Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I commend my colleague, Senator Ruane, those who have worked with her in civil society, and her assistant, Seb McAteer. I know this Bill comes very deeply from many years of experience working with and supporting people to chart pathways forward for themselves. That is really reflected in the way the Bill looks at the different aspects of the experiences and addresses some of the many different obstacles. It is a really thoughtful piece of work that will make an enormous difference in people's lives. I am very proud that we are able to support it as the Civil Engagement group and am proud to be a co-sponsor of it.

So much has been said but I will pick up on a couple of things.I welcome the support from across the House and acknowledge that others started some of these conversations in the past. Though the 2016 legislation was restrictive, I commend those from different parties who tried to bring this issue to the table in the past. We are building on that and bringing it forward.

There are significant problems with the legislation as it stands. In many cases, there is a seven-year requirement before a conviction can become spent. That is a huge section of anybody's life. How can a period when a person has this constraint be manageable for that person when planning his or her career and life? Another key idea is that of the single conviction. We all know that if a person makes a mistake, he or she often makes another mistake. We have situations where people go through difficult periods in their lives, such as addiction or other chaotic periods, and they make mistakes which come in a group. This is definitely a step forward in recognising the issue of two convictions, or three in the case of those who are younger.

I planned to list all the interesting information from the Irish Penal Reform Trust about the impact on different aspects of life, whether employment, home insurance or travel, but Senator Norris has already done so. They are stark figures. I will pick out two. It is striking that 53% of people experienced obstacles, even in volunteering. That is partially addressed by this Bill but, as others have said, there are issues of discrimination which need to be identified and addressed. It should not be the case that somebody who is seeking to reach out to society and to turn his or her life around is automatically and always blocked, especially when a previous offence may in no way impact or be relevant to the kinds of volunteering work that they wish to do.

With regard to employment, I sit on the Joint Committee on Employment Affairs and Social Protection and we have great debates there about how we ensure that people are given a full set of options and that we do better casework. We have debated it, because in many cases our system does not send people in the right direction. If a person comes to an overloaded caseworker, the options presented to that person may be constrained. We heard very clear stories from people relating to the issues involved. If a person wants to pursue a career that requires placement, having to declare a previous offence can stop that person from getting a placement and a rung of the ladder is effectively missing since that person cannot move on and get a placement. In many other areas, Garda vetting will make another candidate more appealing.

There are constraints on what people can do. That does not just mean that individuals lose out. It also means that families lose out, which is a very striking fact which was reflected in the research from the Irish Penal Reform Trust. It talks about how a person's family is still being punished for his or her crime. Children who may not have been born at the time of the crime feel the impact of it through their parents. Similarly, there is the very real testimony given by Niall Walsh from the Pathways Centre about the impact it had on his children. It impacts on the individual, on the common good and on society because we lose out on people who have extraordinary experience. Somebody who might be the right person to work in community development, make an intervention and support young people in vulnerable situations to move to a better path might be blocked from doing so. Those who should be on boards and making decisions can face that obstacle of a requirement to go to the High Court to do so.

Figures from SpunOut indicate that young people are 10% of the population but comprise 20% of the prison population. They are especially vulnerable. In my experience of working with young, unemployed people in the south east, I saw how easy it was for young people to go through a difficult period and then find a year or two later, perhaps, after a difficult experience or family crisis, that they wanted to put their lives back on track, in many cases because they may have become parents themselves at 22 or 23 and wanted to turn their lives around. It is very important that the period would be reduced to three years for most of those young people in this legislation. That is much more manageable and allows them to plan their lives. Since the risk of reoffending is higher for young people, it allows for rehabilitative supports within prisons to talk to young people about how they can have a better life. It is not a situation of despair or all being lost but that there are pathways for them. Rehabilitative work within prison to make sure that people plan for their lives afterwards has been mentioned by a number of people.

We have spoken for many hours in the past about data protection. The Minister and I both have debated it and there are concerns about the legislation, not simply relating to the European Court of Human Rights and its rulings and concerns on private life and what belongs in it, but also relating to the general data protection regulation, GDPR, and other areas. There are questions of proportionality and necessity. Many experts in this area feel that it cannot be considered proportionate or necessary in many cases to require people to disclose a previous offence from many years past if that offence is in no way relevant to the current context or employment. For example, if somebody has paid a fine in one area and it does not relate to work in a completely different area, is it proportionate or necessary to make that person disclose it? Senator Ruane has done a service by producing the appendix to begin to tease out what the principle of proportionality might look like. That takes us a big step forward as a State, and I am sure that is one reason the Minister recognises the value of this Bill.

The most important thing is public interest. That is the test for the proportionality and necessity for what we do. Is it not in the public interest that we send a message to people that we do not simply see them as former offenders but as citizens and contributors, and that the identity that we, as a society, place on them is not defined by one offence or action? It sends a message of value and encouragement to people that will even have an impact on those in prison now.

I thank everybody for their support for this Bill. I look forward to its passage. I am sure others will look to strengthen it in time.