asked the Minister for Justice the method by which records of cautions administered to juveniles under 17 years under the juvenile liaison officer scheme are compiled and retained; if he is aware that it appears to be the practice where, for example, such youths subsequently apply some years later for employment in the public service, e.g., the Departments of Defence or Posts and Telegraphs, that such caution records are apparently produced to the prospective employer; and if he will in the public interest advise that this practice be abolished.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Juvenile Offenders Caution Records.
51.
The method by which records of persons convicted of offences or cautioned under the juvenile liaison officer scheme are compiled and retained is a matter of internal Garda administration and it is not the practice to disclose information about it.
I am not prepared to disclose what information, if any, may be supplied by the Garda in relation to persons who are candidates for posts in the public service and who have come to the notice of the Garda in connection with crime. If the Deputy is of opinion that particular Departments have wrongly declined to employ people who have been involved with crime, I can only suggest that he take it up with the Ministers in charge of these Departments.
I must protest very strongly against this appallingly ambiguous and equivocal reply. Before giving notice of my desire to raise the matter on the Adjournment, I must ask the Minister does he seriously think, where a juvenile under 17 years of age gets a caution, that that is a crime record as such. The Minister has used the terms "conviction" and "caution" as if they were equal. Surely the Minister realises that where a garda or juvenile liaison officer administers a caution, and there is no conviction, and where the person is under 17 years of age, there should not be a public crime record of that. Any child or any parent must be alarmed at the Minister's reply. At this rate there must be hundreds of children with crime records and when they apply at 18 or 20 years of age for a job as postman, they will be faced with this crime record of the fact that at 16 years of age they were caught taking a few sweets in a shop and received a caution from a garda. Such crime records will affect their future lives. It is an absolutely appalling plight.
May I ask what Deputy Desmond's question, to which I am expected to reply, is, because I certainly did not hear a question?
Would the Minister not agree that it is in the public interest that there should be a clear-cut differentiation in the Garda recording system of convictions and cautions administered by gardaí and juvenile liaison officers? There should be no circumstances in which children under 17 years of age, who have never been before a court and who have received only a single caution, should be publicly pilloried later on in life. This could apply to any child, including the Minister's, if he got a caution.
There is, of course, a clear distinction between a conviction and a warning.
(Cavan): Would the Minister not agree that it should be public policy, as well as Government policy, to try to rehabilitate youths who have fallen foul of the law by getting them suitable employment, where possible, rather than pursuing the policy which Deputy Desmond's question would indicate is being pursued? These little breaches of the law, if they are breaches, are held against them indefinitely. Would the Minister not think the opposite should be the policy: give them suitable employment and rehabilitate them?
The efforts of the various organs of the State concerned in this matter are, of course, directed towards rehabilitation. Furthermore, Deputy Fitzpatrick should not assume that the position is as stated by Deputy Desmond.
Do I understand the Minister to say that there may, in fact, be reports given to various State agencies arising from convictions of juvenile offenders? Could the Minister clarify that? I agree with Deputy Fitzpatrick that, even in the case of conviction, there should not be any information given to State employers. The penalty would already have been paid and it would seem to me grossly unfair that any reports, even of conviction, should go to these agencies.
Deputy O'Leary is raising another issue, a much wider issue, and I do not think it is an issue suitable for discussion at Question Time. The only other comment I have to make is that I have grave reservations about what he is suggesting.
Would the Minister——
I am calling Question No. 52.
I have no desire to raise this matter on the Adjournment if the Minister will give me some assurance now that he will ask the Minister for Justice to examine the question of cautions. These children are non-convicted juveniles who have never been before a court. They may be caught taking a pound of butter or a pound of sweets out of a supermarket and they are cautioned by the gardaí that if they are ever again caught in similar circumstances they will be charged. I know of two instances where juveniles applied for a job——
Would the Deputy please cease these speeches?
I feel very strongly about it because, quite frankly, I think it is a disgrace the Minister will not give some assurance.
The Deputy can be assured his remarks here today will come to the attention of the Minister for Justice, but, in saying that, I am not to be taken as agreeing with the implications of some of the statements he makes. But he can have that assurance.