Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 26 proposed by Deputy Clare Daly, and No. 27 is consequential on that, relates to the number of people who would sit on a parole panel. As currently set out in the Bill, that could be three or five members of the board. It would mean, as Deputy Brophy was saying, that there were always five persons on the panel. The amendment does remove the flexibility which will lead to the better working of the parole board. Five out of a board of 15 is quite a lot. It is a busy board and there are a lot of cases to be seen. The flexibility that is there at the moment for the chair is good. One does not want to increase the membership of the board. By keeping the flexibility and have the chairperson decide, I have no doubt that on some occasions the chairperson may decide that there is five in particular cases. I would prefer to stick with flexibility. It also means that more reviews can be carried out. Ultimately, the people on this board have applied and are volunteers. Giving the chair the flexibility is the best use and what will get the best outcome, depending on their skills. It is better to keep the position where there is three or five and to allow the board to manage its work and get on with it.

Deputy Wallace wants to insert the words "signed and dated". I take his point but I would say the words are unnecessary and could call into question similar provisions in legislation. Obviously, all decisions should be signed and dated and statutory provision is not necessary. I would be concerned that accepting the amendment may have unintended implications for similar statutory provisions but I am happy to look at it. It is a common sense approach, and why not make it statutory, but it may be that there would be subsequential issues for other statutory provisions. I would like to have a look at it again with the Parliamentary Counsel and perhaps come back on Report Stage.

Deputy Wallace's other amendment refers to "the decision must be provided directly to the prisoner within reasonable time frame". I agree with that, of course it should. I suggest that section 15(2) and 16(2) of the Bill already make the necessary provision for decisions to be forwarded to the parole candidate directly and that we do not need further provision. However, we do not have a big problem with this issue of reasonable time frame. Sectons 15(2) and 16(2) give the necessary provision.