Jillian van Turnhout (Independent)

I welcome the Minister back to the House and the Bill before the House. It is five years since the publication of the Law Reform Commission's report in 2007. My understanding is that this country is the only remaining jurisdiction in the European Union and one of the very few in the Council of Europe area without a spent convictions scheme for adult offenders. That is regrettable given the negative and far-reaching consequences the present system has for ex-offenders, their families and society in the long run. The majority of convictions passed by Irish courts are for minor and non-violent offences which incur short prison sentences, fines or community-based sanctions, yet in the absence of a spent convictions regime, those individuals face serious restrictions and barriers in employment, training, education, travel, taking out insurance and, therefore, buying their own home, setting up bank accounts and many other areas.

Family members are also directly impacted. I know of a woman who has encountered serious difficulty securing home insurance because her son who has a criminal conviction is living in the family home.

I heard a story recently from the Irish Penal Reform Trust of the devastating consequences of a criminal conviction that could not be expunged. The person whom the story concerned was called Siobhán:

I shoplifted a bar of chocolate and was caught by shop security. I was so afraid I could not tell my name. I have never been in trouble as a kid. If a teacher gave out to me I cried and the thought of being in trouble with the law scared me to pieces. Security said that if I did not co-operate they would call the guards. I didn't and so they did. I was arrested and I appeared in court. I ended up with a €20 fine for theft. I felt this has impacted me beyond belief. It was seven years ago and I still feel as bad as I did then. While it may seem small in the wider world of criminal justice this offence has affected me tremendously. I was excluded from working with a community project for refugee women that I was interested in becoming involved in because of it, not to mention the many care assistant jobs I could not apply for as the recruiter was seeking to only hire somebody with a clean record. I made a mistake and no one is more sorry than me. The stigma has sometimes led to my feeling deeply distressed and unable to cope. Expungement would grant me the self-forgiveness I would need to move on with my life. I am not a bad person, just someone who because of a lack of support coping abilities at a hard time in her life lost her way. It makes me sad because our system by not having spent sentences does not recognise change and so is not really rehabilitative in the way it claims to be.

That is the type of story we are trying to address with this Bill. The current situation does not allow Siobhán and the thousands of others in her shoes to wipe the slate clean and neither is it just or equitable. Furthermore, by hindering the rehabilitation and reintegration back into society of those who have served custodial sentences, we are creating a recipe for re-offending. If our system does not allow for individuals to put their past behind them, what incentive is there for them to do so?

I very much welcome, therefore, the introduction of the Bill. It is long overdue. I welcome the fact it has built positively upon the proposals contained in the Law Reform Commission report in 2007 by raising the maximum limit from six months to 12 months imprisonment and by shortening the conviction period of five to seven years down to three to seven years. The original proposals were far too conservative and restrictive. I am concerned, however, that the new proposals do not go far enough to deliver on the main purpose of the Bill, which is set out in the explanatory memorandum as being to assist the rehabilitation of offenders who often experience difficulties securing employment as a result of having a conviction.

I note with considerable interest the recent developments in the UK spent convictions arrangements and a review of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 by the Ministry of Justice in 2011 judged the limit of 30 months sentences to be too restrictive. In response, the UK Government through the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 has reformed the relevant sections of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act by setting the limit at 48 months. This is four times the limit we propose in the Bill. The UK has had a 40 year head start on us with spent convictions legislation. During that time the Ministry of Justice has strived to strike the appropriate balance between public safety and reducing barriers to reintegration for those who have moved on from offending behaviour. We have an opportunity to capitalise on what the UK has learned.

I also note in the UK legislation that the conviction-free or rehabilitative period is at the lowest end of the spending scale - two years. That seems sensible given that Home Office research into reconviction rates suggests that if an individual has not offended in the first two years he or she is at equal risk of future offending as someone without a previous conviction. The length of time required for rehabilitation must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence committed but it should not be so long as to constitute an additional and disproportionate punishment, nor should it discourage ex-offenders from moving on from their offending behaviour.

There is merit in the calls for a hybrid model whereby anti-discrimination provisions are incorporated into the Bill. That is a model of incorporation adopted in many Australian and Canadian territories and is recommended in the current Bills in New Zealand. The personal testimonies I have read are irrefutable evidence of discrimination in employment, education and access to goods and services on the basis of a criminal conviction. Such discrimination must be addressed in some form. What we are doing today is a good and strong start.

I have listened closely to what the Minister has said and I will take time between this and Committee Stage to consider my position with respect to the blanket exclusion of certain categories of employment, in particular for those working with children and how that interacts with the national vetting bureau Bill. I will propose amendments on Committee Stage if I consider they are warranted.