Ms Fíona Ní Chinnéide:

To clarify, I did not mean to say there should not be a right. My question was specifically about the seven year first parole hearing point when we know that no prisoner will be released at the seven year point. There is an unofficial policy that it will be a minimum 15 years so I wondered whether it is exploitative to ask the question at seven years, but I completely agree that there should be no deprivation of rights in terms of people being heard.

Also, I said in the opening statement that in all our points we do not seek to minimise the impact of crime on victims. It is important that victims' needs are heard and met, and we completely support the full implementation of the EU victims directive so we are clear on that. We believe victims' rights and prisoners' rights can be respected at the same time. To clarify, it was about the seven year first parole hearing.

Many assumptions are made and a good deal of research has been done on what victims want.

Professor Joanna Shapland has done a lot of research in the area and her findings are that victims and offenders often want the same thing from the criminal justice system, which is, essentially, fairness. As I mentioned, it has been found that there are high rates of satisfaction reported by victims with restorative justice, but it is important that their involvement is voluntary. There should never be an obligation on victims to engage in the process. However, it gives an opportunity to victims to ask questions that remain in their minds. In the case of burglary, it might be, "Why was I targeted?" or "Was I being watched?" A victim will not get closure on the impact of crime but will see that the offender has come face to face with the impact of the crime committed.

We talk about "less serious offences" rather than "minor" offences in recognition of the fact that there is always a victim at the end of an offence. In one regard, none of them are "minor"; they are all "less serious".

The issue of re-offending and burglary was raised. Burglary is an interesting case in point. Professor Andrew Coyle has noted that a doctor would not just keep increasing the dose, doubling and trebling it, if he or she finds a medicine is not working. Recidivism rates of people imprisoned for burglary offences are the highest on release from prison. The most recent report had the rate at just under 69%. The statistics come with a warning from the Central Statistics Office, which is that its collation of data has been improved over the years, so they are not completely reliable. A rate of 69% for re-offending suggests that prison for burglary is not working. It is not comparing like with like, but the equivalent probation statistics are 45%. The other serious issue revealed by recidivism statistics is that a significant proportion of those who have been put in prison for different offences are coming out of prison committing burglary for the first time. We would, therefore, question the effectiveness of prison as a blunt response or an overall response to burglary in particular.

We very much welcome restorative justice initiatives such as the joint agency response to crime, which has proven successful. This involves joined-up thinking and case management with offenders and repeat offenders or, to quote the Tánaiste, "serial offenders". We think these initiatives are more effective. We must focus on reducing crime and not just punishing it. The two must happen at the same time.

Tougher sentencing is often proposed as a response to crime but it is very limited in its deterrent effects. It is effective in terms of incapacitation for the length of time that the person is in prison. It has been estimated that the prison population would have to be increased by 25% to reduce crime by 1%. It is not a practical, cheap or cost-effective way of addressing crime. We agree about the impact of crime on victims and believe more research needs to be done. Perhaps the committee would consider inviting before it the Victims Rights Alliance, which is a great organisation in that regard. Often what victims want is to know that the offender will not re-offend.