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

I support amendment No. 41, which provides that a parole candidate may be interviewed by the parole panel, where the panel believes that is appropriate. That seems very reasonable. Amendment No. 42 would require a decision of a parole review to be given to the parole candidate’s legal representative. There is no provision in the Bill for legal representation for the purposes of the review. The reference in the Bill to legal representation is in relation to the hearings. I would certainly have no difficulty with legal representatives being included in section 16 of the Bill for the purpose of receiving a copy of the decision following a hearing, as proposed by Deputy Wallace in amendment No. 47. The review stage under the Bill is an initial consideration of parole on the basis of such information and reports as the parole panel considers relevant. These are reviewed by the panel which can then decide if parole should be granted. If not, the parole candidate can request a full hearing under section 16 of the Bill. I would also like to inform to the select committee that it is my intention to bring forward amendments to provide for legal aid where necessary with respect to representation at hearings.

Amendment No. 43 which was tabled by Deputy Wallace would require a hearing following a refusal of parole to be conducted within four weeks. I believe that is too short a period of time in which to prepare for such a hearing. Aside from operational difficulties this may cause the parole board with respect to gathering evidence or seeking witnesses, it might also cause difficulties for a parole candidate and his or her legal representative with respect to considering the decision following the initial review and preparing for the hearing. I would suggest further consideration be given to this provision.

I have no difficulty with amendment No. 44. Amendment No. 67 tabled by Deputy O’Callaghan relates to section 21 and will address the subject of amendment 44. If amendment No. 44 is agreed, then amendment 67 provides that parole candidates will be eligible to make subsequent applications for parole after two years from the date of the most recent decision declining parole. The parole board may also direct a shorter period than two years. Amendments Nos. 46 and 51 from Deputy Daly are to section 16 and would require a parole candidate who is refused parole to be further considered for parole one year following that refusal. The Bill currently provides for subsequent considerations two years following review. However, as I have said, amendment No. 67 will allow the parole board to direct a shorter period than two years and I have a preference for proceeding with that approach. I believe we should make statutory provision for it being done in less than two years. I would prefer to take that route. I would go back to the earlier point about the quality of the decision making in the first instance. If we are satisfied with the membership of the panels and the people doing the work, including the chair and with the fact that they are giving serious consideration to each and every case and are carrying out proper risk assessments, then referring decisions back within a year might not be appropriate. I would prefer to leave it to the discretion of the panel. There may be outstanding issues or some reason for the panel deciding that it would like to conduct a hearing again within a shorter period and it can do that. I believe that is a better way to proceed.

Amendment No. 89 provides for the legal representative of the parole candidate to be notified of a hearing. It may be the case that a legal representative has not been engaged by or appointed to the candidate. Perhaps the amendment could be reconsidered to provide for notification to a legal representative where the candidate is represented for the purpose of a parole hearing. That is just a technical and practical point.