Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am afraid that I am unable to accept the amendment. This is because, as I explained on Second Stage, the spent convictions Bill provides that where a people are applying for positions which give them access to children or vulnerable persons, they must disclose all convictions, including any convictions that could otherwise be deemed spent under the Bill. That policy is supported by the provisions in the Bill before the House today. Because of the overriding need to protect children and vulnerable persons, a policy decision has been taken that the spent convictions provisions should not apply where persons are applying for these positions. This is because relatively minor convictions, which may ordinarily be deemed spent, could still have a particular reference in regard to persons working with children or vulnerable adults. For example, when the spent convictions Bill is in force, a conviction for theft or fraud may become a spent conviction if the penalty imposed is less than 12 months' imprisonment and other criteria are satisfied. However, that information might be relevant to a position of trust working with a vulnerable person. In those circumstances it could be inappropriate that such a conviction be excluded from information furnished pursuant to vetting.

Similarly, many road traffic convictions may become spent convictions. However, these may be relevant to a position working as a driver of a school bus or a public service vehicle for persons with disabilities. We live in a grey world where there are not absolute solutions to everything. I am anxious that people should have a second chance to get on in life. Where they have made some error in life, it is important that, if they do not re-offend, they are not burdened by convictions long ago that have no relevance to how they are conducting their lives today.

We have to be careful about some areas, however. For example, one can imagine the furore, concern and anger if, 15 years later, an individual who suffered a conviction for drunken driving, and the conviction was spent, was driving a school bus which crashed, a number of children lost their lives and it was discovered that the driver was drunk. We have to deal with the real world and its concerns. It may well be that if individuals are seeking that sort of job and disclose a conviction, they would be able to convince the prospective employer that they are a changed person and have no problems with alcohol. Then, at least, the employer takes responsibility, knows of the background and can make an informed judgment. However, there are circumstances in which, because of the greater need to provide protection for children or other vulnerable individuals, someone's record - that may be spent for other purposes - will be disclosed in a vetting process.

While I am probably saying this to the point of boredom, there is no monopoly of wisdom but there is a balance to be achieved. We think at this stage that this is the right balance. We have given very careful consideration to this matter. My initial reaction when we were preparing the legislation was that, once we were dealing with the spent convictions Bill, it is unfair to an individual whose conviction is spent that it should re-emerge in his or her life in particular circumstances. One must take the example of the crashed school bus or someone who in their early 20s was convicted of theft and is now, in their late 30s, minding a vulnerable adult and money starts disappearing. Would the family who employed that individual, and knew nothing about that record, not be entitled to be outraged and ask "Why didn't we know this person had a past?" We think that we have achieved the balance and we hope we have. The overriding and overarching principle is to provide protection to children and vulnerable adults. I cannot therefore accept the amendment the Senator has tabled.