Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Ruane for introducing this important legislation to the House in December. I thank Senators Black and Higgins for strongly supporting its presentation to the House. It is an important issue, not only for those who have convictions but for society as a whole. I support the Bill, in principle, which sets out to assist those with convictions who have moved away from offending and want to get on with their lives. This is important and valuable for individuals, for their families, for communities and for society as a whole. My officials met Senator Ruane this week to discuss these proposals and, at that time, they flagged that as the proposals represent a considerable extension of recently enacted legislation, they will require careful analysis and consideration. I am open to analysis and the necessary consideration, however, some of which we have heard already this evening.

The Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions and Certain Disclosures) Act came into force just under three years ago. The Act, which had been championed by my predecessor, then Minister Alan Shatter, during his time as Minister for Justice and Equality and was introduced to the Statute Book by the former Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, underwent considerable and extensive consultation and scrutiny, both within the Oireachtas and throughout society, with particular reference to the contribution of the many stakeholders involved.In fact, the Bill, as it was then, was amended several times as it progressed through the Houses of the Oireachtas. I have no doubt that if this Bill is ultimately enacted, it will experience the same detailed consideration, which is as it should be. Having said that, I am conscious of the views of the Joint Committee on Justice and Equality and the Irish Penal Reform Trust and the application and scope of the provisions set out in the 2016 Act. The presentation of Senator Ruane's Bill is a most welcome development in that regard. It will assist me and my Department in carefully considering the effectiveness and balance of the provisions of the 2016 Act in order that the fairest possible outcome can be achieved for all citizens. It is important that the Act be kept under review in order that it will continue to benefit citizens in a measured, equitable and fair way and effective in the achievement of its goals.

The Bill proposes significant amendments to the 2016 Act. It proposes that the existing spent convictions legislation be extended to include non-custodial sentences of up to 48 months and custodial sentences of up to 24 months. It also proposes to increase the number of convictions which could become spent at some future time. It also seeks to introduce the principle of proportionality when it comes to determining when a conviction is spent. I acknowledge what Senator Higgins said in that regard. She is right. The principle contained in the legislation would introduce a sliding scale of periods before which a conviction could be considered to be spent. This sliding scale is based on the type of conviction that might be involved. In that context, it should be noted that the Bill treats young adults between the ages of 18 and 24 years more favourably than others. As part of the sliding scale, the Bill reduces further the periods before the convictions of such persons are spent. Importantly, the amendments create consequential amendments to the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012.

I am conscious of the arguments in favour of liberalising the spent convictions regime. In particular, it is argued that such an approach reduces the extent to which individuals have their life opportunities, including their access to education, work and volunteering, restricted by convictions. It is suggested legislation of this nature would better enable such persons to move on with their lives. I am aware that Senator Ruane works closely with many individuals who are engaged in attempts to transform their lives. I sincerely commend her on her important and valuable work. I acknowledge what Senator Boyhan said about the influence of Senator Ruane's contribution. I agree with him. I know that Senator Ruane has been working with the Irish Penal Reform Trust in developing this legislation. The trust has published a survey of the impact of past convictions on people who are moving on with their lives. The findings of the survey of 148 people represent a useful contribution to the debate.

The changes being proposed in the Bill reflect the issues that are debated when people consider the purpose, effectiveness and impact of spent convictions legislation. The changes raise questions which require careful consideration. I am very pleased that Senators have indicated that there are issues which require detailed consideration and analysis. It would be fair to define some of these questions at this juncture.

Is the current spent convictions legislation proportionate? How are people with custodial sentences being treated in comparison with others who are given non-custodial sentences? Should young adults be treated differently from others with convictions? What impact would this have, given that a significant proportion of offences are committed by people in the 18 to 24 year age bracket? Would treating these young adults differently have knock-on effects on other legislation enacted? Do two convictions represent a pattern of offending? When is reoffending a risk to the public? In expanding the scope of this legislation what offences would be included? Would any of these offences be considered to be serious in a legal context? How would the victims of such offences view these changes and proposals?

Comparisons have been made with other common law states, specifically England and Wales. I note that in recent studies of this matter reference has been made to the impact of data protection law, the effect of the Internet and the individual's right to privacy. I understand there have been a number of judgments in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe on these issues. In particular, I note the Supreme Court judgment in England last month on spent conviction legislation. The court rejected an appeal by the UK Home Office against the disclosure of convictions in four cases. I wish to highlight the fact that it is not the case that we have an absolute single conviction rule in our legislation. The 2016 Act provides that certain categories of offence, including a range of motoring and public order offences, may be regarded as spent, even if there are multiple such convictions on the record of an individual.

I look forward to an examination of the relevant proposals made in the legislation in order that I may consider whether the 2016 Act may be strengthened and, if so, in what manner. I stress that a balance needs to be struck between protecting the public and rehabilitating the offender. It is through this prism that the Department will evaluate and analyse the proposals contained in Senator Ruane's Bill. We will consider any appropriate judgment in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe, with the questions I have posed. I refer to these matters in order to highlight that the Bill and its proposed changes raise complex questions and issues that need to be considered carefully. I acknowledge the admission of Senators representing all parties and none in that regard.

As I said, the Government does not oppose the legislation in principle. However, it is important and reasonable that careful consideration be given not only to the impact of changes of this nature on the individual with the convictions but also to unanticipated or unintended implications that may arise down the road. Therefore, the Bill, as proposed, requires careful consideration. Such consideration has not been possible in the short time since its publication. However, I acknowledge the spirit in which the legislation has been proposed and debated. It is important to have a clear understanding of all of the effects the changes would have. Particularly important work needs to be done to examine the types of offence which could at some future date become spent. There will have to be an opportunity to consider whether such offence might not be considered to be minor. If we were to extend the threshold for custodial sentences to two years of imprisonment, it could bring relatively serious offences within the scope of the legislation. The possible implications of the changes on vetting will have to be considered. The impact of recent judgments will also need to be examined carefully. Following this work, consideration can be given to the case for amendments to deal with concerns, if any, that might arise.

I thank Senator Ruane for agreeing to share her research and analysis with my Department in order to assist me and my officials in our work. As Minister, I assure all Senators but Senator Ruane, in particular, that I will undertake to work with them to make progress with this legislation. I will ensure it is balanced, fair and effective in its approach, from the perspectives of protecting the public and rehabilitating the offenders involved.