Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left) | Oireachtas source

As Deputy Pringle said, amendment No. 48 deals with the provision in the Bill whereby if somebody is being interviewed by gardaí and is asked about previous convictions, he or she must tell them about a conviction even if it has been expunged. This is utterly ludicrous. When is a spent conviction actually spent? There are so many exclusions that the idea of providing a template whereby people can leave their past behind is being eroded at every level. It has not been disappeared. If we cannot answer the question about whether that information is removed from PULSE, we have a serious problem. How would anybody know that the obligation is on him or her to inform the gardaí? If somebody has a spent conviction and has his or her record expunged, presumably that person would believe that was the end of the matter, given that everybody says this is being done to allow people to get on with their lives. How are people supposed to know they have that obligation in the first place?

Again, this links to the points about the courts. The problem with all of these issues and exclusions is that, underlying it all, we are really saying that although we are talking about rehabilitation and saying that people can do things when they are young and then reform themselves and move on with their lives, we do not really believe that, because these provisions mean that we believe that if somebody has done something and had a record previously, it means he or she is more likely to do it again. Otherwise, why would we seek this information? That is the underlying hint. It goes against the entire intent of the legislation. We made the point in earlier discussions that most of the people who appear before the criminal courts in Ireland are young men between the ages of 18 and 25. By the time they are 30 they have settled down and tried to get on with their lives. However, if we include all of these exclusions it will not be possible for them to do that. It will make it very difficult.

Amendment No. 49 deals with the fact that information must be revealed where somebody has been found guilty of or has served a sentence for insurance fraud. Again, this must be seen in the context of the unscrupulous insurance industry, which really does not need any excuse to exclude people from insurance cover, make it difficult for them to get cover or increase their premiums. That is not appropriate either, and we should remove it. If something is expunged, it is expunged, and that should be the end of it.

See this speech in context