions such as community service orders, fines, probation orders and suspended sentences. The Bill proposes that custodial sentences of 12 months or less may be eligible to become spent convictions. However, while the data show information on sentences of less than 12 months, the figures for sentences of 12 months and up to two years are not reported. This means that some eligible sentences are not distinguishable from those that are not eligible. This lack of clarity and paucity of data is not helpful to the aim of this Bill. Data on sentences for sexual and homicide convictions are omitted as they will not become eligible to become spent. This is only right and proper. Serious offences should not be removed from the record of an offender. When a person commits a serious crime such as I have stated, he or she must pay the price and take the sentence with them for the rest of their lifetime.

There has been criticism of the effectiveness of the provision and it is questioned whether it provides a clean slate. It has been argued that the length of time it takes for a conviction to become spent undermines the very objective of the legislation providing for spent convictions. The period in which a clean slate is most required is immediately following completion of a sentence when, for instance, the rehabilitative effect of immediate employment is greatest. A person leaving prison must be enabled to re-integrate into society as quickly as possible. We all know that finding a job is difficult but even charitable or part-time work would be a means of keeping busy. The waiting period as provided in the Bill may mean that a person leaving prison could be left idle. We were always told there is nothing more dangerous than an idle mind. One would have to consider what might happen in the intervening period between leaving prison and being in a position to return to the workforce.

The Bill provides that the minimum period before a current conviction can become spent is three years. The UK law has been changed to shorten the waiting periods for convictions to become spent while at the same time widening the provisions to include convictions for longer sentences of up to four years.

That is fair enough. The Confederation of British Industry - the UK equivalent of IBEC - welcomed the less restrictive system being introduced across the water and said that it gave offenders a better chance of obtaining employment, thereby reducing the likelihood of their reoffending. This is exactly what I have been saying. It has been stated that the UK arrangements offer a more proportionate balance between the seriousness of the offence committed and prospective employers being able to obtain the information necessary to allow them to assess whether employing someone might constitute a risk.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the people who work in the Irish Prison Service. Since becoming a Member of this House, I have made it my business to visit prisons in Dublin on a number of occasions in order to witness, at first hand, the way in which the service is run. I also wanted to see the work being done in order to reintegrate people into society and also to encourage the development of a work ethic among those who may never have had a job before. It may not be noted on many occasions in the House but the governors, prison officers and all of those employed within the Irish Prison Service must be complimented on the work they do. Those to whom I refer work in an extremely pressurised environment. They deal with people who are in a place in which they do not wish to be and, in many instances, with individuals who can be troublesome and who have a lot of issues. The governors and the male and female prison officers work with these people in order to try to get them to a better place in their lives. I accept that there are hardened criminals but that is a another story.

Those who work in the Irish Prison Service are fair and balanced and they do their work in a diligent and honest way. I mean what I say in this regard because it have seen evidence of what I am describing at first hand. As already indicated, I went out of my way to see every aspect of what is involved and those in the Irish Prison Service were kind enough to facilitate me. It is important that public representatives should see - at close quarters - what is happening in our prisons. Great work is being done. There are some excellent programmes for prisoners, who can be engaged in doing practical work and who can be trained and provided with skills - for example, computer skills - which will be of use to them when they leave prison in the context of obtaining employment. There are all sorts of educational and arts and crafts opportunities open to prisoners. I have seen great things being done in our prisons. It is not just a case of throwing people into prison and obliging them to bide their time, with nothing to do but be fed and kept under lock and key. Conditions in our prisons have improved. There are many people who are of the attitude that the latter should not have happened. I am of the view that those who are convicted of offences must serve their time and that our thoughts have to be with the victims of their crimes. Ultimately, we must try to ensure that people do not reoffend. That is what those in the Irish Prison Service are doing.

Section 10 of the Bill provides that anyone applying for or renewing a range of licences, permits or other authorisations, must continue to disclose all previous convictions, including spent convictions. Taxi licences are obviously included in this regard. In the context of the type of offence a person may have committed in the past, it must be stated that being a taxi driver is an extremely responsible job. If a taxi driver picks up a teenage or young adult female late at night, the latter is in his or her care while being transported from A to B in his or her vehicle. It is vital, therefore, that customers should be in a position to know the identify of those who drive taxis. If there are any issues arising, customers should be aware of them. Those who issue licences should be in a position to decide whether someone is a suitable individual to be in charge of a taxi and, by extension, other people's safety.

The position is similar with regard to private security licences and firearms certificates. As a person who has always owned guns, I am aware of the importance of ensuring that all firearms owners know what they are doing. Anyone who wants to be in possession of a firearm could certainly not afford to have a chequered history. I appreciate the merit in that. The other licences, etc., covered under this section include those relating to driving instructors, individuals who work with vulnerable people and those required in respect of the registration and operation of mental health centres and designated care centres and programmes. Obviously, the past history of all individuals contemplated under these provisions must be taken into consideration.

Previous speakers referred to the issue of motor and house insurance. Deputy Tom Fleming and I must have been contacted by the same people because I am also aware that very strict conditions have been imposed via the small print contained in insurance policies. It is beyond belief that the insurance policy of a couple who own their house can be nullified if their son, daughter or some other relative living there has a previous conviction. That is not fair. The position with regard to car insurance is similar. There is a need to give further consideration to the position in respect of this matter. We are always informed that we should be aware of the small print. However, hiding conditions such as those to which I refer in the small print of insurance policies is neither helpful nor correct.

I am aware of people who were denied job opportunities as a result of some misdemeanour they committed in their youth. It could be the simplest of things such as, for example, an assault. While two people may have carried out the assault, only one may have ended up with a conviction in respect of it. Such individuals are tagged for the remainder of their lives, which is unfair. If a person has come to the attention of the Garda on numerous occasions or if he or she is a known troublemaker, that is a completely different issue. We are all human and many people can be somewhat reckless when they are starting out in life. Some of those to whom I refer may go on to become pillars of their communities and respectable family people with children of their own but they continue to have a dark cloud hanging over them. I have encountered several individuals whose careers were really affected in the context of obtaining jobs for which they would have been highly qualified and eminently suitable. Unfortunately, they could not get through the Garda vetting process. I certainly do not want anyone to believe that I am opposed to Garda vetting or anything of that nature. Such vetting is necessary and the form it currently takes is good.

Having said all that, I must admit that nothing is perfect. I do not believe the Bill to be perfect but I support it because the Government and the Department are making moves in the right direction. Everyone must welcome that fact.

It is all about jobs. It is about helping people get back to work, which is where they should be, and allowing those who made errors in the past get back into the mainstream workforce if they are fortunate enough to be able to do so.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I hope it might be tweaked in the future to address the anomalies identified by Members. I took note of the excellent contributions made by other Members also. I thank the Technical Group for allowing me the time to speak on the Bill.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Deputy Dara Murphy who I understand is sharing time with Deputies Fitzpatrick and Harris.

Dara Murphy (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is correct.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Deputy Marcella Corcoran Kennedy sharing-----

Dara Murphy (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps not, but-----

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If she does not arrive the Deputies have approximately seven minutes each.

Dara Murphy (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Like others, I too welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill and the open-minded approach the Minister, Deputy Shatter, has taken to it. Already, he has accepted some amendments in the Seanad. He is a Minister who is prepared to listen to Members on both sides of the House to determine if legislation can be tweaked or improved.

I agree with some of the suggestions made by other speakers, although I disagree with others. I got a letter from a constituent who is 34 years of age. As he describes it, he has a record as long as his arm for stupid mistakes which he made in his late teens and up to the age of 21. He never received a custodial sentence but had a succession of minor offences, and the Probation Act was applied on what he describes as a few times, which would imply more than twice. He has since changed his life and has had no conviction for a lengthy period. However, as things stand, his record is not clean and he says it hangs over him like a cloud when applying for a job. He is constantly waiting for the issue to be made public or highlighted in some way.

An amendment was tabled in the Seanad which dealt with people convicted of more than one offence. The Bill now refers to two offences. One of the Labour Party Deputies mentioned a person who had a number of convictions for a motor offence. Under section 2(4), if there is a number of convictions for the same incident, that can be treated as one conviction but I understand that even though this particular individual's crimes are relatively minor and for which they only received the Probation Act, because he has more than two offences he will not be able to have his record wiped clear. Bearing in mind that two 12 months custodial sentences can be wiped clear, the Minister might revisit that in terms of people who may have a succession of relatively minor offences.

There is a liberal feel to this legislation and a clear ambition to allow people get on with their lives. However, it is important that we do not forget that there are victims at the other side of most crimes. It is vital that the strong element of the preventative nature of sentencing is protected and that there is a strong sense in all legislation, and within all court processes, that if someone is convicted they must pay a price for the crime they have committed. It is a weakness in the Bill if somebody who may have committed a number of minor offences - it appears to be two in the Bill - cannot then have their record cleared.

The second issue about which I have concern is in section 6, and it is to do with court proceedings. Section 1 states that no evidence of a spent conviction is admissible in court proceedings and that no question can be asked regarding a spent conviction, and if asked, it need not be answered. I have difficulty with that. Section 2 is contradictory in that if justice demands it, the question can be asked but that must be clarified, particularly in the area of sentencing. I understand that the section provides that a witness's spent conviction cannot be called back to suggest that the validity of their testimony as a witness is not as bona fide by virtue of the fact that they have a previous conviction, but if somebody who has committed a number of crimes is then convicted, when it comes to sentencing the spent conviction should then be expunged and the judge should be able to say, "We gave you the benefit of the doubt. You had the convictions. You had a period where your record was wiped clean, but you are now back before me. You have been convicted, and I must take the fact that you were convicted in the past into account when I am sentencing."

I welcome the provisions in respect of other areas. On the area of Garda clearance, a constituent of mine required Garda clearance to take up a position in the European Commission. Even though the person had a clear record, it appears the documentation we provide here is not of a type that is acceptable to employers within Europe. If we are going as far as providing for people's records to be wiped clean, we should also beef up our documentation for everybody trying to provide evidence with respect to jobs.

Peter Fitzpatrick (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The spent convictions Bill provides for non-disclosure of certain convictions where a person has not re-offended for a certain period of time. The Bill is intended to assist people with convictions by removing the requirement that they disclose past convictions when applying for a job. However, there are a number of exceptions to the general rules. For example, convictions for serious offences such as murder, manslaughter and rape, and convictions of sexual offences, may never become spent. Also, convictions resulting in a jail sentence of more than 12 months may not become spent. Furthermore, anyone seeking to work with children or vulnerable adults or in a sensitive position in the civil or public service will have to disclose their convictions. It applies to adults, and provides a non-disclosure regime similar to that applying to children under section 258 of the Children Act 2001.

The Bill applies to prison sentences of 12 months or less, or to lesser penalties such as the imposition of community services or fines. It is self-administered. A person does not need to apply to have a conviction declared spent.

Sexual offences and other serious offences that fall to be tried by the Central Criminal Court are excluded from the purview of the Bill. No more than two convictions during an individual's life may become spent.

The conviction free period that must be served before a conviction will become spent ranges from two years for a small fine to five years for a one year jail sentence. Anyone seeking to work with or provide services, for example, care and accommodation, to children under 18 or vulnerable adults will have to disclose their convictions.

A range of employments, including those relating to the security of the State, the administration of justice and other sensitive positions, are excluded from the provisions of the Bill. Convictions will have to be disclosed when applying for certain licences such as taxi licences, private security licences etc.

The Bill has retrospective effect and applies to convictions acquired in the period prior to its enactment. The Bill provides enhanced protection to children and vulnerable adults and is a balanced measure which helps offenders while protecting society where serious offences, including sexual offences, are involved. It makes it easier to access employment and should result in a reduction in recidivism while assisting with the rehabilitation of ex-offenders who have demonstrated a positive change in their ways to make it easier to access employment and reintegrate into society. The Bill is long overdue and brings Ireland into line with almost all EU member states by providing that persons convicted of certain offences can eventually leave the past behind to get on with their lives and integrate quickly back into society.

In 2011, there were 11,187 prison committals for sentences of up to 12 months, excluding homicide and sexual offences which are excluded from the provisions of the Bill. These represented 87% of all such committals in that year. The men are, by definition, in prison for serious offences and are not covered by the legislation. The main problem faced by ex-offenders are visa restrictions, access to employment, dismissal from employment, access to finance, access to insurance, education and a restriction on jury service. Improving access to employment is an important goal of the Bill. Evidence shows that having a job is a major factor in preventing future offending. Many offenders, however, face significant barriers to re-entering the labour market even where they are committed to changing their lives.

I finish by thanking the Minister for supplying a patrol car to the Garda station in Omeath, County Louth, which is a step in the right direction. I commend the Bill to the House.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak on the Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions) Bill. It represents a welcome progression of the proposals for reform suggested by the Law Reform Commission. It is also important to acknowledge the constructive and interactive approach to the Bill by the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, who considered amendments in the Seanad to tweak and improve the Bill. It is important to acknowledge the role of Deputy Dara Calleary in Private Members' time.

The Bill represents a further effort to allow those who are making the wise decision to move away from lives of criminal activity to do so. It helps them and acknowledges their efforts. In allowing the removal of the disclosure requirement for certain types of previous conviction, the Bill supports those who are actively attempting to move toward a more positive and productive life for themselves, their families and the wider community. The purpose of our criminal justice system is to get people to move away from crime. They pay for their offences by serving a sentence or paying a fine but should then move on to break the cycle of crime. Too often people are left permanently marked and ostracised by virtue of past actions which may be foolish, silly or stupid but still relatively minor in the context of the criminal justice system. While those actions have necessitated the State's intervention through the criminal justice system, there is also a clear need to acknowledge the longer-run implications of such actions and the degree to which ostracisation further undermines efforts to rehabilitate former convicted criminals.

It is important to acknowledge clearly the necessary limitations and restraints contained within the Bill. Serious crimes such as murder, manslaughter, rape and sexual offences may, quite rightly, never become spent. Sentences of significant duration - those beyond 12 months - also fall within the category of those that cannot become spent and only two convictions may become spent over the course of a person's lifetime. I have listened to debate in the House as to whether two is an adequate number. My view is that two is plenty. If we increase the number to permit more than two, we risk diluting the rehabilitative function of the Bill.

There are also limitations in relation to sensitive positions and certain types of licenses such as taxi and private security licences. I welcome these provisions and commend and thank the Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Alan Kelly, for the work he has done to ensure that when a person gets in a taxi, one has a better knowledge of who is driving. Taxi drivers are entrusted with the lives of children, young people, women and vulnerable people to bring them from one place to the next. The new phone app launched by the Minister of State makes it very easy to see exactly who is driving a taxi and to ensure that he or she is properly licensed. It is an important and welcome development. The provisions are all necessary to ensure that potentially dangerous persons are prevented from accessing positions which would put members of the public in positions where they may be vulnerable or open to criminal assault or worse.

In addition to the aforementioned limitations, the Bill provides for a significant period of time that a person must remain conviction-free before he or she will be entitled to consider his or her conviction spent. This provision is very important. Where we pass legislation of this type, convicted persons must also show their good faith and step up to the mark. The Bill represents an important step forward to facilitate the genuine rehabilitation of those who have past convictions back into the community. It allows them to regain the self confidence and pride of being able to gain meaningful work. A conviction is not wiped and does not disappear, but it does not need to be disclosed where a person applies for employment. The Bill will actively assist efforts to prevent further offending and incentivise people to become civic minded, actively economically contributing members of the community. Accordingly, the Bill provides a clearer path back to a normal lifestyle.

Introducing the Bill on behalf of the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, Deputy Lucinda Creighton, outlined the Minister's hope to publish and introduce the fines (amendment) Bill. A fines Bill will be another important step in the reform of our criminal justice system. As we allow convictions to become spent through the Bill before us, we must also consider the range of sentences being applied. Do we really want people to be imprisoned for failing to pay for a television licence? I note the Minister's positive comment that prison should only be used where appropriate. There are significant financial costs involved in sending people prison but it also represents a significant societal message. We must ensure that the punishment fits the crime. While I look forward to the publication of the fines (amendment) Bill, if we move from custodial to non-custodial sentencing where appropriate, the State must retain the necessary powers, by way of attachment orders for example, to ensure that fines are paid. Fines cannot be dismissed or ignored. The fines (amendment) Bill must provide not only for non-custodial sentences, but for the power to attach income to ensure that crimes and fines are paid for.

We must also consider youth diversion, which is an issue very close to Deputy Alan Shatter's heart. He has done a great deal of work in this area as has the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald. We must look at the vulnerable young people in our communities, often in deprived areas in every county, who find themselves caught up in petty crime. We must look at diverting them away from that. A range of measures are being considered by the Minister. While the Bill before us considers spent convictions, we must also take the next step to prevent people committing offences in the first place. That is where youth diversion programmes come in.

The Schedule of the Bill which sets out offences which are exempt from the provisions of the legislation links in with the National Vetting Bureau Act. This is very important. We have made significant progress in the vetting of people who work with children and vulnerable adults but we must not become complacent. There is still a great deal to do. At our clinics, Deputies meet community organisations, sports clubs and schools which continue to encounter long waits to have people vetted by the Garda. The Minister has made progress but we must consider extending vetting to more groups. There are people who want their volunteers to be vetted but whose organisations are not yet covered by the legislation.

We must look at what happens where a person leaves the prison system, particularly after a relatively short sentence. We must examine how to link them back into their community. I have visited rehabilitation programmes throughout County Wicklow over the course of my two years as a Deputy and I have seen some superb work. I have met heroin addicts who have been rehabilitated. They came out of prison and obtained degrees and are contributing to society again. One cannot put a price on the effectiveness of proper rehabilitative services. A great deal of work is being done nationally by voluntary groups. Different methods of rehabilitation work for different people and there is no one-size-fits-all solution. The Government has pushed the issue but when the doors of a prison swing open at the end of a sentence, we must ensure the person does not come back through those doors. That is what rehabilitative services must be about.

These are issues which must be looked at in the Bill and in the context of wider criminal justice reform. While we must provide for convictions to be spent where appropriate, we must also ensure that those working with vulnerable people can never have those convictions spent.

We need to consider beefing up our vetting systems, youth diversion programmes and the link with breaking the cycle, so that when people come out of prison, we keep them out.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose to share time with Deputy Tom Hayes. I welcome the Bill, which is timely if not overdue. It shows we are becoming more progressive in our dealings with the criminal justice system. I am the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Defence and we have done work on penal reform. We have visited other jurisdictions to see what they are doing.

If someone makes a minor mistake resulting in a conviction, having paid a fine or served a sentence, the conviction stays with the person for the rest of his or her life. If that is the case, it is a lifelong sentence. It is progressive to make provision that certain convictions do not have to be disclosed. It does not expunge, as other jurisdictions do, nor does it delete the record but the person does not have to declare it.

Looking at the wider criminal justice system, the number of people we are incarcerated every year is frightening. In 2011, the total number incarcerated was 13,900. The prisons cannot accommodate that number of people so many are in and out with short sentences. In 2010, the number was 13,700 and in 2009, it was 12,000. Quite a number of these are short-term sentences for minor offences yet until now convictions remain on the record.

I recently visited the community courts in New York and I was amazed at how they operate. Crime in New York has dropped dramatically. I met many experts and they are not sure why it happened, with many reasons put forward. One of the reasons put to us was the role of community courts in the city. I visited one of them and I sat at the bench with the judge as she dispensed justice. Someone commits a minor misdemeanour or violation and, if it is decided the person may benefit from the community courts, the person presents before the community court the following morning. There is no delay. The person may spend the night in a cell but presents at the community court next morning. Before doing so, much work goes into having previous convictions, if any, available to the judge. The person pleads guilty to the offence, so there is no argument, and the judge decides whether the person should spend more time in prison. Some 89% of the time, the persons receive some form of community service. In approximately two minutes, the case is dealt with and the person receives one, two or four days of community service. The person immediately reports to a different section in the court building and very often the community service is carried out that day. Provided the person is not arrested within six months, the person's record will be sealed and will be opened only in the event of another incident occurring.

Recidivism has dropped from 80% to 18% in New York and the number of people hanging around the streets, who were causing all sorts of problems, has also dropped. Justice is immediate. The community also benefits because people are often told to clean off graffiti, sweep the streets or work with a voluntary charity. The value to the community has increased dramatically. The person is monitored by social workers and probation officers for a considerable period afterwards. Reports are sent to the judge over the course of six months. People who reoffend or who are wavering can be called into the judge. People can also take their chances in the ordinary courts, which are more punitive. It is an amazing system.

Some ten years ago, work was done in Dublin to establish a similar system here. As Chairman of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Defence, I will ask my colleagues to examine this. It is one of the most innovative and exciting systems I have seen and it shows results. It relates to this Bill because convictions in the community courts are also spent convictions but it happens immediately. The judges are highly trained and very professional. One judge specialises in the area and it works.

The model we have in Ireland is called the drug treatment courts. There is one in Dublin and it has been very successful. I commend those working there. The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, expanded its remit to cover all of Dublin and I would like to see it covering the whole country. Where the drug treatment court is successful, the same principle applies. If people graduate from a programme proposed by the drug treatment court, they do not receive a prison sentence. Records can be expunged completely. People must enter a programme and keep in regular contact with the drug treatment court team. They must agree a drug treatment plan and a personal progression plan. By the end of the phase, the person should have reduced the use of drugs, particularly the drug of choice, be involved in part-time education and training and clearly show that he or she is willing to make positive lifestyle changes. This is happening here at present. I would like to see work done on establishing a community court in Dublin. It almost happened a number of years ago and there was much goodwill towards the idea. It would be innovative and challenging but worth doing.

The US has a Centre for Court Innovation and there is also a branch in London. We could benefit from their experience, knowledge and success to date. I welcome the Bill and encourage the Minister and his officials to carry on their progressive work. They should go further and consider the possibility of expanding the drug treatment court nationally and introduce community courts.

If someone comes to the attention of the Garda Síochána or is arrested in possession of a small amount of marijuana or cannabis, the person must be prosecuted if he or she is an adult. In other jurisdictions, people are sent to drug treatment courts rather than prosecuted. Everyone gets one chance but on the second occasion people are prosecuted. I am not talking about legalising drugs. Portugal has done some work in this area and the results to date seem to be successful. If someone is in possession of a small amount of cannabis, we must consider whether we should throw the full weight of the criminal justice system at that person or whether we should say he or she has a problem and needs treatment. We could send such persons for treatment and allow them to have no conviction, provided they stay clear for a period of time.

Where this has happened in other jurisdictions the success rate has been extremely high. People who have drug problems who are sent to jail, and even people who do not, might end up being in a worse state on their release. A good deal of work in this area is being done in prisons. We visited Mountjoy Prison recently and I commend the governor and the Prison Service on the work they are doing in trying to combat this problem.

In respect of people who are sent to prison there is often a "hang 'em and flog 'em" view. Certainly, as Deputy Harris has said, people who are dangerous and have committed serious offences must be put out of circulation; of that there is no question. However, we are talking about very minor offences and low-level crime in this legislation, and we need to start considering how to provide for these in a different way.

Finland has decreased its prison population by 25% by using very progressive methods such as those that I and others mentioned. The justice committee will launch a report on this area in two weeks' time and, following that, I would like to talk about that issue in the House. The cost of keeping a person in prison is between €60,000 and €90,000 per year. If we could take some of that money and invest it in diversion programmes, as Deputy Harris and others have said, or other treatment programmes, it would far better. This Bill is a step in that direction. I am aware that proposals have been made to expand certain time limits that are provided for and so on. That can possibly happen later, but let us see how we get on with the legislation first. We do not know how many people will be able to avail of the provisions in it because it is a self-declaration type of system. This legislation is a start, it is progressive and it will be monitored, but we need to start examining other progressive ways of reducing the numbers in prison, reducing criminality and dealing with other issues.

On the last occasion I spoke in the House, I referred to the issue of alcohol abuse. The number of people who are committing public order offences because of alcohol abuse is huge. I said then, and I will say it again, that we should probably consider restricting the sale of spirits to people over the age of 21. That is a huge area, but it is another day's work.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Bill, which is long overdue. It is important that we have a mature discussion on it. Its consideration here is opportune because it has been discussed by many people over a lengthy period. The reasons for introducing it are many and varied. A spent convictions system means that an adult who has been convicted of a certain type of offence does not have to disclose this offence after a set amount of time. Spent convictions apply to both custodial and non-custodial sentences. It does not mean that the record of the conviction is deleted; rather, that it can only be accessed and made public in certain circumstances. There are numerous exceptions to non-disclosure rules. Only convictions resulting in sentences of 12 months or less are capable of being spent under this Bill. I wonder about the setting of the 12-month period. What thought went into that decision? I ask the Minister of State to explain the reason a period of 12 months was decided upon. There are people who committed crimes in their younger days for which they were given custodial sentences of more than 12 months, but who have now got their lives back together and got jobs and are working hard to support their families. They have worked with other people in their communities and they are remorseful for what they did in the past. I wonder if the 12-month period provided for in the Bill is too strict. In that respect, there are convincing arguments to be made. Like every other public representative, I deal with people in my clinics who have been sentenced, are remorseful for having committed an offence and want to do something about it. They want to improve themselves and take up another job but because of the conviction they cannot get one. That is problem facing ordinary people who in these difficult times are only trying to work to support their families. I recently met a man who was an example in this respect in the way he was looking after his elderly parents at home. He wanted to improve his lot but a conviction from many years ago was still preventing him from getting certain work.

We need to be braver in what we are doing in this Bill, because it could improve the quality of people's lives and help many people. As society is developing and the public are more accepting of the fact that people can make mistakes and later want to improve their lot, we should be more open in the way we approach people with such convictions.

I noted the figures given by Deputy Stanton. In 2011 there were 11,187 prison committals for a term of less than 12 months, which made up 87% of the total number of people who were committed to prison. Therefore, this Bill can benefit a large number of people.

We need to be brave in what we are doing. This is an excellent Bill that can benefit a large number of people. There are many people under the radar who would be shy about coming forward about what they have been involved in, but if they came forward their lives would be much better and that would benefit society. An important aspect is the benefit these people can provide to society. In addition, people who have been in trouble in the past and who have got their lives together can be a good example to young people, whether they were involved in drugs, drink driving or anything else. The example such people would give to young people is relevant to this Bill. It is a strong reason for putting this Bill through, and I have no doubt that is what we will do. The provisions of the Bill can benefit society and the people concerned, and those people can be an example to young people. I fully support the Bill, but I ask the Minister to clarify the position on the question I raised.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Deputy Durkan. I understand he is sharing his time with Deputy Feighan.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. I propose to allow my colleague Deputy Feighan to speak first.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To open the batting.

Frank Feighan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is an important Bill. We have a prison in Castlerea, which is in my constituency. It was one of the only towns in the country that campaigned to have a prison. The prison is very well run. The proposal to have an open prison in a house near Castlerea is a matter of concern to the general public in the area. I had a first meeting in the Prison Service building last Monday with the director general of the Prison Service and the governor of the Castlerea Prison. We wanted those fears allayed and an assurance that the necessary precautions would be taken and assessments would be made if prisoners were moved from Castlerea Prison to Harristown House. What is good about a democracy and an open government is that one can bring the fears of the people to light and they can be teased out in a normal manner. A public meeting will held in Castlerea tonight which will be attended by all Oireachtas Members from the area and also by members of the Prison Service to answer whatever questions people have, and I hope that will be done.

I thank Deputy Durkan for his sharing his time. The provision in respect of convictions that are not considered spent when people apply for certain licences such as taxi licences and private security licences is very appropriate.

The convictions, however, should be spent after a period. I welcome the Bill.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As one of the few people in this House and certainly the only remaining one on this side who has actual personal experience of conviction and serving time in prison I should be a bit of an authority on this subject. I like to think that I am but that may not be the case and everybody might not agree. This is a very important Bill. I agree with Deputy Tom Hayes that there are countless instances of people who have committed crime, including serious crime, who will never commit such a crime again and knew full well the consequences for the victims, society and for themselves immediately after the crime happened. They held up their hands saying "Why did I do this?" and are profoundly sorry. We must reach out to them. This is progressive legislation to deal with a situation. I particularly draw attention to first-time offenders, whether their is a minor or more serious offence. The first-time offender needs special consideration in all circumstances. Over the past few years I have spent a good deal of time visiting prisoners in almost all of the prisons in the UK and in this country. Having spent time in one of them on a semi-permanent basis I feel that I know a little bit about them.

Organised crime is a huge problem. There are victims of organised crime who spend long terms in prison for something in which ordinarily they would never think of becoming involved had they not been harnessed by organised criminals. I have long believed that we will never properly tackle that kind of criminal until we have detention. We had it for other organisations years ago and it was said it did not work but it is time that society dealt with ruthless organised criminals. Otherwise it will pay a high price. Society continues to be their victim. The legal profession will say "What about their constitutional rights?" What about them? What about the constitutional rights of their victims, whether the people they have used to pursue their crime or the actual victims, shot or killed or whatever the case may be? They have rights too. Their rights do not come into the discussion of these matters.

Serious drug cabals control a huge market throughout the length and breadth of the country. They dictate the pace, the number and type of personnel inducted into their organisations to help them increase the profit from their heinous crimes. The concept of this Bill should be extended to the first time offender in those circumstances. I am sure that everybody in this Houses knows them. I know plenty of people whose families were never involved in crime, not even minor crime, who got offers they could not refuse. They made a once-off decision and paid the price. The criminal never gets caught but the messenger does. They have been caught several times and received long sentences. I am not suggesting that they should be given a pat on the back and allowed to walk free. By all means they must take responsibility for their actions. Once in prison, however, they should have first access to rehabilitative or educational training. If possible they should be segregated from the hardened criminals, the recidivists. If that were done we would make a serious dent in the level of minor and serious crime.

Deputy Stanton referred to crime in New York. The former mayor, Rudy Giuliani claimed to be responsible for reducing crime levels in New York. He was responsible for dealing with lower level crime but his predecessor, Mayor Koch, took the major organisers, the real heavy hitters, out of the equation. This involved some erosion of their rights but they were put away and out of business. As a result the crime network was dramatically weakened to the extent that it was relatively easy to deal with the rest of it. The community courts and the speed with which they can react are important. They are personal, and have the benefit of one to one local knowledge. That can also be negative, depending on the attitude of those involved but in general it is useful.

We need to do two things, first, tackle serious crime in a meaningful way that will make it clear to all and sundry that this is not the way forward for anyone. Over the past 15 years innocent people have been shot and killed almost weekly, as a result of being in the wrong place at the wrong time or for daring to raise questions about the activities of serious criminals. We must separate those people from other criminals because some of them regard it as a business. It is a nefarious business. We must tackle the way in which they can use innocent people in their communities to improve that business.

When offenders have served their time or made retribution in whatever way the courts deemed suitable their case should be re-appraised. In the event that people have shown remorse and agreed to mend their ways and there is a clear indication that they will not return to that route there should be a probationary period within which, as the Bill provides, cases can be reviewed with a view to expunging them from the record. There is not much sense in leaving them there if somebody will use the privilege of the House at some time in the future to release information on somebody, in which case it becomes a matter of public record. We must address these issues.

Training and rehabilitation are of huge importance, particularly for first-time offenders. I do not see the benefit of training and education to a person who has spent half his or her life in prison for a series of offences unless he or she wants to get a PhD in crime. Some of them do. Some people come out of prison better qualified for criminal activity than when they went in. I have seen at first-hand how that can happen. That is no secret and we should not facilitate it. That is why we need much more segregation in the system than exists. There is a provision for segregating serious criminals from the rest but that is not what I am talking about. I refer to the first-time offender who in the first instance needs to be kept away from contamination and contagion by the serious, hardened criminal element, in order to prepare him or her for re-entry into society.

Tagging has been tried elsewhere and we should try it. It works sometimes. There will always be people who try to circumvent the system. Modern technology is interesting. It is possible to keep people under 24-7 surveillance and to monitor their movements at all times.

It is even possible to detect the activity of those who remove the monitor and hang it on a cat's neck or a dog's paw. As the Minister well knows, in the past with some of these monitors, it was noted there was an acceleration in movement which did not correspond with normal human abilities. The contention was that the monitor had been passed to a four-legged friend. Modern technology is helpful in such cases.

I have spent much time over the years looking at access to training in prisons. If one puts down a parliamentary question inquiring what training courses were offered to an individual serving six months to a year, the reply will state they were offered but were not successful. However, those incarcerated for five to ten years or even to 30 years have no problem getting access to training. What is that training for? Is it to perfect their techniques? Will they learn safe-cracking? I would question the validity of training in those circumstances and, instead, I would devote more resources to the training and rehabilitation courses for the first-time offender.

There has to be recognition by offenders that they must pay for a criminal offence. We all know of instances when the Probation Act has been applied on 30 occasions. How can it be probation if offences are repeated? The probation service in the United States works somewhat better and tends to be much more in one's face. It follows up on the convicted person, monitors them regularly while social workers and probation officers ensure they do not leave the jurisdiction. We have all heard how much of a battle fighting crime is in the United States but the probation service there seems to work better than the one here. It is like company law which works much better in the States. For instance, cases of misfeasance and malfeasance do not seem to arise in this country or in Europe. In the United States, it is a fearful crime and people pay the price for it straight away with sentences of up to 99 years or more. We can learn much from how authorities in the United States deal with criminal elements.

How do we discourage young people from taking the route of crime? Due to the hero worship of and reverence shown to criminal gangs, it is very difficult, especially at times of high unemployment levels, to tell young people to stay away from that kind of nonsense and keep it straight as matters will only get better. There are many competing demands, one of which is the issue of profits from the proceeds of crime. I do not believe we spend enough time illustrating how misleading this can be.

This Bill is progressive and could be instrumental in dealing with crime, the levels of prison occupancy, as well as the associated costs to the Exchequer, if its provisions are properly monitored and supported.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am standing in for the Minister for Justice and Equality who is abroad on business. Both he and I have been greatly encouraged by the level of support expressed by Members for the Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions) Bill 2012. It is historic legislation that is at one with other initiatives aimed at making our criminal justice system work better for society. We want to reduce crime, see offenders caught and brought to justice. We want them to undergo whatever sanctions the courts impose, not from desire for revenge but to ensure those who offend against society pay their debt to society for doing so.

Many issues were raised during Second Stage which I am confident will be dealt with by the Minister, Deputy Shatter, on Committee Stage. Deputy McNamara raised the issue of the T case of which the Department of Justice and Equality is aware. However, it is our understanding that the UK Government will appeal it to the Supreme Court. The Department will consider the implications, if any, of the final determination of that case for our vetting arrangements and for this Bill. The UK system of vetting is very different to ours and direct comparisons are not necessarily correct. This can be revisited on Committee Stage.

On the point raised by Deputies Catherine Murphy and Ryan, the Bill was amended in the Seanad to provide for the situation they outlined. Where a person is convicted for more than one offence regarding one incident, it is to be treated as one order of conviction under section 2(4).

I thank Members for their contributions. The Minister and I appreciate the general welcome given to this Bill. All the suggestions as to how it could be improved will be considered on Committee Stage.