Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I do not know how salient my questions will be. I welcome the introduction of the Parole Bill 2016. I have yet to get my head around the mechanics of how this process works. We need to do everything we can to encourage the Government to provide a money message to expedite this process so that this urgent and timely legislation can advance to Committee and Report Stages. The number of people serving life sentences has increased. The amount of time they are serving has also increased. We need to examine this issue in detail because little has changed in the past 50 years, as Deputy O'Callaghan said. I welcome the proposal to establish an independent panel.

At present, the parole board overwhelmingly comprises people from the criminal justice system, including formal criminal justice agents. I see the need for a change in that regard. While I admit that I have not studied this Bill in sufficient detail, it strikes me that some sections of it are worthy of further comment. We would have a few issues with section 8, which relates to the membership of the board. Section 11(1) proposes that every panel convenor must be, "a barrister or solicitor who has had not less than 9 years experience", or "a person who has held office as a judge of the District Court, or the Circuit Court". At present, there is provision for community representatives to sit on the parole board.

I do not think that should entirely change. I believe there is a substantial role for that without them being replaced by people from a legal or judicial background. We need a discussion on the balance between lay and community representatives, or whatever it is called. Section 8(2)(b) allows for four people to be appointed and, given the qualifications required of them, it is very likely that they are going to come from that legal background. Given that the other 11 are high-ranking professionals as well, we might be missing out on that. I believe that is something that we need to look at. We might need to look at other jurisdictions to see how it is done.

Section 8(2)(j) provides that not less than four members are women and not less than four members are men. I think we should look at changing that to six and six. We are trying to drive forward change. I know it is difficult. If we are saying that the panel of conveners will not necessarily be drawn from the ranks of the Judiciary and the legal profession, we might have more of a basis for making it six and six. I understand that sometimes the numbers are not always there.

A lot of emphasis in the parole process is now on the interview. That is only one side to it. If a prisoner gives a poor interview, it weighs heavily against him or her. There should be some mechanism for how the prisoner's progress has been monitored and how the reports around it give weight to that. It is very welcome that parole applicants will be permitted to have legal counsel during the interview. That is really important. A rational evaluation of their progress is also important. Perhaps there should be some training around that.

I have a couple of other brief points. Section 13(2) provides that panels that make decisions on parole will have three to five members as the chairperson may determine. Perhaps three people is a little bit small, particularly if there is one dominant person. I would favour five, although that could be cumbersome. Maybe it is not hung up and maybe it is disrespectful to the chairperson. However, three is a little bit small. We are talking about people making a pretty significant decision.

My other point is on the power of the parole panels in section 14(5)(b). It lists a number of criteria that a report covering somebody's parole application might cover. I have no problem with the items that are listed. We should look at adding in consideration of the effect that the granting of parole would have on the prisoner's family and the possibility that the prisoner will successfully reintegrate back into his family. I am probably not explaining that very well. Family and social supports have been shown to be the key determinant in whether somebody re-offends or not. There was a good programme launched in Limerick last week in terms of family supports and that. All the studies say that it is key. Something such as the birth of a child often changes how somebody views things and changes his or her reintegration into the family. These things should be factored in in some way. I believe all of the other criteria are good but something like that could be beneficial.

In section 19 on the criteria for parole, I have what is probably an ideological difference rather than a technical one. In section 19(2)(a), it states that the board may have regard "to the nature and gravity of the offence to which the sentence of imprisonment being served by the person relates". I understand the point made about the severity of the crime and that type of thing. The safety of the community and so on is hugely important. However, that wording puts too much emphasis on the offence committed by the person, which takes place a number of years before he or she meets the Parole Board. The whole purpose of parole is to evaluate the progress and take words from professionals about how that person has been rehabilitated. In that case, I believe there should be an assessment of the risk to victims or the community where the Parole Board is making a decision on whether a person should be released. Obviously, emotionally, one's tendency is to focus on the original crime, but the rational head has to prevail. Prison is not intended as punishment. It is supposed to be for rehabilitation. The focus of the decision-making in terms of release has to be on that end.

The only other point is about the the revocation of the parole order. I know that the IPRT has focused on the word "gravity" and how the breach of conditions has to be grave for the parole order to be revoked and an individual returned to prison. The IPRT says that "gravity" is too loose a term and too low a bar and that somebody should only be returned if they have committed a criminal offence. I would agree with a rewording there.

With the week that is in it, we have not done as much as we would have liked on this Bill. Those are just some observations on it at this stage.