Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are in public session. Apologies have been received from Senator Lorraine Clifford-Lee. I understand that Senators Martin Conway and Frances Black will be attending a little later.

The purpose of this part of the meeting is to have a discussion on the Parole Bill 2016. The Bill was referred to the committee for scrutiny on 15 June 2016. Private Members' Bills referred to select committees are subject to the provision of Standing Order 141(2) of the Dáil which provides that: "Select Committees to which private members’ Bills are referred shall undertake detailed scrutiny of the provisions of such Bills [...] and shall report thereon to the Dáil prior to Committee Stage consideration."

I call Deputy Jim O'Callaghan to brief the committee on the provisions of his Bill. When he has concluded, members will have an opportunity to question him.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

At the outset let me give members a brief overview of some terms that apply in respect of prisoners. One hears about parole, temporary release and remission, but the three terms are different.

Remission is an entitlement that virtually all prisoners have to have one quarter of their sentence deducted. It does not apply to life sentences. If I were given a sentence of four years, I am entitled to have remission of approximately one quarter. The prison makes an application for remission to the Minister and it is generally granted. It is dependent on good behaviour but in general we can say that under the prison rules, virtually all prisoners get remission of one quarter of their sentence.

Temporary release is slightly different from remission. Temporary release applies if a prisoner is unwell and needs some treatment or there are compassionate grounds to let the prisoner out. Sometimes a prisoner can be let out if a relative is unwell or if the prisoner has day-to-day temporary release, the prisoner may have managed to get a job. That is infrequent but it can apply. The law in respect of temporary release is dealt with in the Criminal Justice (Temporary Release of Prisoners) Act 2003, which involves an amendment of the Criminal Justice Act 1960.

Temporary release and remission already exist, but the purpose of the Parole Bill 2016 is to put on a statutory basis the operation of parole in Ireland. Parole applies at present on a non-statutory basis to people who have been convicted and sentenced to a sentence of eight years or more. It is only for serious criminals, people who have been sentenced to a long time in jail. At present our parole system does not operate on a statutory basis. It operates on an informal basis run ultimately by the Minister for Justice and Equality but on the basis of advice and recommendations that she receives from the Parole Board. The Parole Board is a non-statutory board.

The objective of the Bill is fourfold: to establish an independent Parole Board on a statutory basis; to give that independent statutory board responsibility for the decision to grant parole, thereby taking it from the Minister for Justice and Equality; to establish on a statutory basis the clear criteria for the granting of parole, so people can look at it and understand how parole operates; and to give victims of crime a say in the process, because much of the time, we hear that victims of crime do not have a say when it comes to parole. The Bill does not give them a veto but it does give them an involvement in the process.

The reason I think the current system is unsatisfactory is because it is not based on statute; one cannot see how it operates and ultimately it is controlled by the Minister for Justice and Equality. Sometimes there will be political pressures on a Minister not to give parole to a particular individual because it could be met with a great deal of opposition in the press and it could be politically difficult for the Minister. Sometimes there may be pressures on Ministers to give parole to people because of political affiliations they have with them. It is better to take the issue out of politics and put it on an independent, transparent and statutory basis that sets out how and when a person is granted parole.

Let me take the members briefly through the Bill as I know members will have read it thoroughly. I will be waiting for questions, particularly from Deputy Wallace, who I know was working on the Bill last night.

At present much of the legislation is relatively similar. It is setting up a quango, which is one criticism that members can make, however at present we have a Parole Board. We need a Parole Board so the Bill, when enacted, will put the Parole Board on a statutory basis. Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, are the standard provisions one finds in any legislation dealing with regulations, expenses, establishment and interpretation.

In section 5, I set out the nature of parole and the purpose of it. Under the terms of the Bill, parole gives individuals an entitlement to apply for a reduction in their sentences if they meet certain criteria. The important thing to note is that, at present, and I retain this in section 5(2), parole is only available for people who have a sentence of eight years or more. Members may want to table amendments subsequently in respect of that but part of the reason is that if people who got a four-year sentence were up for parole, the system would become very over-burdened with work. When one considers that remission is available, we really need to concentrate on the most serious offences. On the basis of workload it only really applies to people who have a sentence of eight years or more.

In Part 2, I deal with the Parole Board. Section 6 establishes the board and section 7 sets out its functions. Its main functions are: to convene panels to consider persons for parole; direct the release of persons; set out the conditions so that if they were to be released, they would be released subject to some monitoring; and to consider what conditions should apply in respect of parole.

Section 8 sets out the membership of the board. Such sections seem to arouse most interest. I know I can be legitimately criticised. People will say, "Here is a lawyer trying to make this very complicated." One of the criticism made of the Bill by the Tánaiste on Second Stage was that it could make the process very legalistic. However, in Britain and elsewhere in the world, cases are now being taken by individuals who claim they have an entitlement to parole. We have a process at present whereby people can apply for parole. They go to a Parole Board. They are entitled to challenge that. We need to have a mechanism in place whereby prisoners and the public can look at the procedures and say, "This is how one would apply." There are bodies who look at these issues which are independent of politicians. They make a decision and if one does not like it, one can go elsewhere.

The membership of the board will comprise: a chairman; at least four people who are appointed through the Public Appointments Service, PAS; a registered medical practitioner who is a psychiatrist; a psychologist; a representative of the Irish Prison Service; a member of the Garda Síochána; a probation or welfare officer; a representative of the Irish Penal Reform Trust; and other persons who have developed a knowledge and experience of the supervision of prisoners.

Four members of the board will be nominated through an applications process under the Public Appointments Service but I think there is a benefit in asking organisations such as the College of Psychiatrists of Ireland to nominate a psychiatrist to go on the board, the Psychological Society of Ireland to be the body to nominate the psychologist and also the Irish Prison Service to nominate the appropriate prison officer. Generally if one asks bodies such as those I have listed, they will put forward reasonable people who have a good understanding as opposed, and I may be criticised for saying this, to the people who apply who may not necessarily be the best.

Section 9 sets out the terms of office. A member can only serve a four-year term and then another four-year term, a total of two four-year terms. Section 10 deals with the chairperson. Section 11 sets out what I call the panel convenors.

Section 11 sets out the role of the panel convenors who will convene panels of between three and five members to decide on parole applications submitted by prisoners. There is a great deal of work involved here. Many prisoners are going to be applying for parole. It will not be an easy job in which one hears the odd application now and again.

Section 12 deals with staff. The Parole Board has to be staffed properly. If one talks to those involved with the board at present, they will say they are concerned about the need to have sufficient staff numbers. They would prefer to be able to select their own staff.

Section 13 relates to parole panels. Section 13(2) states that such a panel "shall consist of 3 or 5 members" with a chairperson among that number. Each panel will decide whether to recommend a prisoner for parole.

Section 14 sets out the powers of parole panels. I envisage that parole panels will have two functions. I will explain it simply. Under the system I am proposing, there will be a review or a hearing in each case. Most parole applications will be dealt with by review, which will involve looking through documents like reports from doctors and probation officers to see whether the person is doing well and making a decision on whether he or she is entitled to parole. A prisoner will be entitled to a hearing in some circumstances and on certain grounds after he or she has been refused parole.

One of the powers of the parole panel, as set out in section 14, is worth noting. Section 14(8), on page 13, provides that a parole panel, "may conduct a hearing as it thinks appropriate". There does not have to be a hearing all the time. Most of these cases will be dealt with by means of review. This will involve looking at the file. Sometimes there will be a hearing. The panel will determine who can attend and give evidence at such hearings. It will also be able to, "impose limits on what a person may talk about". We do not want hearings to turn into long-running sagas. We have to be careful to ensure people do not use hearings as opportunities to have a go at other people. The parole panel will be in control of that.

It is important to note that section 14(11), on the bottom of page 13, provides that, "the Board may receive written submissions from any victim of the person whose parole is being considered", if necessary, "allow any such victim to appear and make oral submissions at a hearing for the purpose of assisting the Board to reach a decision", and, "allow for the representation of any such victim". There are circumstances in which the Parole Board may allow the victim of the prisoner to attend. This will not be mandatory or obligatory. There are conflicting rights here. There are the rights of the prisoner and the interests of the victim of the crime. The latter cannot be a veto on the former. I think it is in the public interest to have this mechanism available.

Section 15 deals specifically with reviews. Section 15(1) states that, "a review may involve consideration of such information, documents, memoranda [....] but shall not involve oral testimony or oral representation". It is a straightforward paper review. Section 15(4) provides that, "where the decision by a panel is to decline to make a parole order in respect of a person, the decision shall specify a date". Section 15(3) sets out that a person who has been refused parole, "shall be entitled to a hearing", as opposed to a review.

Section 16 clarifies that hearings, "shall be conducted in such manner as the parole panel thinks fit". Section 16(2) requires each decision of a hearing panel to be given to the candidate for parole, the Garda Commissioner, the Prison Service and the Minister. Section 16(3) states that, "for the purposes of a hearing, a person whose parole is being considered is entitled to appear [and to] attend while any other person is making submissions, provided that the person whose parole is being considered may not be present at the hearing when any victim is present". That will keep the victim and the person whose parole is being considered out of the same room at the same time. I am not assuming that victims do not want those responsible for offences against them to get out because that is not always the case.

Section 17 requires the Parole Board to report on its activities.

Part 3 deals with the parole process. Section 18 sets out the guiding principles the board should take into account, including the, "recommendations of the sentencing judge", "the nature and gravity of the offence", and, "the degree of responsibility of the person whose parole is being considered".

Section 19 sets out the criteria for parole. Rehabilitation is an important part of this. Consideration must be given to the impact of the offence. Section 19(2) provides that various factors, including, "the conduct of the person while in custody", "any recommendations of the court", "the nature and gravity of the offence", and, "the potential threat" posed by the offender, must be considered by the Parole Board when consideration is being given to parole.

I think section 20 is interesting because it relates to eligibility for parole. It provides that, "every person serving a sentence of eight years or greater period shall be eligible for parole having served a period of one-half of such sentence or after seven years, whichever is the lesser". That is the way it is at present. Section 20(2), which states that, "a person serving a life sentence shall not be eligible for parole until that person has served a minimum period of eight years", also reflects the current position. That is the law as it is applied by the Parole Board at present.

My own view is that an eight-year period is too short. The Parole Board will say it is pointless considering somebody who has been convicted of murder for parole after eight years because he or she will not get it. A tariff of approximately 15 years currently applies to a conviction for murder, which involves the intentional killing of a person. I know Deputy Wallace thinks prison does not work. We need to think about the punishment that should be imposed on a person who kills another person. Is there a suggestion that we should not put the killer in prison? I think there has to be a punishment. That is probably a bigger question than the one we are discussing today. I suggest this section of the Bill should be amended on Committee Stage to reflect the reality that somebody convicted of murder is not considered for parole for between ten and 12 years.

Section 21 deals with consideration for parole. I intend to change this in a Committee Stage amendment.

Section 22 relates to parole orders. Legal proof is required to get a person out. A parole order is a document that will state that a person is being granted parole and will permit a prison warden or governor to release that person.

Monitoring and compliance provisions are set out in section 23. If there is concern about the impact of the release of a person on parole, perhaps because he or she will be a threat to somebody else, it will be possible under this section to impose conditions on the person being released.

Section 24 sets out how parole orders may be varied. Parole involves release on licence. It can be revoked. If a person who has been given parole starts committing other offences or breaching his or her parole conditions, his or her parole order may be varied under this section.

Section 25 provides for the revocation of parole orders.

Section 26 is a technical section relating to warrants. Obviously, there is a need to be able to issue a warrant in order to return to jail a person who has breached a parole order.

Section 27 sets out the general administrative rules for preparing for reviews and hearings and how those reviews are to be considered.

Section 28 provides for privilege under the Defamation Act 2009 in respect of documents generated for the parole process.

I drafted amendments after this Bill was passed on Second Stage. I do not know if I have submitted them. I appreciate the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill in advance of Committee Stage, which cannot take place until the Government decides to pass a money message in respect of it. This issue, which arises because the legislation involves a charge on the Government, has arisen previously. If that happens again on this occasion, we will see how it goes. I am happy to answer any questions my colleagues might have.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for talking us through his Bill in such detail. I invite other members of the committee to ask salient questions.

Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have to confess that no more than Deputy Daly, I have not given it due consideration either. I very much welcome Deputy O'Callaghan's Bill. I would agree with the vast majority of Deputy Daly's commentary. I certainly think that the gender balance issue is something that can easily be got right. With regard to what Deputy O'Callaghan said in terms of Deputy Wallace's point that prison does not work, I would agree with Deputy Wallace in the vast majority of cases. However, there are obviously certain circumstances in which prison is probably and unfortunately the only option.

In its last term, I was the rapporteur for this committee on work we did on restorative justice practices, which have been proven to work exceptionally well in areas where the effort has gone in to setting up restorative justice. The examples that are regularly quoted are south Dublin and north Tipperary where there has been up to a 70% improvement in terms of second offences and people realising what they have done. We also did extensive work in this committee on community courts and the necessity to set up a community court on a pilot basis in inner city Dublin. As we are all aware, the principle of community courts is to bring all of the various stakeholders together in an environment of support, assistance and rehabilitation, as opposed to the adversarial environment of the big stick. In places like Times Square in New York, it has worked remarkably well. I am very much of the view that prison is an absolute last resort. There are an awful lot of people in prison today who really should not be in prison and whom the system has let down.

In the overall context, I believe this is a very welcome Bill. I commend Deputy O'Callaghan on the work he has done on it because we are here to bring forward legislation to improve the lives of citizens. I will make a point of bringing this up in the Seanad to encourage the Government, as I am sure my colleagues will do as well. The Deputy's own party has a significant influence on Government and I certainly think that the Deputy and his party will pursue this. I will certainly commit to it in the Seanad, as I know my colleagues will. In the last term in the Seanad, I tabled a motion on restorative justice, which we succeeded in getting unanimous support for. I also tabled a motion on community courts. Again, we received unanimous support for that. It is actually quite frustrating to see the delay in getting a pilot project up and running. We are where we are. I wish the Deputy well with the Bill and I will engage with it as best I can.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Not only did I not put enough work into this, I put none into it and neither did anyone in my office. I am guilty of that. Not only do I find it difficult to criticise anything that Deputy Jim O'Callaghan has put forward, I cannot even contradict anything that Deputy Daly has said. I have every intention of researching it and learning a bit about it.

I will pick up on one point that Deputy O'Callaghan made about eight years being too early to let a fella out.

If a person has not been rehabilitated and no improvement has been made to his approach to life and the people with whom he has to share the world, yes it is. However, if the work is being put in, one would hope otherwise. If I had someone in my care and I had eight years to rehabilitate them, I would be fairly disappointed with myself if they had not changed after that time.

I agree with the point about prison not working. First, some 80% or 90% of the people in prison should not be there. Second, of course if there are people who are a risk to society and are just too dangerous to be let loose then we have to do something with them. If we are going to lock them up, however, let us do something with them. We should be in a position to consider letting them out after eight years if they have made the required improvements. That is not possible under present conditions because prison is not geared that way.

We have read a lot of what the Jesuits have had to say about prisons and we have a lot to learn from them. If we took some of it on board, the notion of letting people out after eight years might not be so draconian or mad. The idea that a person does something terrible and under no circumstances should we reconsider or let them see the light of day for 15 years, does not strike me as being rational.

It costs a crazy amount of money to keep people in prison - €70,000 a year per prisoner is nuts. If we stopped putting in all the people who should not be in prison, we would have more money to help those who should be imprisoned.

The next time I come back, I promise that I will know something about the Parole Bill. I hope I can tear strips out of it, but that is unlikely.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before I bring in the next speaker, Deputy O'Callaghan may wish to note any specific points that he would like to reply to. There are not very many in terms of the contributions. Deputy Clare Daly has highlighted a series of different areas that he will likely address in his response to us.

Niall Ó Donnghaile (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I join with other speakers in welcoming this Bill. As with everything that Deputy O'Callaghan does, it is clear that a mammoth amount of work has been put into it. I am also in concert with other speakers because I am not as familiar as I probably should be with some aspects of the Bill. We will get to that stage, but at this early point we need to discuss the broader themes. While Deputy Clare Daly had some specific questions on that, one can already see some of the broader themes emerging, which show why such legislation is necessary. The themes include the prison system itself, how we treat prisoners, and how people deal with the system, be it through restorative justice or other mechanisms. It is an important piece of work and from our perspective it will be good to hear further from Deputy O'Callaghan. We should also discuss how we can start to get some movement on this Bill and put more meat on the bone.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a number of questions to put to Deputy O'Callaghan. My understanding of the current situation is that those who wish to apply to be considered for parole must correspond directly with the Minister for Justice and Equality of the day. He or she then refers cases, although perhaps not all, for the current non-statutory board consider. If that is not the case, then I stand to be corrected.

Can Deputy O'Callaghan tell me how this would function under the new statutory Parole Board? Is it the case that prisoners seeking to be considered for parole would correspond directly with the new board, rather than with the Minister who has the power of referral for consideration? There is so much covered within the Bill but its functionality is not as explicit as I would expect.

Is the board's make-up based on any particular template? Will it comprise 15 members like the current non-statutory board? Is it based on any international comparator? It is to be chaired by a current or former judge. There would be a certain body of opinion which might believe that this final determination is like coming before a court again. A person is sentenced in the first instance by a judge of the land, yet in the final determination to grant parole, or otherwise, a prisoner will be back again before a chair who is a current or former judge, as well as others from the judicial system, including judges of the respective court designations, barristers and solicitors who are of themselves the only people in a position to secure appointment to the bench.

The panel of convenors is quite directing, comprising as it does a judge, barrister and solicitor. It strikes me that the raft of important experiences that could be brought to bear in any open consideration of the entitlement of an applicant for parole are being excluded from critical roles. I would be concerned in that regard. I do not know that it is appropriate to be so prescriptive to the exclusion of a whole range of other life experiences, qualifications and professional competencies. Why would one exclude a bankrupt from participation in the new board? On what basis would one decide that somebody who is declared bankrupt did not have the capacity, competencies and requirements to make a determination as to the suitability or otherwise of an applicant for parole? I am not aware of any. Perhaps Deputy O'Callaghan would refer to some of these matters.

I will have other questions on the Bill but I welcome the broad thrust of it. We must remember, however, that while the premise of moving political responsibility from political control to a statutory body is sound in principle, nevertheless the ultimate decision - as is currently the case - lies with the Minister of the day who does not have to be the bearer of any of these qualifications in civil life.

I will conclude with that opening series of questions and will now invite our final speaker, Deputy Jack Chambers, to contribute.

Jack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the discussion around this Bill and thank my colleague, Deputy O'Callaghan, for introducing it. It is important that the legislation tries to move control away from the Minister. An executive function concerning parole should not be in the hands of a Minister.

The cloudiness of decision-making in recent years and decades needs to be addressed statutorily. We must codify the rules and make the process of obtaining parole transparent for those in the prison system.

I wish to pick up on some of the points made by other members. We need to deal with the membership of the board legislatively. I would be concerned about a nominee coming from a particular body in a professional capacity because that would be an insider from a board of insiders. On a professional basis, we need to open the process up to the Public Appointments Service so that a professional can employ through that service to be a member of the board rather than our having a particular professional body nominating someone to the board. The latter restricts the professional application process for a particular nominee.

In general, I welcome the fact that this justice committee is moving towards a debate on penal reform. When studying law, I studied penology and the history of political debate on penal reform. Historically, the discussion has been on punishment and the length of time spent in the prison system and not about the rehabilitation of the prisoner and the overarching concerns in this regard. This Bill will move the debate towards the right framework, which should result in giving people a chance.

Like others, I have not studied every piece of legislation. We need, however, to impose an obligation on the wraparound services so they will have an active role regarding those who are given parole. They should be obliged to work with the individual rather than having the individual approach them. The services should have an obligation to play a positive role in respect of the individual. This is an issue with addiction and rehabilitation generally. I am not saying every prisoner has an addiction issue but it is important, in respect of medical, counselling and community-level services, that the input of the service provider not be optional. It should not just be the obligation of the person given parole. Funding should be linked to working properly with people who have engaged with the parole service. They get off scot free much of the time where they have an option to opt out in respect of people who are vulnerable and need intervention. There needs to be a statutory obligation to take an active and positive role. This would fit in with regard to providing the wraparound services. We can actually provide a legislative component such that the services are not just consulted but actually involved, with a statutory responsibility to play an active role in cases of parole.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all the members for their contributions and efforts. I will deal first with what Deputy Clare Daly said. She made the point that she would like to see community representatives on the board. That is a good idea. We need to assess how we could identify community representatives. A criticism, which may be legitimate, is that the membership of the board may look too legalistic. This may be due in part to what I work at. My stance takes into account that it involves a quasi-judicial process for a body to assess whether a person should be released from jail. The authorities must take into account the conflicting factors and the entitlement the prisoner will have under the legislation to apply. On the other hand, they must take into account the potential threat the prisoner may pose to the public. Two sides must be weighed up.

In England at present, this is becoming a quite litigious area. That is the reason, in part, why I believed somebody is needed at the head of the membership who can weigh up these considerations. Perhaps community representatives could do so just as well as people who are used to assessing and to playing a quasi-judicial role. I am happy to consider community representatives. It would be interesting to see how we could get them and whether we should attract them through nomination. I sometimes believe that if one just seeks applications, community representatives are hard to get. When Dublin City Council was trying to get community representatives to sit on the policing committee, people would not apply. One could end up with busybodies who are not necessarily the best. This is a matter I am happy to consider.

I note what the Deputy says about trying to make the gender balance better. The Deputy seeks minimums of six women and six men, rather than four and four, where there are 15 members. That is a good idea.

The Deputy spoke about the interview and its importance. There is an interview but the question of whether parole will be granted is also a legal issue from the prisoner's point of view. They have rights in that regard. Under my system, the constant refusal in an interview to give a prisoner parole would entitle that prisoner to a hearing, which would also involve a quasi-judicial process whereby the body making the decision would have to set out more reasons for refusing or granting parole.

The Deputy spoke about the panels. It is proposed that the panels have three to five members but the Deputy would prefer five. The reason there are 15 members on the board is because there is a lot of work for them to do. They have many applications to consider. It might be worthwhile hearing from the Parole Board in due course if we get to that. One could have five panels of three people assessing. Obviously, it would be preferable to have panels of five but it does come down to resources and workload.

Deputy Daly also suggested that we should consider the impact of parole on the prisoner's family. That is an interesting point. As legislators, we have to be careful when introducing this legislation that we do not present the parole process as simply about being on the side of prisoners and the prisoner's family. Necessarily, victims and victims' families will be coming forward saying that while prison is about rehabilitation, it is not just about rehabilitation as it is also about punishment. People will be saying their son was murdered and is gone forever. It may be asked whether, if a prisoner cannot be rehabilitated, there should be no punishment. That is an interesting debate. Prison is not simply about rehabilitation but also about punishment.

Deputy Daly mentioned how section 19 deals with the fact that one of the factors to be taken into account is the severity of the crime. That is a fair point because one can argue that when the individual is being sentenced in the first instance, the court takes into account the severity of the crime. Therefore, the sentence itself takes into account the severity of the crime. That is an argument and a strong argument. One could ask why severity is being considered again on the grounds that something else is being dealt with. I am happy to examine that.

The Deputy also mentioned the revocation of the parole order, the view that "gravity" is too loose a term and that there should be a revocation only where another crime is committed. I believe there should be a revocation if the terms of the parole order are not complied with or are breached. Parole is just letting one out on licence. One can be brought back if one breaches the terms.

Senator Martin Conway also mentioned gender balance. I agree and in this regard I draw attention to what I said about Senator Clare Daly's point.

Senator Conway also spoke about restorative justice and said it does not work in the community courts. There is a much bigger discussion here because the majority of people in prison do not come near the parole process because they are in for fewer than eight years. I would have believed the majority of people are in for approximately two years. These are small sentences. Those with such sentences are the people who do not pose a huge threat to the community. They comprise the majority. These are the people in respect of whom we should be trying to use our community courts and restorative justice. The Senator's point in this regard is valid. I welcome the fact that he is going to mention it in the Seanad.

Just because Deputy Wallace has not read the legislation does not mean he cannot comment on it. He is perfectly entitled to do so. He will have a chance to read the legislation on Committee Stage.

As I said before, I disagree that prison is all about rehabilitation. Maybe I am a hardened person in that I believe it is also about punishment. It has to be considerably about rehabilitation, however. I agree with the Deputy's point that if people are imprisoned with the intention of rehabilitating them as well as punishing them, leaving them in a cell is not achieving that. If the balance between rehabilitation and punishment is to be 50:50, there needs to be some function to ensure the rehabilitation process is working. At present, it does not exist at all. People do make mistakes and do terrible things. Considerable numbers of people are in prison because of things they do when they are drunk. We need to recognise that moments of madness can destroy many lives. The Deputy is right that we should not be throwing away the key. In this regard, we need to look to the rehabilitation process.

I am glad to hear Deputy Wallace quoting the Jesuits. No soul is ever lost. We could learn much from how community groups like the Jesuits deal with issues like this one.

I welcome Senator Ó Donnghaile's comments. It is a large amount of work. We need legislation. The situation will get more complicated and it needs to be on a statutory basis. I do not know whether this is the right way to do that. It may appear too complicated, but it does not involve a process like a judicial appointments commission where people just sit around and have an easy job of assessing applications from a limited number. This board will handle a great deal of work because of the numbers coming through. It will undoubtedly get that wrong sometimes, so we must ensure that prisoners have their rights and the rights of communities are taken into account so that there is no threat.

The Chairman was correct about how, currently, people apply to the Minister and the Minister defers the matter to the Parole Board before it comes back to him or her to be signed. This new system would cut out the Minister. The statutory function of the Parole Board would be to consider applications for parole. It would then make decisions as to whether to grant parole and send out the parole order at the end of that process. That the Minister's role would be removed is constitutional. Under the Constitution, the State is entitled by law to delegate responsibility for the commutation and remission of sentences to another body.

A good point was made about membership of the board, which was criticised for having many lawyers on it. I was asked why there would be judges. After being sentenced by a beak, a person will be back in front of another beak. The reason is that it is a quasi-judicial function. As a prisoner, I would prefer to take my chances with the Parole Board and someone who is used to weighing up matters than with individuals who have strong views on an issue. This is sometimes evident in other statutory schemes, where individuals with strong views reject all applications. However, I get the point about it possibly being too formally legalistic and that we need more community representation, but we cannot get away from the fact that it is a quasi-judicial process.

A good question was asked about why a bankrupt would be excluded under section 9(6). I did not mean to be offensive to any bankrupt, but that is a standard section that I took from other legislation. Under it, persons are disqualified if they are "sentenced ... to a term of imprisonment or penal servitude" or they are adjudicated bankrupts. It would not be appropriate to have someone who is currently sentenced to a term of imprisonment on the Parole Board, but I take the point about a bankrupt. It probably appears unfair that a bankrupt would be precluded. Such people are not in a position of conflict when it comes to considering applications from parole applicants. Former prisoners who have been rehabilitated should also be able to be considered for membership on this panel. They have managed to come out of the process.

Deputy Chambers stated that he was opposed to nominees by groups. There are different ways of handling matters for these boards. Either applications are made through the Public Appointments Service, PAS, or Top Level Appointments Commission, TLAC, or bodies recommend people. On paper, it is great to get people to apply via the PAS. My view, which may be based on prejudice instead of fact, is that that will often not supply the best people. I have included the Irish Penal Reform Trust in this Bill. If we asked it to nominate a body to the Parole Board, we would get a good nominee. If we put an ad in the newspaper, we may get good people, but it would be hit or miss.

I thank members for their contributions.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy O'Callaghan. Does Deputy Wallace have a further point?

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I must say something in response.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Deputy going to announce a late vocation or something?

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Fr. Wallace.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will have the committee know that I have many vocations, but they have very little to do with those big buildings with the spires on top.

On Deputy O'Callaghan's point about punishment and rehabilitation being 50:50, I would think that taking people's freedom away by removing them from society and putting them into the prison apparatus would constitute the punishment. They should not be punished further while they are inside. They are already punished everyday because they have no liberty.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree. The imprisonment is the punishment.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry. I thought that the Deputy meant-----

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not saying that they should be punished 50% of the time that they are in there. Being in there is the punishment. On the general issue of a sentence and someone going to jail, it is not just a question of trying to rehabilitate, although that should happen all of the time while people are in prison. Rather, a part of the function of a sentence is punishment. Am I being mean?

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. We agree that, when someone's liberty is taken away, that is the punishment.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not saying for a second that, if people do terrible things and are not trusted to be let loose in society, we can let them loose-----

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----before we have fixed or rehabilitated them in some form.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Regarding the panel's composition, it is probably true to say that the composition of most boards and committees leaves much to be desired. Take football, for example. People who play football are generally involved in running teams and are greater lovers of football than those who organise the sport. That is true of most sports. How to prevent people from joining the board who are not the type of people we want is a challenge that we should discuss and examine. I do not have the answers, but we should consider the matter.

I did not actually know that the bankruptcy provision was included. I have the proud record of being the first serving Member of Parliament in Ireland who is bankrupt. It is a wonderful achievement. The story has not been accurately told by the mainstream media, but I will not bore members with it either. There is an interesting statistic. In America, the average millionaire goes broke more than three times. That is how the capitalist system works. Someone is rehabilitated more quickly over there. There is a different approach to it, a different philosophy behind people. More often than not, people who become bankrupt are risk takers. I am still a risk taker, but the notion that being bankrupt would in any sense make one close to being a criminal or a less satisfactory person to deal with this issue is a strange one.

I do not want to get into defending myself and being where I am because my business collapsed over a banking crisis, but I agree with the Chairman, in that this provision is harsh on bankrupts.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree, and I will remove it.

Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Fair play. Well done.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have given that commitment.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Just for Deputy Wallace's information,-----

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will call it the "Wallace amendment".

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----it was not actually about him. It was because I did not believe it was relevant.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a fair point.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not think that it was about me.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was not based on anyone.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is an anachronism.

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What was the logic of including it in the first place?

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When drafting a Bill, I must examine other legislation. Generally, legislation excludes individuals who have been convicted of a term of imprisonment or adjudicated bankrupts-----

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----from being on boards.

I am sure there are some boards where that is probably still necessary. I agree with Deputy Wallace about bankruptcy. I believe the current President of America went there thrice. It is not the end of the world. I am not making any judgment.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am lost for words after that. On that note, I propose not to make the formal proposition in regard to the Parole Bill 2016 on its own. I will deal with both pieces of legislation before us this morning at the conclusion of our address of the Prisons (Solitary Confinement) (Amendment) Bill 2016, a Private Member's Bill moved by Deputy Clare Daly. We will now move to that Bill which was referred for Committee Stage on 1 December 2016. I call on Deputy Daly to brief the committee on the provisions of her Bill.