Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 Jan 2013

Vol. 220 No. 7

Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions) Bill 2012: Committee Stage

SECTION 1

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, to the House. Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 14, 16 and 18 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Government amendment No. 1:
In page 5, subsection (1), between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
" "community service order" has the meaning assigned to it by section 3 of the Criminal Justice (Community Service) Act 1983;".

I thank the Cathaoirleach. As Members will be aware, the Minister for Justice and Equality is detained elsewhere this evening.

Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 16 and 18 address an oversight in the Bill. The Bill provides, in the definition of effective date of conviction, that where a community service order is revoked under section 11 of the Criminal Justice (Community Service) Act 1983, the effective date of conviction is the date of revocation. However, while in most cases revocation will be followed by the imposition of the original sanction, for example, imprisonment, section 11 of the Act also provides that the offender may apply to the court for revocation and an order may be revoked and not replaced by another sanction. The Bill, as published, does not provide for this scenario and that is the gap that amendments Nos. 1, 2, 16 and 18 address.

Amendment No. 1 provides a definition of "community service order" given that the term is used a number of times in the Bill. Amendment No. 2 effectively removes the reference to community service orders in defining the "effective date of conviction". Amendment No. 16 amends the definition of "relevant custodial sentence" to cover explicitly the situation where a community service order is revoked and replaced by a custodial sentence. This is being done by the addition of a new paragraph (f). Amendment No. 18 amends the definition of "relevant non-custodial sentence" to cover the two scenarios where a community service order may be revoked and still qualify as a non-custodial sentence: where it is revoked and not replaced with anything or where it is revoked and replaced by a non-custodial sanction. Amendment No. 14 is a drafting amendment to take account of the insertion of paragraph (f) in the definition of "relevant custodial sentence".

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 2:
In page 5, to delete lines 21 to 29 and substitute the following:
" "effective date of conviction", means the date on which a relevant custodial sentence or a relevant non-custodial sentence, as the case may be, becomes operative in accordance with the order of the court concerned;".
Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 3 to 7, inclusive, 9 to 11, inclusive, 13, 15 and 17 are related. Amendment No. 4 is an alternative to amendment No. 3 and amendment No. 7 is an alternative to amendment No. 6. Amendments Nos. 3 to 7, inclusive, 9 to 11, inclusive, 13, 15 and 17 may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 5, line 31, to delete "12 months" and substitute "2 years".

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. On Second Stage I expressed my full support for the Bill and the amendments I have tabled are to strengthen it further. The Bill brings Ireland in line with the rest of its EU partners and the vast majority of the Council of Europe states. It is a mark of a fair, just and compassionate society to have arrangements in law that allow for individuals to put their offending past behind them and move forward with a clean slate. It is in everybody's interest to facilitate and encourage the rehabilitation and reintegration of former offenders into society. My only concern, which my amendments are intended to remedy, is that the Bill, even with the Government amendments, which I take it will be supported and all of which I welcome, is still too restrictive and too conservative to fulfil its purpose.

I will begin by noting that I have no difficulty in supporting a further increase in the maximum limit of sentence to which the spent conviction regime will apply. The "30 months" amendment being put forward by my Sinn Féin colleagues has merit. A review in 2011 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 by the Ministry of Justice in the United Kingdom judged the limit of 30 month 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 proposed in the Bill.

The UK has a 40 year head start on us with regard to spent convictions legislation. This is not something it has come up with because of five years' experience. After 40 years it has increased the limited to 48 months. During this time the Ministry of Justice in the UK strived to strike the appropriate balance between public safety and reducing barriers to integration for those who have moved on from offending behaviour. We have an opportunity to capitalise on the learning in the UK with the legislation before us.

I support my colleagues in Sinn Féin, whose amendment proposes to extend the limit to 30 months and this keeps with the minimum extension sought by the Irish Penal Reform Trust. I would have preferred to propose 48 months but I thought I would try to strike a middle ground, which is why the amendment proposes two years as a compromise between the 12 months in the Bill which is extremely restricted and prohibitive and the 48 months which has grown out of trust after 40 years of legislation in the UK. I believe two years strikes a good balance as we start out on this journey of recognising spent convictions.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House for this important legislation which, as Senator van Turnhout stated, will be supported from all quarters in the House even if we have amendments which seek to strengthen it. On Second Stage I gave a very broad welcome to the Bill because regardless of the differences we may have with regard to its limitations we should all see it as part of a package of measures which is necessary to integrate prisoners back into society and into employment, which is important.

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 period of conviction-free living. The time limit is 12 months and I share the concern expressed by Senator van Turnhout that the Bill is a little too conservative. In his Second Stage contribution, the Minister stated the Bill was liberal. I do not believe it is and I agree with many of the concerns expressed by the Irish Penal Reform Trust that at a minimum the time limit should be 30 months. Although our amendments reflect the 30 months which, as Senator van Turnhout stated, was the middle ground, I understand my party colleague in the Dáil, our spokesperson on justice, Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn, will seek an extension to 48 months. We must listen to what the Minister of State has to say today and hear her arguments.

When the 2007 Bill was presented to the Dáil we and the Labour Party criticised its conservatism. The Minister and the Government have substantially improved it and this should be acknowledged. However, we still believe it is too restrictive and the time limits should be increased. The Irish Penal Reform Trust recommends a minimum of 30 months and has stated its preference for 48 months as is the case in the UK. We should look at international best practice. I do not always believe we must look elsewhere, whether to the North, the UK or anywhere else, to see what we should do here, but in this area we should examine what is best practice throughout Europe. From the research we have done it appears a period of 12 months is too restrictive and we should consider 30 months.

One of the submissions made by the Irish Penal Reform Trust included a contribution from an individual which may add value to the debate. The person stated:

I would like to do various jobs in my chosen area but cannot even apply for a lot of positions due to my previous conviction. I feel as though I have given a lot back to society, now live a respectable crime free life and also wish to gain employment but am unable to do so. This is partly due to the current economic crisis but largely due to the fact that my conviction will be with me for life. The stigma of the conviction will hang over me for the rest of my life and no amount of voluntary work or academic success will ever change that.

This is an example of the type of person we are trying to support, help and encourage back into society to reintegrate and get back to employment. The Bill is our opportunity to make the right decisions and correct much of the conservatism and restrictive nature of existing law. We must strike the appropriate balance, which to be fair is what is being sought. I have made the arguments. Amendments Nos. 4 and 6 tabled by Sinn Féin are essentially the same. I will not make the arguments again other than to encourage the Minister of State to listen to what is being said. I have spoken to many organisations and individuals responsible for integrating prisoners back into society and they are also of the view that a 12 month period is too restrictive. This is our position and I am interested to hear the response of the Minister of State.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. On Second Stage I spoke to support the concept of the Bill. My party and the previous Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Dermot Ahern, did much preparatory work on it. I rise to speak very briefly in support of the amendments in the names of Senator van Turnhout and Sinn Féin. The Government is erring on the side of caution in the Bill. It is being overcautious with regard to the 12 month period. The thrust of our criminal and penal system is rehabilitation. If we can save 5% of the souls who go through our criminal justice system and rehabilitate them so they can start a new life, as outlined in the account read by Senator Cullinane, it would be a great step.

I was fortunate to visit, along with other members of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality, the open prison system in Finland to see how it deals with crime, prison and restorative justice. It has a similar population to Ireland and has 1,000 fewer people in prison. Its open prison system is something we should examine more closely as is the way those interested in reforming their lives and rehabilitation can go back to college. The concept pursued in particular by the former Minister, Michael McDowell, of building a superprison to lock everybody up might give the notion to society that we are tackling crime, but in effect building extra prison spaces goes in the wrong direction. It is like some of the work done by the Minister of State in the area of mental health. It was a very brave decision to place people in communities rather than in grey forlorn terrible buildings sometimes for years on end. We are making progress; it is not a utopia but we are going in the right direction. In this regard I support the previous speakers on the thrust of their debate.

Senator van Turnhout seeks a period of two years. There should be consensus and a middle ground. Perhaps the guillotine should not be brought down on this aspect of the legislation as it might be worth considering on Report Stage. Almost everybody who has spoken on the Bill in the House is primarily in agreement with the thrust of the legislation. The idea of the Bill is a great concept and I am also of this view. We are being overcautious and we should be a little braver. It would be better for society if we moved in the direction suggested by Senators van Turnhout and Cullinane.

I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on the Bill. I also apologise for missing the Minister of State's opening comments. When will the Bill be enacted? I know of a family that has been devastated by a spent conviction not being eradicated. It is a very small public order offence that the then 19 year old son acquired. When he was 30 years old he applied for a visa to Canada to practice his new career but was refused due to the outstanding conviction. He simply kicked a football across a roundabout late at night but the gardaí saw him and the matter led to a court case. He said nothing to his family and paid a fine but ten years later the matter came back to haunt him. It is not a prison sentence but a public order offence. It may have been the result of the folly of youth, freakish or accidental.

I wish to note that there is a difference between categories of convictions. I concur with comments made by Senator O'Donovan about the appropriateness of sentences and the rehabilitation of prisoners. He also wondered if we rehabilitate prisoners appropriately. I disagree with the idea of super-prisons. It is much more important to have early intervention at community level. If one asks people who work with children from a young age they will say that they know who will be in trouble later. When Sally Shields was president of the Irish National Teachers Organisation in 1996, she put a similar statement on record. There is a pattern when it comes to families that get into difficulty early. When there was a crime outbreak in Limerick, I remember a mother who said that her son, who went on to offend, hung a greyhound on a gate when he was eight years of age. There definitely is a pattern so we must invest in early intervention. Obviously my comments are unrelated to the Bill but still are relevant. I want prisoners to be rehabilitated appropriately to ensure they do not reoffend when released.

The percentage of re-offending is extremely high here. I examined the figures some time ago but I cannot repeat them. However, the statistics show that the prison format does not work adequately. Perhaps the Minister of State will tell us the timeframe for the Bill and when it will be enacted. That would be most welcome.

I welcome the evolving debate but much of what has been raised by previous speakers is more substantive than the amendments. We are putting in place a new concept. Like all legislation one does not necessarily get it right the first time around. The proposal of a spent conviction facility is a new departure and will make a genuine difference to many people. Senator Healy Eames mentioned one case. At Christmas I had a query from a young gentleman who was convicted for stealing a bag of chips. The conviction caused him problems when it came to gaining employment. I hope that the matter can be resolved.

I will take my counsel from the Minister of State once she replies, as we have to do politically on this side of the House. At a minimum we should say to our colleagues who tabled the amendments and other interested parties that the legislation, both here and in the other House, is not a tablet of stone but is open to review. If in 18 months, two years or three years the legislation is found to be good but not as good as it could or might be, we could reflect further on the timeframes.

To go from no spent conviction to a four year proposal is a jump too far here in this cautious place of legislative progress. However, it is difficult to dismiss what Senator van Turnhout has said about the two year period. I shall wear my Government side of the House cap again and say that I will listen to the Minister of State but we must we willing to progress the matter further. It was interesting to hear the comments made by my colleagues on Finland. They are lucky to have travelled there.

We need to debate law and order and prison policy but we only do that when there is a crisis after a major crime outrage. I am not talking about the recent tragedy where a garda was murdered. Following an increase in robberies we usually have a debate on crime and the resultant analysis is to throw away the key. On other occasions we reflect on the Finnish or other systems. Such a rolling debate needs to take place in a calmer environment. The statistics show that there is a high rate of re-offending in Ireland which is proof that the prison system needs to be amended. Today we are dealing with the singular issue of a spent conviction. I hope that the Minister of State will respond generously to the amendment, particularly to the cautious amendment tabled by Senator van Turnhout. I am not saying that Senator Cullinane's amendment is wild but we cannot go from zero to four years in one move. That is not how it happens here.

A period of 30 months is not four years.

I apologise to the Senator. I read it but mistook the proposal as being four years. We should be willing to keep the matter firmly on the table for review and to make changes if we discover that the system is not working as well as it should.

Senator Healy Eames asked about the introduction date for the Bill. We know the offence to which the proposal applies, the 12 month maximum prison sentence. The Garda can award cautions to people, which is a relatively new and effective facility. Does the legislation apply to cautions? Do cautions remain on a person's record?

Report Stage is scheduled for next Tuesday and it is normally followed by the Fifth and final Stage. The Department hopes the Bill will be enacted as soon as possible and no one wishes to delay it.

I will read out the lengthy official response as it explains the reasoning behind the Government's position. As Senator Bradford has rightly pointed out, the proposal is not entirely new. The rest of civilised society has it and we have waited a long time for it. I am glad to know that nobody has seriously objected to the provisions. The comments have been recorded by my officials. The Bill as published has been substantially amended and I shall get to that later on. I know the Minister is open to the type of interaction that occurs when debating legislation.

The Government has given a lot of consideration to the length of custodial sentences to be covered by the Bill. This arises in the definition of "excluded sentence" where we exclude sentences above a certain length, and in the definition of a "relevant custodial sentence" where the Bill lists the range of custodial sentences covered by legislation.

As Members will know, the United Kingdom has recently amended its legislation to provide that sentences of up to four years are covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. Some say that should be the benchmark for us when devising our scheme. Senator van Turnhout and Sinn Féin have settled on two years and 30 months, respectively.

It is worth saying that the UK legislation is now probably the most liberal in the common law world. Meanwhile, what we are proposing, compared to Australia and New Zealand, is at the more liberal end of the spectrum. In most Australian states, only prison sentences of six months or less are covered, while in New Zealand no one who is sentenced to imprisonment can benefit from their corresponding legislation. It is worth recalling also that the genesis of this legislation was the highly regarded Law Reform Commission report on spent convictions. The report recommended that only sentences of six months or less should be covered.

In preparing the legislation the Government decided to go the extra mile and cover sentences of up to 12 months. However, the Government is not prepared to go further than this. The 12-month cut-off covers almost 90% of all custodial sentences handed down by the courts in Ireland. That is worth keeping in mind. By any yardstick a regime that allows that proportion of custodial sentences to become spent is generous.

It is for these reasons that the Government is not in a position to accept Senator van Turnhout's amendments Nos. 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 15, which seek to increase the length of custodial sentence covered by the Bill to two years. Nor can we accept Sinn Féin's amendments Nos. 4 and 6, which seek to increase the length of custodial sentence covered by the legislation from the 12 months contained in the Bill to 30 months.

The length of sentence covered by this legislation must be balanced by the length of time that a person must remain conviction free before a conviction becomes spent. We will be discussing Government amendments shortly that significantly reduce the waiting period in the Bill. That is where the Government has decided to adjust the balance in the Bill. The Government is satisfied that taking together the length of sentence covered and the waiting period, the scheme represents a fair balance that will benefit the vast majority of offenders who want to get on with their lives.

I take on board what Senators Cullinane and Healy Eames have said. We have all had experience of people not being able to move on in their chosen professions or to emigrate.

As regards Government amendments Nos. 5 and 17, having reviewed the sentences covered by the Bill and having considered various representations made, the Minister has decided to amend the provisions concerning suspended sentences to provide that sentences of up to 24 months, which are suspended in whole, and while the suspension is not subsequently revoked, are covered by the legislation. Therefore, people who get a suspended sentence of 24 months will now be covered. We are doing this primarily to recognise that suspended sentences should be distinguished from custodial sentences.

The Bill, as published, treats a suspended sentence of more than 12 months the same as a custodial sentence of more than 12 months. In limiting the length of suspended sentences to two years, the Government is conscious that the length of a sentence is intended to reflect the gravity of the offence, and that sentences may be suspended for a variety of reasons that do not take away from the seriousness of the crime. To give effect to the change in the approach to suspended sentences, amendment No. 5 amends the definition of "excluded sentence" to remove the reference to suspended sentences.

Amendment No. 17 is both a Government amendment and an amendment put forward by Senator van Turnhout. It seeks to amend paragraph (a) of the definition of "non-custodial sentences" to increase the length of suspended sentence covered by the Bill from 12 to two years.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I wish to speak briefly on the principle of the amendments. We covered this in some detail on Second Stage, but I appreciate the opportunity to raise this matter again. I am grateful to the Irish Penal Reform Trust and the Mercy Law Resource Centre, which made submissions to us on the issue calling for more liberal provisions concerning the sentences that would be covered. The Minister of State's response reflects what was said at second stage about the vast majority of sentences being covered. We all very much welcome the increase to 12 months, given that the Law Reform Commission recommended a much more conservative sentence length of six months.

I am pleased to see in the Government schedule that the waiting period will be reduced. That answers the concerns many of us had. In particular, where somebody is sentenced to six months or less it will go down from five to four years, and in the case of 12 months or less it will go down from six to five years. That is of practical import to people. We have to bear in mind that the vast bulk of sentences are short, which in itself says something about our penal system that is worthy of debate on another day.

I thank the Minister of State for her response and also the Government Senators who spoke. I found myself agreeing with almost all of what Senator Bradford said in his thoughtful contribution. The approach that is being taken - and Senator Bradford's contribution is a manifestation of it, in some respects - is a little bit too cautious. I want to restate the position because we need to reduce re-offending. I think we would all accept that, but this measure is only one part of it. There is much we must do within the prison system itself. There are many sitting and former prison governors who have progressive views on what should happen. They would also see this as just part of the process, albeit an important one.

I cited the example of an individual who was involved in community work. He was a community leader who graduated from college and runs a skills course for young offenders. That was the individual I cited in terms of that contribution. It demonstrates the issues which exist there. Striking a balance is very important. If we are too conservative we will end up fixing the problem for the person who stole a bag of chips or the young person who threw a football across a roundabout, but it does not fix many of the other problems concerning Senator Bradford's central point. Those individuals were not in prison and will not be re-offending. I want to encourage those people back into employment.

I would like to put on the record some figures that demonstrate that having a conviction - even if it is an old one - does have an impact. Studies have indicated that 48% of employers would not take on somebody with a criminal record. The Small Firms' Association has indicated that between 76% and 87% of firms would not employ an ex-offender. During a contribution on Second Stage, Senator Quinn - who has experience as an employer - also raised that concern.

I appreciate the point made by Senator Bradford and the Government that this is a new departure. Like any new departure, I agree with being cautious when we consider doing something new and different. However, we may be just a little bit too cautious. We can revisit this matter again but I think we are being overly cautious. We will miss the point as regards the purpose of this Bill concerning people who have custodial sentences. It will cover people up to a certain point in terms of 12-month convictions, but it will not cover people who might have a number of small offences and the combined total may be over 12 months. Where does that leave them? They may have committed a number of minor offences when they were in a particular phase of their lives when they were young. They may have exceeded the 12 months but they are in a different place now. That is the argument that has been made by the Irish Penal Reform Trust.

In fairness, the current Minister for Justice and Equality has shown himself to be a liberal Minister who listens and engages with this House constructively on many Bills. The Personal Insolvency Bill was the latest example where Seanad amendments were accepted.

They were re-tabled as Government amendments but nonetheless the thrust of the opposition amendments was accepted.

As regards the Bill now before us, I regret that we are sticking to the conservative approach. That should not take away from the fact, however, that this is a good first step and one which I hope will improve the situation.

I thank the Minister of State for her response. It is good that we are all broadly in strong support of the Bill, although we are trying to make it that little bit better. It is good to have such a constructive atmosphere for this debate. There was only one comment with which I did not agree - it referred to recidivism rates in Ireland. In 2008, a report by UCD's Institute of Criminology, which examined re-offending after more than four years, found that Ireland was in the mid to lower rates of recidivism compared to similar countries internationally.

While I still believe we are being too cautious, I will reflect on what was said. Although I will not move the amendments I have tabled under this grouping today, I reserve the right to bring them back on Report Stage.

Sometimes, no matter how one wishes to address particular issues, one must also be conscious of what is the public mood at any particular time. I was glad to hear Senator Cullinane observe the Minister with overall responsibility probably is one of the most liberal. In addition, he does not assume that he knows all things or that no one else has reasonable or good suggestions and he has demonstrated this in what he has done. I agree with Senator van Turnhout in respect of the recidivism issue and am glad she brought it up as after four years, there is very little of it. However, people who come out of prison after a 12-month period and re-offend are not yet at a point in their lives at which they themselves are prepared to move on and this has absolutely nothing to do with a spent conviction. Members are discussing a different category of individual and in some cases, such an individual is someone who did something very foolish, perhaps minor, at a certain point in their lives but who has not been able to move on thereafter. I believe we are talking about two entirely different categories of people and this legislation is not set in stone - no legislation ever is. Let us see how this legislation and other items of legislation work. I am sure the Minister will take note of the comments made and will be in a position to respond on Report Stage. It is not an issue to which we cannot return, as we can, but I believe we are talking about two entirely different categories and we should not get them mixed up.

I have a little experience, when acting on behalf of constituents, in respect of the issue of people applying for visas to other countries. Ireland cannot control what is the law in any other country and consequently, regardless of the existence of spent conviction legislation here, when one wishes to visit a country that needs to know all one's convictions, one must then disclose them despite possibly being within the category of spent convictions. There is very little that can be done about this because Ireland cannot control the demands of other countries.

Is amendment No. 3 being pressed?

No, but I reserve the right to bring it back on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Is amendment No. 4, which already has been discussed, being pressed?

No, it is the same. I will withdraw the amendment and resubmit it on Report Stage.

Amendment No. 4 not moved.
Government amendment No. 5:
In page 5, to delete lines 32 and 33 and substitute the following:
“unless it is a sentence specified in paragraph (a) of the definition of “relevant non-custodial sentence”,”.
Amendment agreed to.

Is amendment No. 6, which already has been discussed, being pressed?

No, I will withdraw the amendment to resubmit it on Report Stage.

Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.

Amendments Nos. 8 and 12 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Government amendment No. 8:
In page 6, line 10, to delete “in respect of the offence”.

Amendments Nos. 8 and 12 are minor drafting amendments. Amendment No. 8 deletes the phrase "in respect of the offence", which is unnecessary as it is used in the introductory part of the definition. Amendment No 12 inserts the phrase "for a period specified by" for consistency between paragraphs (b) and (d) of this definition.

Amendment No. 13 not moved.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 9 to 11, inclusive, not moved.
Government amendment No. 12:
In page 6, line 18, to delete “by” and substitute “for a period specified by”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 14:
In page 6, line 23, to delete “or” where it secondly occurs.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 15 not moved.
Government amendment No. 16:
In page 6, line 27, to delete “by the court;” and substitute the following:
“by the court, or
(f) a sentence of imprisonment for a term of 12 months or less which is imposed on the person in relation to the offence following a revocation under section 8 or 11, as the case may be, of the Criminal Justice (Community Service) Act 1983 of a community service order in respect of the offence;”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 17:
In page 6, line 32, to delete “12 months” and substitute “2 years”.

I note this amendment also was tabled by Senator van Turnhout.

Yes, this is my amendment.

Government amendment No. 18:

In page 6, to delete lines 39 to 41 and substitute the following:

“(d) a community service order made by a court that—

(i) is not revoked, or

(ii) if revoked under section 8 or 11, as the case may be, of the Criminal Justice (Community Service) Act 1983, is not replaced by a custodial sentence,

or”.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 31 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Government amendment No. 19:
In page 7, to delete lines 4 and 5 and substitute the following:
“(a) any work or activity specified in Part 1 or 2 of Schedule 1 to the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012,
(b) any employment, activity or service specified in Schedule 3, or”.

The Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions) Bill is closely related to the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012 that was enacted before Christmas. In respect of children and vulnerable persons, the Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions) Bill requires that any person wishing to work with such persons must disclose all past convictions, including any that would otherwise be spent under the Bill, if asked to do so. Similarly, under the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act, a vetting disclosure is required where an organisation wishes to employ a person to work with children or vulnerable adults. Rather than replicating many of the requirements of the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act in the Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions) Bill, as is currently the case, the Government proposes to link the two items of legislation in order that the same requirements apply to both.

This is being done in section 1 through amendments Nos. 19 and 20, by amending the definition of "relevant work" to provide for the link to Schedule 1 to the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012, which lists relevant work for the purposes of that Act. Amendment No. 20 deletes the definition of "vulnerable person", as this was required for the purpose of Part 2 of Schedule 3, while not in the proposed amendment to Schedule 3, to which Members will come later in respect of amendment No. 35. Amendment No. 31 deletes paragraphs (h) and (i) of section 10(1) dealing with the disclosure required by a person registering for the carrying on of an approved centre under the Mental Health Act 2001 or a designated centre under the Health Act 2007. The disclosure requirements for these registrations are contained in the Schedule to the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act and there is no need to replicate them here, now that the two legislative items are being linked.

While I fully support these amendments, I seek clarity in respect of consistency in the Bill. Do Parts 1 and 2 of Schedule 3 to the Bill about "relevant work" still stand? While I agree with the Government's proposal that they should be removed from the Bill because the matter is addressed in the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act, when I look to Schedule 3 on relevant work, I note the definition is repeated. I seek clarification in this regard.

No, they will not stand.

I take the Minister of State's point that when working with children or vulnerable groups, a disclosure of previous convictions must take place although they may be spent. How can one ensure this would not go against a candidate at interview, if possible?

Basically, the Government is not asking that this be done under this legislation but under the vetting legislation.

That is a fair point.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 20:
In page 7, to delete lines 16 to 29.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 2

Amendments Nos. 21 to 23, inclusive, are related and amendment No. 23 is an alternative to amendment No. 22 so they will be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 8, to delete lines 27 to 33.

I support all of these amendments but amendment No. 21 is the amendment that Sinn Féin tabled. We want to ensure the limitation on two convictions being classified as spent is removed.

I referred earlier to someone who might have more than two convictions not being able to qualify for this. A number of separate convictions may be recorded for one event, particularly when considered under the provision in section 2(2)(e) that only two convictions can be considered spent for any one individual. The Irish Penal Reform Trust pointed in its submission that the operation of the system of prosecution of offences in Ireland means that often one act may constitute a number of different offences and, furthermore, a number of different but connected charges may be brought forward with regard to the same incident and the example was given of a public order and criminal damage offence, or driving without tax and other road traffic offences.

The principle that any person who has demonstrated his or her good behaviour and character by the completion of a rehabilitation period should benefit from the proposed spent conviction regime is at the heart of the Bill before the House. Anyone seeking to benefit from the scheme on more than two occasions would have qualified through lengthy rehabilitation periods on each occasion. The IPRT sees no reason why in such exceptional circumstances an individual should not be able to benefit from the Bill on a third or subsequent occasion, given that previous convictions will have been taken into account at the point of sentence.

The trust gives a human example, which is always the best way to give us a flavour of what sort of situations can arise. It outlines how more than 30 years ago, when Conor was just over 18 years of age, he reversed into another car in the carpark of a local disco as he was leaving a dance. He was uninsured and did not remain at the scene. The damage was minor, he broke his rear lens and damaged the wing of the other person's car. He fully compensated the other person but at court he was convicted on three charges: section 106 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, failure to stop at the scene of an accident - three months disqualification; section 53 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, dangerous driving - the licence was endorsed; and section 56 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, no insurance - the licence was endorsed. He has only been in court once, as a defendant on this issue. He said himself that because he had only one court appearance, albeit with three charges, he is being treated less favourably than someone who committed three separate offences. He would be delighted if there was some extra recognition for someone who only had one court appearance or transgression in their entire lifetime. Today he is a working PAYE employee of a large company and contributes to the local community through his work for the local group water scheme and other local bodies. He is still, however, seen as a criminal as this Bill stands and that depresses him.

That is a human example and it makes sense. This is someone who was a victim of the fact that because of the legislation and the criminal act that covered the circumstances under which he found himself, there happened to be three separate convictions arising from just one incident. He cannot have all of those convictions expunged if the Bill goes through. It demonstrates the conservatism of the Bill and the technical issues that were not taken into account.

We agree on this issue. The fact the new spent conviction arrangements would not apply to multiple convictions arising from a single offence or incident was raised on Second Stage. Today's amendments Nos. 22 and 23 seek to address that. I felt there was a danger that combining convictions of this nature could have had the effect of combining two minor sentences into a more serious sentence, thus taking all of the convictions out of the remit of the Bill. I do not believe that is what the Minister intended and my amendment was submitted to avoid that unintentional pitfall.

I am glad to see the Government itself recognises the need for clarity around the single incident, multiple conviction scenario. I am happy to support the Government amendment but, with respect, I would like the Government to look at the wording in my amendment because, in this case, it is particularly good wording. The Minister might say I would say that but I have taken advice today on it, although I am happy to support the Government amendment.

We all know people like the person outlined in Senator Cullinane's contribution but the Sinn Féin amendment seeks to remove the two conviction limit from the legislation altogether. The Government has made it clear from the start that the legislation is aimed at the person who makes a mistake, perhaps in his youth, and who now wants to get on with his life. There is no argument there. It is not, however, a charter for criminality. It is based on the premise that people deserve a second or third chance. It does not envisage an open-ended, rolling spending of convictions throughout someone's life. It is legislation for those people who contact our clinics every day who ran foul of the law in their youth and feel it has the potential to stand against them when looking for a job. They want to put it behind them and the legislation is intended to assist those people. They are not career criminals.

Sinn Féin's amendment would not provide a deterrent to criminality but would, and I accept this is not the intention, hold out the prospect that no matter how often a person offends, a day will come in the future where his convictions will be spent. That is not in the interest of the offender or society.

We want people to stop committing crimes. We do not want to see further re-offending and we want to assist in discouraging recidivism. The limit on the number of convictions that can become spent makes a positive contribution to rehabilitation and reintegration. It is for those reasons that the Government cannot accept the amendment to remove the cap on the number of convictions that may become spent under the Bill.

Government amendment No. 22 makes an exception to the two conviction rule and Senator van Turnhout has also tabled an amendment to this effect. A person can be convicted of more than one offence at one sitting of the court but section 2(2)(e) of the Bill provides that a person can have no more than two spent convictions. Situations arise, however, quite regularly where a number of convictions are handed down at one court sitting related to disparate aspects of one incident. A person who comes to the notice of the gardaí while intoxicated may be charged with and convicted of a number of public order offences. Equally, a person may be convicted of a number of road traffic offences related to one encounter with the gardaí. The intent of the two conviction rule in section 2(2)(e) is to allow someone to have two chances. Without this amendment, for many people the Act would not provide even one chance as they would have to declare a third and subsequent conviction for the same offence, thus making largely irrelevant the non-disclosure of the two spent convictions. Senator van Turnhout's amendment No. 23 has the same intent as the Government amendment and I hope she will support it. The amendment allows that in the event all of the convictions are handed down in one sitting, they are treated as one conviction.

I listened to the Minister of State's response and will withdraw amendment No. 21 to give us time to reflect on her remarks and to come back with an amendment that might better reflect my contribution. Our core argument is that a minor, or even relatively serious offence, such as the example I gave, can lead to three separate charges.

That issue is more pertinent than the matter addressed by the Minister of State. Perhaps it would be preferable to withdraw the amendment and submit a reworded amendment on Report Stage.

If the amendment had been drafted differently, it would still have had unintended consequences which we could not possibly allow.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 22:
In page 8, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following subsection:
“(4) Where, in any proceedings before a court, a person is convicted of more than one offence (irrespective of whether those offences were committed on different dates) and the court, in passing sentence, imposes on that day, more than one relevant sentence in respect of those offences—
(a) the relevant sentences imposed shall, for the purposes of this Act, be regarded as being in respect of a single conviction, and
(b) where the relevant periods that apply to those sentences differ, the relevant period that applies to the conviction shall be the longer or longest, as the case may be, of those periods.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 23 not moved.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 3 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 7
Government amendment No. 24:
In page 10, lines 22 to 45, to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following:
“(1) Section 5 shall not apply where—
(a) a requirement is made of a person to disclose any previous convictions or the circumstances ancillary thereto—
(i) in any interview of the person conducted by a member of the Garda Síochána following the arrest of that person in connection with the investigation of an offence,
(ii) in respect of an application by the person—
(I) to enter, be or remain in the State, or
(II) for Irish citizenship,
or
(iii) in respect of any application pursuant to, or any investigation under, Part 3 of the Central Bank Reform Act 2010.
(2) A person who is convicted of fraud, deceit or dishonesty in respect of a claim under a policy of insurance or a policy of assurance shall not be excused under section 5 from disclosing any such conviction on any insurance proposal or form or any assurance proposal or form, as the case may be.”.

I point out a typographical error in the amendment. The (a) on line 1 of page 4 is superfluous and should be deleted, with the subparagraph renumbered accordingly.

In the first instance, the amendment is designed to limit the disclosure required in respect of insurance fraud to convictions relating to such fraud. The Bill, as drafted, would require a person who had been convicted of insurance fraud to disclose all convictions if asked to do so when applying for an insurance or assurance policy. The new subsection (2) provides that a person asked about his or her convictions would not have to disclose any spent convictions other than a conviction for insurance fraud, etc., thus limiting the disclosure requirement.

Second, the amendment provides in section 7(1) that a person making an application under the immigrant legislation must disclose all convictions if asked to do so. Third, the amendment also removes subsection (1)(b)(iii) relating to the Child Care Act 1991, subsequential to the linking of this Bill to Schedule 1 of the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act, which the House discussed, as the requirements regarding foster care and adoption are covered by that Act.

Is it agreed that I may direct the Clerk to correct the typographical error in the amendment? Agreed.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
NEW SECTION

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 11, before section 9, to insert the following new section:

“9.—Convictions obtained outside of the State, that would for the purposes of the provisions of this legislation be considered “spent” were they obtained within the State shall be considered spent convictions.”.

The purpose of the new section is to specify the disclosure required for relevant work, in particular public service employment. There are, under the legislation, specific categories of work which require disclosure of convictions that are spent and it also provides a power to identify other such categories. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure this provision is watertight, unnecessary disclosure does not occur and employers, under the section, are not in a position to circumvent the legislation. The amendment essentially aims to ensure that sensitive data are not disclosed, other than where absolutely necessary.

Generally speaking, unless states have reciprocal arrangements for the recognition of spent convictions, they do not recognise spent convictions in their respective jurisdictions. This is done for good reason, namely, that penal systems vary greatly around the world and that which merits a lenient sentence in one country may merit a harsh sentence in another country and vice versa. The legislation defines the word "conviction" in section 1 as conviction by a court, while "court" is defined as any court in the State. This clearly locates in this State the regime provided for in the Bill. For these reasons, the Government cannot accept the amendment.

One must be extremely careful in respect of people entering the State, even if this could be considered to be a conservative position. However, we also wish to welcome people who come here to make a contribution in good faith and with clean hands. Equally, we must ensure we have available to us all information related to crimes committed in other countries.

SECTION 9

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Government amendment No. 26:
In page 12, subsection (5), line 18, after “position” to insert “that involves relevant work”.

Amendment No. 26 is being inserted for the avoidance of doubt. It is possible to read section 9(5) as requiring anyone moving between any of two positions with the same employer to disclose any spent conviction, if asked. Instead, what is intended is that this only applies where a person is moving to relevant work, as defined in the Bill, with the same employer. For example, it may be the case that one public service employer may have certain positions that are designated as relevant work and other positions that are not so designated. A person moving into relevant work would have to disclose all past convictions if requested to do so, whereas a person moving from one area that was not relevant work to a similar area would not have to disclose any spent convictions. In other words, if a person is moving from one employer to another to do the same work and such work is not covered in the Schedule, the person should not be asked to disclose spent convictions.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 12, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following subsection:

“(7) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, all persons shall be precluded from making specific requests in order to secure information regarding spent convictions so as not to circumvent this legislation.”.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 9, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Perhaps I should have spoken when Senator Cullinane moved amendment No. 27. I listened to the Minister of State's response to Senator Cullinane's amendment and it may be that the matter I raise has been addressed previously in this debate or on Second Stage. The rules that apply to spent convictions in Britain are probably more relevant than the position that obtains in Australia, New Zealand and other countries. If a person who has benefited from spent conviction provisions in the United Kingdom enters this country, will his or her conviction be automatically considered spent?

The Minister of State refused to accept amendment No. 25 on the basis that it referred to persons entering the country who had a spent conviction in this country. What is the position regarding a person entering the country from Britain who had a conviction deemed to be spent in the UK? Would that conviction also be deemed spent in this country if it came within the ambit of our spent conviction legislation? This scenario, which probably applies to a small number of cases, is different from the scenario highlighted by Senator Cullinane as it refers to people in Britain whose convictions have been deemed spent. What is the Irish position regarding British spent convictions?

Senator Bradford raises an interesting point. My interpretation is that if a conviction for a relatively minor offence committed in the United Kingdom were considered spent, the record against the person in question should be obliterated or expunged and if a check or trace were done on the person in question, it should find that the person does not have a conviction.

If one does a check or trace on that person, it should find the person does not have a conviction, otherwise the notion of spent convictions would create major difficulties for Irish citizens going to America or elsewhere. I am talking about minor offences. I knew a person of very good character to whom I gave references when going to America. He was a very decent hard-working fellow but there was a family bereavement and on the night of funeral, he was caught on the way home after having a few pints. Nowadays, it is all on record with the PULSE system but at that time, there was no record in the barracks of a conviction. If there had been, he would not have been able to get a green card. He is now happily married in California and is a very upright citizen. He has been there for many years.

If a person comes here from the UK and if he or she has a spent conviction there, we should not be able to trace that record. Perhaps my thought process is not clear but it is an interesting point. I do not expect the Minister of State to have all the answers tonight and we can deal with it again on Report Stage but it is an interesting aspect.

I should apologise in that I spoke to amendment No. 27 in my last contribution and not to amendment No. 25. Senator Bradford raised the point I would have raised. It had more to do with the UK. Unfortunately, we have a Border on this island and people from the North may have convictions which may be spent in the North but which may not be spent here. We would argue for equal treatment for equal offences and equal convictions. The purpose of this amendment is to cover all of that. I await the Minister of State's response.

We had this discussion at the start. We cannot control what other countries demand of people who wish to live there and they cannot control what we do. The reason we have differences, in terms of lengths of time and length of convictions covered, is that different jurisdictions treat things differently. An offence in another country, which we may consider very serious, may well be treated very leniently there. That is an issue.

We should never rule ourselves out of the equation where we could not ask for the criminal record of someone who we suspect of having a criminal past. Even if it is a spent conviction, it may be something we have not covered in our law. We need to keep that in mind. We need to know that if a conviction is spent in another jurisdiction, it will not be automatically be accepted in this country as being spent. That is case in other countries which have this legislation, no matter how liberal or restrictive.

In regard to amendment No. 27, the Minister is considering bringing forward amendments on Report Stage to further streamline the provision in section 9 relating to the process by which additional relevant work is brought within the ambit of the Bill. I think that is the point Senator Cullinane made earlier.

The Bill already contains a number of safeguards in regard to requests for information in the first instance. Under section 5, a person cannot be required to disclose a spent conviction or the circumstances ancillary thereto. Section 5(2) states that where a person is asked about a previous conviction, he or she may regard the question as not applying to his or her spent conviction in certain areas of work, provided they are not in the Schedule which determines he or she must.

Furthermore under section 11, where a person seeks his or her own criminal record - that is sometimes the case when a person is applying for a job where the employer may not be in a position to get the information - the Garda Síochána is required to provide the record in two parts, one with the spent convictions and the other with the non-spent convictions, if any. Where a person only has spent convictions, he or she can provide the requester with a clean record. Again, it is a major safeguard in terms of how people are treated at interview. Unfortunately, in the circumstances, the Government is not in a position to accept the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 10

Amendments Nos. 28 to 30, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Government amendment No. 28:
In page 12, subsection (1), between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:
"(d) for an authorisation as a driver tester within the meaning of Regulation 3 (1) of the Road Traffic (Licensing of Drivers) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 537
of 2006),".

Amendment No. 28 provides that a person applying for an authorisation as a driving tester must disclose all convictions. The relevant regulations had not been commenced when the Bill was published last May but were commenced recently. Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 are minor drafting amendments to take account of the insertion of new paragraph (b).

Government amendment No. 29:

In page 12, subsection (1)(f), line 39, after "2009," to insert "or".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 30:
In page 12, subsection (1)(g), line 41, to delete "Ireland," and substitute "Ireland.".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 31:
In page 12, subsection (1), lines 42 to 45, to delete paragraphs (h) and (i).
Amendment agreed to.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 11 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
SCHEDULE 1
Government amendment No. 32:
In page 15, paragraph 4, line 10, to delete "more than 24 months older" and substitute "not more than 24 months older".

Amendment No. 32 corrects a drafting error. The word "not" was omitted in error from paragraph (4) of Part 1 of Schedule 1. The offence under section 3 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 of defilement of a child under the age of 17 provides that where the person over 17 is not more than 24 months older than the person under 17, the person may not be subject to the provision of the Sexual Offenders Act 2001. Paragraphs (2) to (4), inclusive, of Part 1 of Schedule 1 set out the circumstances in which certain sexual offences are not to be considered as such for the purpose of the Act and can consequently become spent.

As drafted the paragraph makes no sense as it would allow cases where there was an age difference of more than two years to become spent while not allowing cases where the age difference was less than two years to become spent. This is clearly not the intention and the amendment rectifies the position.

Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SCHEDULES

Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 are alternatives and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Government amendment No. 33:
In page 17, before Schedule 2, to insert the following new Schedule:
SCHEDULE 2
PART 1
Relevant Custodial Sentences

Reference number

(1)

Sentence imposed

(2)

Duration of relevant period

(3)

1.

Term of imprisonment of 6 months or less.

4 years

2.

Term of imprisonment of 12 months or less but more than 6 months.

5 years

3.

Term of imprisonment of 6 months or less which is suspended in whole but which suspension is subsequently revoked resulting in any period of imprisonment.

4 years

4.

Term of imprisonment of 12 months or less but more than 6 months which is suspended in whole but which suspension is subsequently revoked resulting in any period of imprisonment.

5 years

5.

Term of imprisonment of 6 months or less which is suspended in part.

4 years

6.

Term of imprisonment of 12 months or less but more than 6 months which is suspended in part.

5 years

7.

Term of imprisonment imposed in one or more consecutive sentences not exceeding 6 months in total.

4 years

8.

Term of imprisonment imposed in one or more consecutive sentences not exceeding 12 months but more than 6 months in total.

5 years

9.

Term of imprisonment imposed in one or more concurrent sentences, the longer or longest of which does not exceed 6 months.

4 years

10.

Term of imprisonment imposed in one or more concurrent sentences, the longer or longest of which does not exceed 12 months but is more than 6 months.

5 years

11.

Term of imprisonment of 6 months or less where community service order is revoked.

4 years

12.

Term of imprisonment of 12 months or less but more than 6 months where community service order is revoked.

5 years

13.

Fine and any of the sentences mentioned at paragraphs 1 to 12.

relevant period that applies to the custodial part of the sentence concerned

PART 2
Relevant Non-Custodial Sentences

Reference number

(1)

Sentence imposed

(2)

Duration of relevant period

(3)

1.

Term of imprisonment of 12 months or less which is suspended for a specified period and which suspension is not subsequently revoked in whole or in part.

3 years

or the period of suspension specified by the court, whichever is the longer

2.

Term of imprisonment of 2 years or less but more than 12 months which is suspended for a specified period and which suspension is not subsequently revoked in whole or in part.

4 years

or the period of suspension specified by the court, whichever is the longer

3.

Fine not exceeding the maximum amount that can be imposed as a Class A fine.

2 years

4.

Fine exceeding the maximum amount that can be imposed as a Class A fine.

3 years

5.

Community service order imposed on a person as an alternative to a sentence of imprisonment for a term of 12 months or less considered by the court at the time of the making of the order which—

(a) is not subsequently revoked by the court, or

(b) if revoked, is not replaced by a custodial sentence.

2 years

6.

Community service order imposed on a person as an alternative to a sentence of imprisonment for a term of more than 12 months considered by the court at the time of the making of the order which—

(a) is not subsequently revoked by the court, or

(b) if revoked, is not replaced by a custodial sentence.

3 years

7.

Any other relevant non-custodial sentence.

2 years

Having listened to the arguments made in the House and by interested parties outside it, the Minister has decided to reduce the maximum relevant or waiting period by two years from seven to five years and to make consequential changes to all other relevant periods so that the minimum time a person must wait before a spent conviction becomes spent will be just two years. I think most people will welcome that.

It is important to put this into context. The most widely employed criminal sanction in our judicial system is the fine. The average fine handed down by the courts in Ireland is €300 while half are less than €200. The overwhelming majority of fines are for less than €5,000. The reduction in the relevant period for fines of less than €5,000 means that for the vast majority of people convicted in Irish courts, their convictions will be spent after two years.

The opportunity presented by the change to the maximum waiting period is being availed of to reduce the number of different classifications of sentences for the purpose of Schedule 2, where custodial sentences and fines are concerned. In the case of fines, there are only two categories, above and below a class A fine, currently €5,000 in the case of custodial sentence. There are also two categories, above and below six months. The change in relevant periods is a major change in the provisions of the Bill. It is a change that is consistent with the Government's general approach to this legislation, which is to make it as accessible as possible and to the benefit of the greatest number of people. No one would argue that a waiting period of two years from the date of a conviction for a community service order imposed instead of a prison sentence of up to six months is excessive or punitive. Indeed, it is worth contrasting the proposal here for a four year waiting period for a six month sentence with the Law Reform Commission's proposal for a seven year waiting period for the same sentence and the ten year waiting period in operation in Australia.

The descriptions of community service orders at paragraphs 5 and 6 of Part 2 of Schedule 2 are amended to take account of the changes already made to the definition of "relevant non-custodial sentences". I hope it is clear that a lot of thought has gone into devising a balanced proposal vis-à-vis both the length of sentence covered by the Bill and the associated relevant periods. I also hope it is clear that the Minister has taken on board many of the comments made in this House and elsewhere and has significantly amended the Bill in the context of suspended sentences and waiting periods.

Senator van Turnhout's proposed amendment No. 34 obviously reflects her earlier amendments designed to increase the length of sentence covered by the Bill. I hope she will agree that the Minister's amendments move the Bill a long way towards her position and, in some cases, for example, where a six-month sentence is imposed, there is an overlap between her position and that of the Government. Having said that, given that her earlier amendments on the length of sentences to be covered by the Bill were not accepted, it is not possible to accept her amendment.

I thank the Minister of State for her reply. Obviously, the overall rationale for my amendment is that the original rehabilitative periods put forward in this Bill of five to seven years for relevant custodial sentences and three to five years for relevant non-custodial sentences were too long. The Government's own amendment, which reduces these periods to four to five years and two to four years, respectively, is very welcome but in my opinion is too conservative. Nevertheless, I welcome these changes and am supportive of them.

I wish to draw the Minister of State's attention, once again, to the explanatory memorandum that accompanied the publication of the Bill which sets out the main purpose of the Bill as being "to assist the rehabilitation of offenders, who often experience difficulties securing employment as a result of having a conviction". In order to achieve this objective, the Bill must be as generous as possible. To be generous does not mean being soft on crime in any way, although some members of the Government may believe that a less restrictive and less conservative law might be seen thus. It would show foresight and an appreciation of the long-term societal benefits of encouraging the rehabilitation and the reintegration of ex-offenders into society. A less restrictive spent convictions regime, negating as far as possible against the negative, far-reaching and often discriminatory consequences for ex-offenders and their families would also reflect the qualities, in Irish society, of compassion and forgiveness.

I am very aware of research conducted by the UK Home Office into re-conviction rates which suggests that if an individual has not re-offended in the first two years post-conviction, he or she is at equal risk of future risk of future offending as an individual with no previous conviction. That finding is in keeping with the fact that in the UK legislation, the conviction-free or rehabilitative period at the lowest end of the offending scale is actually two years. Obviously, when I put forward my amendment I was hoping that my original amendments would be accepted, which they were not. I will now reflect on this and return to it on Report Stage, if necessary.

I believe that the Minister has moved significantly, especially with regard to the waiting period. If we were to go along with the recommendation of the Law Reform Commission, a body for which I have a great deal of time and respect, the waiting period would be longer. The Minister has moved significantly on this and, as Senator Bradford said, this legislation is not set in stone. The Minister's position is that we should wait and see how this works. It is not as if he will not have the energy to come back to this legislation if he feels it must be changed.

Amendment No. 34 not moved.

Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 deleted.
Government amendment No. 35:
In page 19, before Schedule 3, to insert the following new Schedule:
RELEVANT WORK
1. Employment with—
(a) the Defence Forces,
(b) the Department of Justice and Equality,
(c) the Garda Síochána,
(d) the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission,
(e) the Garda Inspectorate,
(f) the Office of the Chief State Solicitor,
(g) the Office of the Attorney General,
(h) the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions,
(i) the Criminal Assets Bureau,
(j) the Courts Service,
(k) the Department of the Taoiseach,
(l) the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade,
(m) the Office of the President,
(n) the Central Bank of Ireland,
(o) the National Treasury Management Agency.
2. Any activity, service or employment which involves the performance of a controlled function under Part 3 of the Central Bank Reform Act 2010.
3. Service as—
(a) a member of the Reserve Defence Force within the meaning of section 2 of the Defence Act 1954,
(b) a reserve member of the Garda Síochána within the meaning of section 3 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005.".

Amendment No. 35 replaces Schedule 3, as Parts 1 and 2 of that Schedule are redundant with the linking of the Bill to the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Bill 2012, as per amendment No. 19. Part 3 of Schedule 3 has been amended to provide for membership of the Reserve Defence Forces and the Garda Reserve, which are not covered by the references to employment in the Defence Forces and the Garda Síochána in paragraph 1. Members of both reserves are not employees of either the Defence Forces or the Garda Síochána. With this change, anyone applying to join the either reserve force will have to disclose all convictions.

Title agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 deleted.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 5 February 2013.

When is it proposed to sit again?

Tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.

Top
Share