David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)

Like my colleagues, I congratulate the Deputy opposite on introducing a constructive suggestion rather than a so-called knocking motion, as we are used to. I recognise the fact that the Minister is not opposing the legislation. Debating legislation on Second Stage is interesting, but debating it on Committee Stage is even more interesting in that one goes into the nitty gritty and the detail.

While I commend the Deputy opposite on introducing the Bill, I am disappointed he has not done more homework on it. When an identical Bill was before the House in 2008, problems were highlighted, yet the Deputy opposite has made no effort to change this Bill. Since legislation is on the pink list, that is to say, the Government will publish a spent convictions Bill, it shows the importance we attribute to the issue.

Under the current disclosure policy, details of all convictions or prosecutions or both, successful or not, pending or completed, in the State or elsewhere, and as the case may be, are disclosed to the authorised liaison person in the registered organisation. The Data Protection Commissioner has problems in this regard and pointed out in April 2010 that this requirement puts citizens in Ireland in an unfair position compared with citizens convicted of the same offences in other EU member states. As stated by Deputy Harris, the UK has had legislation on spent convictions since 1974.

I read about an interesting structure in place in Scotland, entitled Disclosure Scotland. There are three levels of disclosure - basic, standard and enhanced. The Scottish Government has set up an executive agency to deal with disclosures. When the Minister's Bill is on Committee Stage, it might be useful to examine what has been done in Scotland. An enhanced disclosure contains all conviction information whereas a basic disclosure only contains convictions considered unspent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which the Deputy opposite is trying for with this Bill. A standard disclosure contains all conviction information, spent and unspent, including cautions.

Debating on Second Stage is fine, but when we get into the nitty gritty, we need to be able to consider practices in countries that are way ahead of us in this area if we are to determine the best practice to be incorporated in our legislation. Our people are at a disadvantage. The sword of Damocles should not hang over people's heads, punishing them for the rest of their lives because of, for example, minor offences they committed when they were young. Certain offences will be excluded from the Bill's provisions, including sexual offences. Interestingly, employers in Scotland have access to disclosure on-line, in respect of which there are safeguards. The Garda vetting bureau in Ireland also has similar safeguards in place. Much of this information is sensitive and we must ensure it is treated with confidentiality. We must also ensure the information provided is correct. I am aware of a case where information given in respect of a person was incorrect, causing many problems for the person concerned. We must ensure the information provided is correct and is treated with confidentiality.

I note that many organisations and groups have already commented on this issue, including the Data Protection Commissioner. The Law Reform Commission produced a report on this issue and, as already mentioned, the Irish Human Rights Commission has commented on it. The Irish Penal Reform Trust commented on it as far back as November 2008 and made six recommendations. I look forward to the publication of the Government Bill. It is important we discuss general points here. The bringing forward of this proposal during Private Members' time is a useful and positive exercise.

See this speech in context