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.