I welcome the Minister, Deputy Shatter, and his officials to the House.
Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions) Bill 2012: Second Stage
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I am pleased to present the Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions) Bill 2012. The Government appreciates the work done on this issue by the Law Reform Commission, whose landmark report on spent convictions, published in 2007, provided the background research and a solid platform on which to build the robust legal regime this Bill delivers. The commission's report included a draft Bill that subsequently became the Spent Convictions Bill 2007 and, more recently, the Spent Convictions Bill 2011, a Private Members' Bill brought before the Dáil by Deputy Calleary. While those Bills contained many of the features of this Bill, it is widely recognised they were deficient in a number of key respects. In drafting the Bill, we have taken on board the views of various interested parties. I am confident the Bill we are debating today represents a balanced approach that is generous to those offenders who want to leave crime behind them while safeguarding the legitimate interests of society where serious serial criminals are concerned.
The discourse on the Law Reform Commission's report and the Bills produced on foot thereof has been marked by its maturity. I look forward to the same considered approach in this House during the passage of this Bill. I assure Members that I am open to proposals that would improve the Bill.
A somewhat unique feature of this legislation is that the changes being made to the original Law Reform Commission's draft Bill are almost all in the direction of what some would say would make the Bill more liberal — if that is the correct word — in regard to most of its key provisions. It is my strong view that if legislation like this is to have any meaningful impact, it must err on the side of generosity to the offender who has paid his or her debt to society, has left criminality behind him and just wants to move on. The provisions of the Bill are an antidote to recidivism and support the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders. The passage of the legislation will be an important step in the development of an holistic approach to criminal justice. It fits into a range of reforms in the approach to fines, community service and restorative justice that seeks to focus on the reintegration of offenders once they have made reparations to society.
Our criminal justice system, to be effective, must be fit for purpose. It must have the capacity to deter criminality, detect crimes when they occur, prosecute them and impose appropriate sanctions on offenders. There can be no debate about this but, once a person has paid his or her debt to society, it is very much in society's interest and that of the offender that the latter be reintegrated into society as quickly as possible. The exclusion of ex-offenders from normal society, and particularly employment, is in no one's interest. It begets repeat offending and ensures a vicious cycle of interaction with the criminal justice system. It is costly for the State, society, and the offender himself. Effectively, no one wins.
The Bill is an important contribution to reintegration. It strikes the right balance and does not wipe the slate clean. Offences remain on the record. What it does is allow ex-offenders, after a certain period has elapsed since their sentences were imposed, to move on with their lives. This is particularly important where relatively minor offences committed in one's youth are concerned. It is worth mentioning that there is an extensive and very generous spent convictions regime already in place for children, under section 258 of the Children Act 2001. In this Bill, we are putting in place a similar, if somewhat more restrictive, regime for adults.
I mentioned that the general approach to the drafting of this Bill has been to make it as accessible as possible to those about whom I have spoken. Having said that, I believe it is broadly agreed that certain convictions can never become spent. In particular, I propose that convictions secured in the Central Criminal Court and convictions in respect of sexual offences be excluded from the benefits of the legislation.
Spent convictions legislation has three key variables: sentences eligible to become spent; the length of time a person must remain crime-free before the conviction is deemed spent; and the range of employments covered by the legislation or, alternatively, the ones excluded. Turning, first, to the sentences eligible to become spent, the Law Reform Commission's report had recommended that only custodial sentences of six months or less could become spent. I have reflected on this matter and considered the views of interest groups. As Senators will see, the Bill provides that prison sentences of 12 months or less are covered by the regime, compared to the six month threshold recommended by the Law Reform Commission. The 12 month threshold I am proposing would, if they had had no other convictions, have covered 90% of all persons committed to jail in Ireland in 2010. The remaining 10% who would not have benefited from the legislation are, by definition, persons jailed for serious offences. I emphasise the legislation is not aimed at these persons.
The second key variable is the rehabilitation period, that is, the period during which a person must remain conviction-free in order for a conviction to become spent. The Law Reform Commission's report provided for a straightforward regime in which non-custodial sentences would attract a five year rehabilitation period and custodial sentences a seven year period. These periods are too long and the decision to move to include sentences of up to one year requires a graduated approach. In the legislation I am providing that for custodial sentences of six months or less, the rehabilitation period will be five years; for sentences of between six and nine months, the period will be six years; and for sentences of between nine and 12 months, the period will be seven years. For non-custodial sentences, the rehabilitation periods will range from three years to five.
The third variable is the range of excluded employments. This is a complex area and good arguments can be made for excluding a wide range of employments. These arguments must, however, be balanced against the fact that if this legislation is to be of material use to those who want to move on to gainful employment, the range of excluded employments must be kept to a minimum. With this in mind, I have applied a few basic principles to the formulation of the list. Any employment involving direct or indirect contact with children or vulnerable adults is excluded. Equally, any employment involving the conduct of the international relations of the State, the administration of justice or the security of the State is excluded. Outside of this, most employments are covered by the provisions of the legislation. The Law Reform Commission's report proposed that the entire civil and public service be excluded. I have decided against this approach and instead targeted the exclusions at sensitive employments in the Civil Service and provided that other sensitive posts can be added by ministerial order but only on request from the Public Appointments Service, a body of integrity with a well deserved reputation for probity and fairness. The public service, as a major employer, can be reasonably expected to lead by example in an area of public policy such as this and the Bill follows a middle course that recognises the sensitive nature of certain posts in the public service, while eschewing the tendency to assume that all public service jobs are ipso facto sensitive.
On excluded employments, even where an employment is excluded, a minor conviction that has no bearing on the employment opportunity on offer should not be held against a person. Responsible and fair employers should pick the best person for the job and only allow a person's conviction to enter the equation where it is a material consideration.
Both the Irish Human Rights Commission and the Irish Penal Reform Trust have published commentaries on the Bill in the past week. Their observations are a valuable input into our deliberations on the Bill and I will give due consideration to the recommendations made by both bodies, many of which overlap. I can say at this stage that I will be bringing forward amendments to the Bill to address some of the recommendations made in these commentaries. For example, I intend to bring forward an amendment on Committee Stage to provide that where a person has a number of qualifying convictions imposed at one court sitting in relation to one incident or event, the convictions may be treated as one order of conviction. The amendment is aimed, for example, at the person who is convicted of a number of road traffic offences in relation to one incident and who would but for such an amendment have to carry forward all bar two of the convictions for the rest of his or her life.
The Irish Human Rights Commission and the Irish Penal Reform Trust also raise the interaction between the Bill and the forthcoming national vetting bureau Bill which will put vetting in relation to positions involving children and vulnerable adults on a statutory footing. While it is essential that the two Bills work harmoniously, this can be achieved with appropriate cross-referencing between the two, as recommended by the Irish Human Rights Commission. The primary source of law on the important issue of vetting will be the national vetting bureau Bill and my only concern in relation to this Bill is that it does nothing that will undermine the intent of the vetting Bill.
I now turn to the main provisions of the Bill. Section 1 is the standard provision containing the definitions of terms used in the Bill. I draw the attention of Senators, in particular, to the definition of "excluded conviction" as a conviction resulting in a jail sentence of more than one year; a conviction in respect of an offence reserved by law to be tried by the Central Criminal Court; and a conviction in respect of a sexual offence. The custodial sentences covered by the legislation are listed. Essentially, the legislation covers any sentence of one year or less, whether imposed as one sentence; as consecutive sentences, totalling one year or less; or as concurrent sentences, the longer or longest of which is one year or less. Non-custodial sentences are defined as including suspended sentences of up to one year; fines; probation orders; community service orders; and restriction on movement orders.
Section 2 is a key section of the Bill. It sets out the circumstances in which a conviction may become spent once a conviction-free period has elapsed. The Bill is retrospective and applies to all convictions, regardless of when they occurred. No more than two may become spent. Subsection (2)(c) provides that a person must have complied fully with any sentence imposed in order to benefit from the scheme. Subsection (2)(e) provides that where a person has more than two convictions, the first two qualifying convictions, in date order, are the two that can become spent. I have indicated my intention to bring forward an amendment to cover a situation where a number of convictions are handed down in relation to the one incident or event.
Section 3 deals with applicable relevant periods, that is, the time that must elapse before a conviction can become spent. The relevant periods are set out in tables in Schedule 2, Part 1 of which deals with custodial sentences, while Part 2 deals with non-custodial sentences. Subsection (3) states the relevant period commences on the effective date of conviction which is defined in section 1 as the date the sentence becomes operative.
Section 4 covers the situation where further convictions are incurred during the relevant period. While the general position is that the relevant period must be conviction-free in order for the conviction to become spent, provision is made to allow both a first and subsequent relevant conviction to become spent, where the subsequent conviction is incurred during the relevant period for the first conviction. In this case, the relevant period applying is whichever expires later. Taking a relatively simple example where a person has a conviction with a three year rehabilitation period and during that three years the person is again convicted of an offence carrying a five year rehabilitation period, in this scenario the rehabilitation period for the first conviction will be extended to the end of the five year period applying to the second conviction and both will become spent together at that time. The rule in section 2(2)(e) stating no more than two convictions may be deemed spent continues to apply.
Section 5 provides that, in general, a person who has a spent conviction may not be required to disclose it. Section 6 deals with how spent convictions are to be treated in the course of court proceedings. Subsection (1) states no evidence of a spent conviction is admissible in court proceedings and that no question can be asked regarding a spent conviction and that, if asked, it need not be answered. However, subsection (2) provides that a court may require the disclosure of a spent conviction if justice demands it, but it will take whatever steps it deems necessary to prevent or restrict publication. Subsection (3) sets out a number of situations where a person may be required to disclose a spent conviction: in criminal proceedings where he or she is a party or a witness; in adoption, guardianship or custody proceedings; in proceedings relating to the provision of accommodation, care, training, or schooling for a child or vulnerable adult; or where the person consents to the disclosure.
Section 7 sets out limitations to the general effect. Subsection (1)(b) states a person must also disclose a spent conviction to the Garda Síochána under questioning following arrest, in an interview with the Criminal Assets Bureau and in an application or during an investigation under Part 3 of the Central Bank Reform Act 2010. Subsection (2)(c) provides that the fact of a conviction being spent under the Bill does not cut across any disqualification, disability, prohibition or penalty otherwise imposed. Let us take the example of someone who is convicted under the Companies Act and receives a suspended sentence. He or she may be also disqualified as a company director and this disqualification continues in force regardless of when the conviction becomes spent.
Section 8 deals with information sought by another state. As the Bill applies only to Ireland, a person may be still required to disclose convictions if the laws of the state making the request or in respect of which the request is made require disclosure. This section does no more than restate the law as it stands. The Oireachtas cannot legislate extraterritorially to provide that our spent convictions regime will apply in other jurisdictions.
Section 9 provides that certain employments are excluded under the legislation. Details on the employments concerned are set out in Schedule 3, Parts 1 and 2 of which deal with employments involving children and vulnerable adults, respectively, while Part 3 deals with the civil and public service. Subsection (2) provides that the Minister may, by order, exclude other positions in the civil and public service at the request of the Public Appointments Service and having consulted with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and any other Minister with an interest in the particular post.
I explained that we have taken a much more liberal approach to excluded employments than the Law Reform Commission recommended. My sense from previous debates on the issue in the other House is that there was support for this approach. However, in a way there is a more important point that goes to the heart of this legislation. A previous conviction, including one that resulted in the jailing of an individual, should not be a mark on that person for all time in all but the minority of serious cases. Instead, as a society we should encourage the person to move on and integrate himself or herself into normal society and his or her community. Employers have a duty to consider everyone who applies for a job on his or her merits. Where a person is applying for a job in an excluded employment, including in the public service, there is an onus on the employer to take into account only the fact of a conviction, where this is declared, in so far as it calls into question the capacity of the person to carry out the job. For example, there is a raft of minor convictions that one would have to disclose when applying for a position with children which would not have any bearing on one's fitness to do the job and a prospective employer should not allow his or her judgment to be jaundiced by the fact of a conviction that has no relevance.
Section 10 mirrors the provisions in section 9 in the case of licences. Persons applying for certain licences, including public service vehicle, private security, taxi and firearms licences, must disclose their convictions.
Section 11 provides that where a person requests a copy of his or her criminal record from the Garda Síochána, the record is to be provided in two parts, with the spent convictions provided separately. This means that in most cases a person who is required to provide a copy of his or her criminal record will be able to produce a clean record, provided that if he or she has been convicted, his or her conviction or convictions are spent. Sections 12 to 14, inclusive, are general provisions relating to expenses, transitional arrangements and the Short Title.
In framing this legislation the Government has tried as far as possible to make it accessible to those who may benefit from its provisions. This is a relatively straightforward, self-administered scheme. Unlike in other jurisdictions, there is no application process, tribunal to attend, judge to satisfy, bureaucracy or unnecessary cost. This is the way the process has been designed and I make no apology for keeping it simple and easy to administer. Obviously, the provisions are most easily explained and understood by a person who has been convicted once of a relatively minor offence more than seven years previously. Such a person does not need to disclose a conviction when applying for most employments. It gets more complex for people with multiple convictions, some of which may become spent under the legislation and some of which may not. With this in mind, we have provided some worked examples in the appendix to the explanatory memorandum. I have asked my officials to begin preparing a frequently asked questions booklet that will be available on the Department's website once the Bill is enacted. This frequently asked questionnaire will set out the position in layman's terms for a range of circumstances in which people find themselves and will be added to over time as new scenarios emerge.
This is a landmark Bill which allows Ireland to join the majority of its European Union partners in providing hope to many people who have felt themselves excluded from society by a past misdemeanour. It is another tile in the mosaic of measures introduced in recent times to reduce recidivism and to facilitate reintegration into society. The Bill is targeted at the person who makes a mistake and wants to move on. It encourages good behaviour but does not provide succour to the repeat offender. It is a balanced proposal designed to deliver on its principal objectives without incurring unnecessary public expenditure or introducing unnecessary procedural complexity. I commend the Bill to the House.
I welcome the Minister. The Fianna Fáil Party broadly supports the Bill. Substantial work was done on the framework of the legislation by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in the previous Government, Mr. Dermot Ahern. I note also that the Minister acknowledged the Private Members' Bill introduced in the Dáil by Deputy Dara Calleary.
The Bill will bring us close to having a European standard of legislation for dealing with spent convictions for relatively minor matters. Previous legislation, the Children Act 2001, addresses the issue of spent convictions in section 258. I am pleased to note the process of having a conviction spent is self-administered and applies to prison sentences of 12 months or less. I ask the Minister to address a number of queries I have before we proceed to Committee Stage. I understand certain categories of offences are excluded from the provisions of the Bill, including sexual offences, and I do not have a problem with such exclusions. I note in the context of reoffending that not more than two convictions may be spent during an individual's life and the conviction free period that must be served before a conviction will become spent ranges from three years for a small fine to seven years for a one year jail sentence.
As my time is limited, I will raise only two matters which were brought to my attention by individuals in the Cork area. I forwarded information to the Minister on the cases in question. The first is a plea from a recovering gambler who has not gambled in 11 years. I do not propose to name the individual in question. He got into trouble at the age of 23 years in 2000 when he was in the midst of addiction. To his eternal shame he took money to which he had access at work and gambled it over a period. When this was discovered, he was arrested and later received a two year suspended sentence. He has since turned around his life, repaid every penny he took and become a regular member of his local Gambler Anonymous group. He has not gambled for 11 years and argues that it is harsh and unfair that his conviction remains on record given that he fell foul of an addiction to gambling at a young age. Having seen the error and wickedness of his ways, he has, in one sense, expunged his guilt by repaying all the money he took. I am not making light of his actions. The individual in question notes that our nearest neighbours in the United Kingdom have recently passed the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act and recommends that the Minister closely examine circumstances such as his conviction.
Punishment must fit the crime. However, in my experience sentencing for road traffic and minor criminal offences shows a lack of consistency. This is an historical problem for which no fault lies with the Minister. We may be getting closer to a situation where the courts will be inclined to look at precedents, but just as doctors differ and patients die, judges differ in different circumstances also. Some extraordinary decisions have been made in the courts recently and perhaps the Minister might bear this in mind. I understand what he said about the time limits and so on, but that man's case seems to be reasonable and fair. The Minister might look at it and come back to me on it on Committee Stage.
I have received another email from a professional legal person, whom I shall not name, but he has some queries on the Bill. He makes a plea on behalf of a client of his who was convicted a number of years ago for the possession of cannabis. Somebody he knew was staying in his house as a lodger and had a large supply of cannabis. As the property owner at the time, even though he was not dealing himself, he was regarded as being in possession of cannabis, for which he received a five year suspended sentence. He was 20 years old at the time. He fully acknowledged everything put to him and did not deny that he knew at the time that his friend was storing cannabis in the house. He has been of good character since and not come to the attention of the Garda, to use the time honoured phrase. The chief superintendent for the area is prepared to vouch for his integrity and crime free standing. He now has a family and is in secure employment. However, he is anxious to further his career which might involve travelling abroad to engage in further training. The problem is that his conviction would block access to Canada or the United States, and possibly Australia and New Zealand, as the case may be. Even though he received a five year sentence, the important point is that it was suspended and that it occurred when he was at the tender age of 20 years. He has since moved on in life. He was convicted for keeping his mouth shut about something that was of importance to him. Perhaps the Minister might look at this case also.
Another Bill I debated vigorously at the time was the fisheries Bill dating from 2006. Criminal sanctions were introduced for fishermen for log book offences and other relatively minor incursions in terms of quotas. As a result, some young men and their families would have difficulty even in seeking a temporary visa to travel to the United States. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Simon Coveney, assured me that he would look at the possibility of imposing administrative fines for certain fishing offences rather than leaving fishermen with criminal records. Perhaps the Minister might look at that issue also. I will again raise with the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the issue of what he proposes to do to update the law. Some of the fishermen involved feel very aggrieved.
I am sorry to interrupt the Senator, but his time is up.
I will conclude on a matter that will only take me a few seconds to mention. I am interested in hearing the Minister's response to the comments of Dr. Maurice Manning of the Irish Human Rights Commission and a former Member of this House. He said:
The grounds of discrimination in the employment equality and equal status legislation should be extended to include discrimination on the basis of a criminal conviction. Without such a prohibition on discrimination the Spent Convictions Bill may be of little assistance in practice. Such an anti-discrimination provision would enable the future Human Rights and Equality Commission to consider cases of discrimination based on a person's criminal record.
That is a strong statement from someone for whom I have great personal admiration. Perhaps when the Minister is responding, he might allay the fears expressed by Dr. Manning. I welcome the thrust of the Bill and look forward to a vigorous debate on it and a number of amendments that will be tabled on Committee Stage.
Once again I welcome the Minister who has become a very regular visitor to the House. I also welcome the Bill which is very fair and balanced. I am reminded of the line in the Merchant of Venice: “The quality of mercy is not strained. It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven”. We need to reflect on the concept of mercy when we debate the justice legislation which flows regularly through the House.
I congratulate the Minister on the work he has done in his portfolio to date. He has a difficult balancing act because in the media we read daily accounts of criminal activity, about people being attacked in their homes, vandalism and so on. There is an obvious public demand that he respond strongly by way of law and order measures. While we need good and robust law and order measures, we also need justice and a degree of mercy to be shown as part of the equation. That is provided for in the Bill.
It is interesting to learn from the Minister that 90% of all convictions in a given year carry a 12 month sentence or less. There is a view that people end up in court and receive significant jail sentences for major crimes, but the statistics show that many crimes are of a relatively minor nature and that the majority of sentences are not of lengthy duration. Those falling within that category will now be able to take advantage of the Bill. I welcome this because we have to give people a second chance. There must be a second chance for people in every walk of life. In report after report and in debate after debate there is a complaint that so many go back through the revolving doors into prison. There is a conviction today, a jail sentence tomorrow, a person is out next week and back in the following week. I know that is an exaggerated view, but, sadly, reoffending is a major problem and obviously we are not succeeding as well as we should be on the issue of rehabilitation. The Bill is a step on the ladder towards rehabilitation by striking a person's record clear.
It is interesting to hear this measure described as a form of self-assessment. The people who will qualify under the legislation will not have to go to the Garda station, back to court or go to a peace commissioner, rather they will be able to take advantage of the legislation themselves. Certainly, that is to be welcomed. The sentence categories allowed for within the Bill are very fair and balanced. The exclusions are also necessary. We had another debate yesterday on the abuse of children and vulnerable people. It is important that the Bill excludes persons convicted of such offences. Therefore, the Minister is striking the right balance. The waiting period set before a person can have his or her conviction declared spent under the Bill is very fair.
Senator Denis O'Donovan made an interesting point that may not be totally pertinent to the Bill, but it forms part of the equation as it relates to sentencing guidelines. In some cases, two people might be convicted of the same offence. One might receive a six or ten month sentence and thus would be able to qualify under the Bill to have the conviction declared spent in due course, but in another courthouse the sentence handed down by another judge could be 13 or 15 months and the person concerned would not qualify. I appreciate it is a debate for another day. There seems to be a little difficulty. Although I do not have the Minister's legal expertise, consistency of sentencing is something on which we must reflect and debate at some future stage. We will not discuss judicial appointments but judicial training is something the Oireachtas could take on board and debate in some detail in the future.
I welcome the Bill. As the Minister indicated, he is adopting a slightly more liberal approach than that suggested by the Law Reform Commission. That is not a bad thing. The Minister is introducing fairness and a second chance into the equation. That must be welcomed. Our aspiration must be that everyone convicted of a crime in this country will get every assistance possible to ensure they will not commit further crime. I refer to the probation and welfare service and where it applies in the Prison Service that the concept of rehabilitation and getting a second chance for a new beginning will always be available and will always be a strong and positive option. The legislation is a small part of the equation. I am sure there is much more we need to do but I welcome the legislation. Other political parties have worked in the same direction and if they introduced the same type of proposal I am sure it would get unanimous support in the House. I look forward to the Bill being passed speedily.
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.
I also welcome the Minister to the House. I congratulate him on the general direction in which he is taking the justice system. The Criminal Justice (Community Service) (Amendment) Bill recognised the importance of using prison as a last resort and this Bill is a step in a similar direction. The Minister's announcement on Limerick Prison is very welcome. We are all well aware that our current prison system is not exactly fit for a modern-day society and it shames us.
It is a bit of a misnomer, however, to use the title, the Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions) Bill. The fundamental problem with the Bill is that it does not expunge criminal records. The Minister stated that it does not wipe the slate clean and that offences remain on the record but what it does do is allow ex-offenders, after a certain period has elapsed, to move on with their lives, so to speak. I would regard it as a bit like the "don't tell" type of situation in the army in the United States whereby if a person is gay, the argument is that one does not ask and one does not tell. I am somewhat concerned that this legislation is a little bit along similar lines. Were I to ask the Minister one question, it would be to explain to the House why he did not go down the route of expunging the criminal record entirely. The current position is a half-light. One might even call this the "disregarding convictions in certain circumstances Bill". While we must try to weigh the difficulties the Minister faces in terms of media approaches to people with criminal records and the incitement to hatred in the public domain, given fearful headlines about criminals being let loose on society, I am concerned by the extensive exceptions in the Bill, for example, when working with children. Under no circumstances would the sentences covered by the Bill encompass the type of sentence one might incur for having molested a child, etc. Why would someone with a criminal record for the non-payment of a television licence fee or some other minor conviction not be eligible for this type of disregard? The Minister stated that responsible and fair employers should pick the best person for the job and only allow a person's conviction to enter the equation when it is a material consideration. We would love it if employers always behaved appropriately, but we have an entire body of law to ensure that they do because circumstances arise in which they do not.
We live in a modern age in which electronic media is used in a way not envisaged by the bulk of law when the criminal justice system was established in the 19th century. People can discover a wide range of information about other people without their consent. A self-administered system that does not expunge the record of offences will leave people vulnerable to electronic surveillance and electronic disclosures.
I am stating the obvious, as the Minister is well aware of my next point. We are discussing minor crimes. In 2009, 3,601 sentence committals were for road traffic offences and represented one third of the total number of committals. Some 20.8% of sentence committals in 2009 were for offences against property without violence. Although crime rates have decreased, the number of prison sentences quadrupled between 1980 and 2010. Therefore, the number of people to whom this legislation is relevant has increased.
Let us be realistic, in that this is a class issue. Teenagers or people in their early 20s might go on the rampage after a night of drinking and a little bit of committing property damage. I am not trying to undermine this type of offence, but the average prisoner in Mountjoy Prison is statistically likely to be a 28 year old male, with a 16% chance his father went to prison, a 44% chance a sibling served time, only a 7% likelihood he stayed in school after the age of 16 years, a 40% chance he suffers some form of psychological condition, and a 79% chance he is an intravenous drug user. Many authorities, including the school of criminology at UCD, agree there is a link between deprivation and the likelihood of committing a crime. Some 60% of people serving sentences of six months' duration or less are poor and have often experienced homelessness. If we want to give vulnerable people in society a chance, we must be realistic about what that chance is.
The Bill is a step in the right direction, but I would be interested to know why the Minister did not go down the road of expunging sentences entirely. When people have served their punishments, we should cease the practice of discriminating against them. The best way to do so is to clean their records. I do not mean this in the context of non-disclosure, but in terms of cleaning their records entirely. I am sure the Minister has received papers on the same statistics. Some 225 college courses offered through the CAO require Garda vetting. Some may include social work elements. For someone coming from a deprived community who wants to do social work within a deprived community, especially with children, surely it would be better for him or her to be allowed to do so. Will the Minister reconsider the exemption on working with children? If an offence is not a serious one concerning a child, why should disclosing it be obligatory? Minor offences such as failing to pay for a television licence should not be barriers to employment in the case of, for example, driving a taxi. I refer in particular to vulnerable people who have experience of the prison system.
I welcome the legislation. It is a step in the right direction, but will the Minister go further? In the electronic age, the choice not to self-disclose is not a sufficient protection for people with convictions. They would be better served by having their entire records expunged.
I welcome the Minister and the Bill. As an employer, I initially and sceptically questioned whether it was wise legislation. I used to entrust new employees with responsibilities that I would not have given them had I known their histories. One person had a bad history, but we did not check up on it. As an employer, I would have liked to have known whether employees had records.
Having read the Bill and listened to the Minister and Senator van Turnhout, who referred to how a person she called Siobhán took a bar of chocolate and was left with a record, I realise the legislation must change. This Bill is necessary, as it would help people to return to work. Having minor convictions on record can be a sizeable barrier to employment. People may become frustrated. In the worst case scenarios, they may turn to crime or suffer health problems. Employment is key to putting people back on the right track. A record affects employment, training, education, travel and taking out insurance, which means people can face barriers to owning homes.
The Minister explained the Bill well. Should society be judged on how it treats criminals, be they people who made mistakes or committed crimes deliberately and who will consequently suffer for the rest of their lives? We are creating a pool of unemployed people who will have no other option but to live on State benefits.
Recently, the UK Secretary of State for Justice, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, told up to 40 retailers that they should recruit more people fresh from prison. When I read his comments, I wondered whether a retailer would employ someone who was straight out of prison over someone who had never been to prison. Mr. Clarke encouraged them to set up training courses in prisons. A similar scheme was being run by a locksmith and engraving specialist. He stated:
Getting somebody into a steady job upon release from prison is one of the most successful ways of getting them to stop reoffending. With support from organisations like Timpson, we can make a real difference to the lives of prisoners and their families and above all, a reduction in the victims of crime.
Does the Minister agree that there should be such private sector links? Should we do more to foster this work? Having a job plays a large role in breaking the cycle of reoffending and having taxpaying individuals would be a better alternative.
Another recommendation is that 25% of prisoners' gross salaries should go to victims funds, while the remainder of their wages should be used to support dependants or as savings ahead of their release. What about the proposals regarding the making of payments to prisoners? I ask this question in the context of the Irish Prison Service's introduction of a new gratuity regime to reward inmates for good behaviour, while penalising those who are disruptive or refuse to engage with rehabilitative services. We should also ensure everyone convicted of a criminal offence is made aware of the new legislation and offered information and guidance on the long-term impact of having a conviction. Could a person be informed by letter? How does the Minister intend to address this issue?
It has been mentioned that Ireland is the only country that does not have legislation to let criminal convictions lapse after a certain period. From that point of view, the Bill is welcome. By introducing it, we are incentivising people to stay clean, that is, there will be a reward for not committing further crimes. As the Minister explained, this is an essential element. If we continue to label someone as a criminal for the rest of his or her life, it will influence his or her behaviour. We need to remove labels and allow people to move on.
As has been pointed out by the Irish Human Rights Commission, a conviction may be declared spent — that is a good word — for the purposes of the Bill, but information on the existence of the conviction will still be available to employers under the vetting Bill. This seems to be a significant contradiction which will result in barriers for persons convicted of even minor offences who want to return to work.
I am concerned about the length of time a conviction will remain on record. It is not appropriate to have a minor offence or fine on someone's record for up to seven years. Should the commitment in court not to reoffend not count? The report of the Irish Penal Reform Trust reads:
While the limit of 12-months as the maximum sentence to which the legislation will apply is an improvement on the 6-months originally proposed, IPRT believes the Bill should extend to at least 30 months. (In the UK, a 2011 review of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (1974) judged the limit of 30 month sentences to be too restrictive.)
The UK example is interesting, in that, under a proposed reform of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, the time after which the convictions of medium-term prisoners would be declared spent would be reduced from ten years to four, while the convictions of short-term prisoners serving sentences of up to six months would be declared spent after two years instead of seven. This reform would cover thousands of persons recently fined or ordered to serve community sentences. They would no longer need to declare their criminal records after one year instead of the existing five. In the United Kingdom a fine would be declared spent one year after being handed down, while a jail term of up to six months would be declared spent two years after the end of the sentence. We should seek to follow this example and help to wipe an offender's slate clean earlier. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch.
We all know that some young people go astray for a number of reasons, including the challenge of growing up. Should we be more lenient on a 17 year old who stole a bicycle and did not know any better? Should we seek to reduce the length of time minor offences are on record for this age group? This might result in them standing a better chance of finding work and turning their lives around. We must try to brighten a younger person's prospects and not end them before they begin.
How does the issue of the publication of convictions relate to archives and online sources which include thousands of reports on trials and convictions? Do people have the right to wipe them clean? It is all well and good that an employer would not see the minor conviction during the hiring process, but he or she could Google a name. This is a complicated matter to which I do not have the answer. There will be a challenge to this provision. I would welcome the Minister's opinions on the matters of privacy and convictions.
Before the Minister of State entered the Chamber, I mentioned that, although I was initially concerned about this legislation, I had come to support and agree with it. However, there are questions to which I would like answers.
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit go dtí an Teach arís. She is present almost as often as the Cathaoirleach. It is remarkable that she has been present twice on the one day.
This legislation is long overdue and was recommended by the Law Reform Commission in 2007. Even then its recommendation was long overdue.
I listened with great interest to Senator Aideen Hayden's contribution. She has stolen my thunder to a great extent, as I agree with many of her sentiments. As public representatives, each of us has dealt with difficult situations involving 18 or 19 year olds who had gone off the rails. They might have been considered adults legally and technically, but they were not adults mentally. In many cases, they were charged with minor offences. In one case a young man in his first week in university was kicking a football on the Stillorgan dual carriageway when he was arrested by the Garda. He was too scared about telling his parents to obtain proper legal advice. He was charged and paid a fine of €200. Ten years down the road he applied for a job in his chosen career in the film industry. He was offered a placement in Canada, but he could not enter the country because his conviction had raised its head. His record in the intervening ten years was clean. His family was devastated and he has not got over the incident, despite the fact that nearly 20 years have since passed. It is a travesty that a career was destroyed by a prank during his time as a freshman in university.
I listened to the story told by Senator Jillian van Turnhout while I was in my office. Such issues must be addressed. This legislation is a step in the right direction. When a sentence is for less than 12 months, a person should not be criminalised for not declaring it after a certain period has passed. If someone who was charged ten years ago for not having a television licence is subject to a Garda check when he or she applies for a taxi licence, that incident should not appear on his or her Garda clearance documents, nor should he or she be denied a public service vehicle licence.
We need to be fair and realistic. As a society, we need to show a certain degree of empathy and forgiveness. Like Senator Ivana Bacik, I am a member of the Sub-Committee on Penal Reform which is doing great work. There are many good developments and I commend the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, and the Minister, Deputy Alan Shatter, for their work in this regard. Even this week there has been an announcement of an upgrade of Limerick Prison which is badly needed. Recently I attended Mountjoy Prison and it is heartening to see the investment taking place there. Slopping out will be a thing of the past in a couple of years. It is a gradual and incremental process, but basic human rights prevail in Irish prisons.
This legislation will assist those who have gone to prison, done their time and mended their ways. Society must work with people like them and in doing so there is a better chance they will not reoffend. When an individual has mended his or her ways through a prison sentence, society must meet him or her halfway. I commend the Department of Justice and Equality and the Minister for bringing forward this common-sense legislation after only 16 months in office. I note the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, is present for the debate, her second time to be in the House today. I hope this becomes a habit because she is one of the Ministers with more common sense.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, and the officials from the Department of Justice and Equality. I commend the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, for bringing the Bill into the House as quickly as he has. I also commend the officials for their work on this detailed and comprehensive legislation. The Bill, however, should be amended by Members because there is a tremendous and experienced pool in this House. As I was in the Minister of State's seat many times before, I understand this. I was anxious to amend Bills at the time and know the Minister of State is also of that opinion.
Interesting contributions have been made to the debate. I have noted the examples given of the effect this legislation will have on a person who committed a minor offence at a young age and thereby remove a lifelong burden. Seven years is a long time to pay after finishing a sentence. If a person reoffends, he or she is in serious trouble. It is a great incentive for someone with a minor criminal offence to ensure it never happens again.
Will the record of an offence covered by this legislation be removed from the PULSE system? I understand someone with a minor offence must decide if he or she qualifies to avail of the spent conviction provision. The Minister has given examples of how the system will work in the explanatory memorandum. Would it not be preferable to have a certificate from the Garda Síochána stating the conviction is spent? I know this would put extra work on the Department, but no one would object to paying a small or reasonable fee to cover whatever costs would be involved.
The Minister has stated there are certain jobs for which persons with a spent conviction may not qualify to apply, one being the Garda reserve. However, that should not be the case. It is a significant decision to inform a person he or she cannot serve in a particular position because of some minor offence committed in their youth. When I was first elected to the Oireachtas, I came across the case of a person who had applied to join the Garda Síochána, but he was deemed unsuitable because his uncle was selling An Phoblacht at the time. At the time An Phoblacht was neither profitable nor popular, but it has become so now. Sinn Féin was not in the same position it is in today. I went to the Garda Commissioner and the Minister on this outrageous action taken against the individual in question to have the matter resolved.
This is good and practical legislation which I am delighted to see being introduced. The views expressed in the House today are very sincerely held by experienced Members. I know the Minister of State and her officials, in particular, will take them into account.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, and the opportunity to debate this long overdue legislation which has been broadly welcomed. I am also pleased it has been introduced in the Seanad first.
The need for a statutory framework for the rehabilitation of offenders has long been recognised by those working in the criminal justice system. I must declare an interest as I am a practising criminal barrister. The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, referred to a 2007 Law Reform Commission report which provided draft legislation on spent convictions. There has been legislation in place covering the rehabilitation of offenders in England for some time. The Minister stated:
Obviously, the provisions are most easily explained and understood by a person who has been convicted once of a relatively minor offence more than seven years ago. That person does not need to disclose a conviction when applying for most employment.
This legislation will make a significant difference for persons in such circumstances.
Members gave testimonies of individuals. Like many others, I have met individuals in the political system who have been debarred from applying for different jobs or undertaking different career courses because of a minor conviction in the past. This legislation will be an aid and a comfort for the people concerned.
In my work as a criminal lawyer I have come across the real problem presented by old convictions. Where it becomes most apparent is where one is representing an individual charged with another offence 15 or 20 years after committing a minor offence. Until the Children Act was introduced, even if one had committed a very minor public order offence as a child, it was still on one's record. The Children Act helped by providing for the expunging of records for offences committed when people are minors but it did not help people who committed very minor public order offences when 18 or 19 and who then had a clean slate for ten or 20 years before being brought up on another minor offence. That would not be a first offence in that case. The consequence in the very practical criminal law world is that the Probation of Offenders Act can no longer be applied and people cannot receive the benefit of the Act. In other words, instead of the judge indicating the conviction is found but not recorded, it would show up.
I appreciate the Minister's point that the scheme he is introducing is a straightforward, self-administered scheme which does not expunge the record but removes the duty to disclose for all but certain employment after the relevant period has passed. Senator Leyden raised one of the issues I have with the practical side, which is how this works with PULSE. It is clear a person convicted of a minor offence seven years ago no longer has to disclose that conviction when applying for a job, but what happens when we are not dealing with self-administration? For example, a person may apply for a visa to work in the US and the American immigration authorities would seek the PULSE record of that person from the Garda. Is that a spent conviction? Perhaps I missed how that issue would be dealt with in the Bill. A second point relates to sentencing procedures. In practice, judges will take a minor conviction from years ago in a way to prevent an offender having the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, so will that still be the case in respect of spent convictions under this Bill?
Those are the more detailed questions on the Bill's operation. I very much welcome it and it has long been called for. Senator Hayden made some excellent points about the "don't ask, don't tell" analogy and how the Bill does not go far enough. It is something of a missed opportunity, although I fully accept the argument that the Bill goes further than what was recommended by the Law Reform Commission. I welcome the fact the Minister has raised the threshold to 12 months from six months, which is very important, but he could have gone further. We could have extended the sentencing threshold, and the Irish Human Rights Commission has stated the rehabilitation periods are too long, with shorter periods maximising the possibility of rehabilitation and re-integration. Similarly, the Irish Penal Reform Trust suggested the Bill could and should go further in the interests of rehabilitation.
Others made points about the impact of the vetting bureau Bill, which we dealt with in the justice committee. I welcome the Minister's announcements that he will take on board some of the recommendations of the Irish Human Rights Commission and the Irish Penal Reform Trust, with amendments to be brought forward on Committee Stage. I look forward to debating those. I ask the Minister to consider going a little further and making the Bill even less restrictive in terms of facilitation of the re-integration of offenders into society. I fully appreciate the commitment of the Minister and the Minister of State, Deputy Lynch, to rehabilitation of offenders, and it is a very important goal for us to have in the shaping of a criminal justice system. We are glad to see it being very clearly expressed today.
I welcome the Minister of State back to the House and I give a broad welcome to the publication of the Bill. I am in favour of this type of legislation as part of a package of re-integration of former prisoners into society. The Bill provides for a non-disclosure regime whereby certain convictions are considered spent or do not have to be disclosed to a prospective employer after a set period of conviction-free living, defined as the rehabilitation period. This Bill is a long time coming and is long overdue, although we welcome that it has been published. In Britain there have been spent conviction laws since the 1970s, so it seems we are a long way behind some other European countries. The fact we have been waiting so long for this legislation is an issue in itself, but I welcome its publication.
The Minister for Justice and Equality spoke about the liberal nature of some of this Bill, and I could describe myself as liberal in some respects. I see the primary objective of general justice policy not to be solely about punishment but rather rehabilitation, and I am sure the Minister of State would agree with that. The primary focus and objective of any justice policy should be to reduce crime, offending and re-offending.
The purpose of the Bill is primarily to ensure that minor offences will not follow an individual for his or her life or hinder a person in gaining employment. Getting people into gainful employment is crucial in tackling recidivism and offers an incentive to individuals to prove they are reformed and can get back to being a productive member of society. It therefore offers an incentive to avoid crime. A range of barriers to inhibit the rehabilitation and re-integration of ex-prisoners, in particular, has been an issue not just for ex-prisoners but for all people with past convictions. Studies have indicated that 48% of employers would not take on somebody with a criminal record, and a survey carried out by the Small Firms Association indicated that between 76% and 87% of firms would not employ an ex-offender. We heard earlier from Senator Quinn about his experience with the issue. Such issues can hold back some individuals from gaining meaningful employment, and there have been examples of the effects of minor convictions acting as a barrier to employment. Nobody would want to see that.
It should also be noted that the majority of sentences handed down in the courts are of this nature. The proportion of sentences of up to 12 months accounted for 78% of all sentences in 2007 and 80% of sentences in 2011. We have concerns about some of the detail of the Bill, and these are similar to some of those highlighted by Senator van Turnhout and others. We will consider tabling a number of amendments in this area.
We support the exclusion of offences where an offender wishes to work with children or vulnerable adults or where a sexual offence has been committed. We are concerned that limiting this to offences which incurred a maximum of one year is unduly narrow. The nature of this exemption from the spent conviction regime should be offence relevant. Where the nature of a past conviction is not relevant after a rehabilitation period, we should not present employers and others with an unwarranted opportunity to discriminate.
I also note some of the points raised by the Irish Penal Reform Trust, and a number of Senators have highlighted the waiting periods for the convictions to be spent, along with the limits on the sentences to which this legislation applies. Our party criticised the 2007 Bill for its conservatism and we welcome that this Bill is, as the Minister stated, liberal in its approach. We also note the limiting period in the application of such legislation was six months, which was too great. This Bill improves this, extending the period to 12 months, although the Irish Penal Reform Trust recommends 30 months. In the UK the period is two years and there may be room for improvement in amendments that could be accepted by the Minister. The waiting time of three to seven years represents an improvement on original proposals, but the Irish Penal Reform Trust is also of the view that these could be shortened to two to four years, and the periods in the UK are shorter. There are also a number of European examples, and perhaps the area could be examined.
Under the Children Act 2001, an 18 year old who commits a once-off minor offence may have this conviction hanging over him or her until the age of 27, as the seven year rehabilitation period dates from the conviction, which takes place up to two years after the offence is committed. This is a valid point and we should not allow the mistakes of a young person hang over him or her.
We are 14 years on from the Good Friday Agreement and there are many former political prisoners with convictions we believe should be expunged. I know the Minister has indicated he will consider the matter, perhaps with separate legislation, at some time in future. It would be helpful as part of the conflict resolution process we all support. It concerns not just prisoners associated with the IRA but also from a number of other organisations. Those records should be examined and expunged, depending on circumstances. The issue should be considered by the Government.
Records will remain on PULSE when a person emigrates to the USA. Most countries require a person to disclose all convictions, including spent convictions, and we have no control over that. We cannot tell other countries what to ask for.
On sentencing in court cases, the prosecution can refer to previous convictions despite the fact they are covered by this legislation. There was a suggestion a person could apply to the Garda for a certificate but that provision already exists and the Bill provides that where a person requests his record, the spent convictions will be provided separately. There would be two certificates. In reply to Senator Leyden, we were hoping to stay away from that process on the basis that we do not want people going into the system again, but I understand hispoint.
The Minister for Justice and Equality had to leave because he has been busy in recent days and he asked me to respond and to express his gratitude for the support Members of the House have given to the Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions) Bill. As the Minister said when he addressed the House earlier, this historic legislation is at one with other initiatives aimed at making our criminal justice system work better for society. We want to reduce crime and see offenders caught and brought to justice. We want them to undergo whatever sanctions the courts impose, not from any desire for revenge but to ensure those who offend against society pay their debt for doing so. When the debt has been paid, however, it is in all our interests that those people do not re-offend and are reintegrated into society as quickly as possible. Senator Leyden's comment that it could be an incentive not to re-offend is well made.
This is an important Bill that resonates with Members on all sides of the House. Those of us in public life have met countless numbers of people whose lives have been blighted by some misdemeanour committed many years previously. We all know decent people who want to move on but feel they will never get an even break when they admit to a conviction, no matter how minor or how long ago. This Bill has the potential to remove the ball and chain a criminal record can represent to people. Even when everyone else has moved on, the person still feels a cloud hangs over him. This is the case even where the cloud relates to a minor misdemeanour that occurred a generation ago. There is a sense, and I am sure Members have encountered this when dealing with the public, that the stain of a criminal record is indelible. While we might wish for a more enlightened society where a person is judged on his own merits, the concern, legitimate or otherwise, of the person is that he will never get a fair chance.
The contributions to this debate have been both thoughtful and thought-provoking. Those contributions have recognised the overall positive aspects of the Bill and understandably have raised questions about its discretionary aspects, such as the length of sentences covered, the length of the rehabilitation periods and the exclusions related to employment. In each of these areas, the Minister has tried to strike a balance between the competing interests of the offender and society. There is no right answer in the sense that where the line is drawn is a matter of judgement. Spent conviction regimes, where they exist across the globe, vary widely. In some jurisdictions, such as New Zealand, only non-custodial sentences are covered. This means that who is sentenced to a term of imprisonment, no matter how short, can never have that conviction disregarded. In addition, the rehabilitation period for all convictions is seven years. Meanwhile in various Australian states, the sentences covered range from six months to 30 months, with a ten year rehabilitation period.
While Britain has recently reformed its regime to make it one of the more liberal, with shorter rehabilitation periods and covering longer sentences, the scheme outlined in this Bill places Ireland at the more generous end of the international spectrum. The safe option would have been to follow the Law Reform Commission recommendations. Instead, the Government made the conscious decision to make the scheme accessible to the greatest number of ex-offenders, consistent with the protection of society at large.
A defining feature of this Bill is that the scheme is self-administered. This means individuals can establish for themselves whether they qualify, and once they have done so they can choose whether to declare a past conviction, as the case may be. The alternative of an application-based system as applies in many countries would involve costly administration for the State and the individual and would in many ways negate the positive aspects of the Bill. The ordeal of having to make a case before a judge to have a conviction declared spent could deter some from availing of the scheme. It is arguably counter-intuitive to force people back into the justice system to escape from it. Instead, we are providing a system where people, in the privacy of their homes, can determine whether they qualify. To my mind that is one of the more appealing aspects of the scheme and one that will recommend itself to those who wish to avail of it.
None of this is to say the Bill cannot be improved, and the Minister said he is open to all proposals that will improve it. He will be bringing forward a small number of amendments on Committee Stage to address some gaps in the Bill, and he looks forward to hearing suggestions as to how the Bill might be improved. Coming at this later than most of the rest of the western world has its advantages. We have their experiences on which to draw and we have been especially fortunate to have the Law Reform Commission report to guide our work. I pay tribute to the Irish Human Rights Commission and the Irish Penal Reform Trust for their work and whose commentaries on the LRC report were taken into account in the drafting of this Bill. The Irish Human Rights Commission has also issued observations on the Bill this week and these will be considered as it progresses through the Houses. From the reaction to the Bill, both in this House and from members of the public, we are satisfied the legislation addresses many of the concerns of people and will allow the majority of law-abiding people to get on with their lives.
There are some who have turned over a new leaf but the seriousness of whose crimes means they will not benefit under the Bill. People convicted of sex offences, people sentenced to more than 12 months in prison and people tried in the Central Criminal Court do not benefit under the Bill. The line has to be drawn somewhere and the reality is the provisions in the Bill go much further than the Law Reform Commission recommended, by doubling the length of sentence covered from six months to one year. By our estimate, in excess of 90% of custodial sentences handed down by the courts are covered, as well as all non-custodial sentences with the exception of suspended sentences of more than one year. While it is difficult to put exact figures on this, it is almost certainly the case that in excess of 95% of all sentences are covered by this spent convictions regime. By any standards, that is the majority of sentences and, except for the serial offenders, the majority of people convicted in our courts.
While the focus of this legislation is on offenders and their rehabilitation, we must never forget the victims of crime. That we might address the plight of ex-offenders is not to suggest in any way that we are any less concerned for victims of crime. Those who commit crimes must be caught, prosecuted and convicted. They must pay their debt to society and, in appropriate cases, to the victims of their crimes. This Bill does not deduct from these principles one iota, but once that debt has been paid and once a reasonable crime-free period has elapsed, society has an interest in allowing the person to move on and contribute fully to society — no more, no less.
I again express my appreciation and that of the Minister for the general welcome the House has given the Bill. I assure Senators that all their suggestions as to how the Bill might be improved will be considered and we look forward to a more detailed discussion of the Bill on Committee Stage. We may have opinions on whether we could have been more liberal or more restrictive, but this is the Bill as proposed. It will be amended and there will be a broader discussion on Committee Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 19 June 2012.
Sitting suspended at 4.40 p.m. and resumed at 5 p.m.