Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 77 to section 25 would have the effect that a parole order may only be revoked if the person commits a criminal offence, as Deputy Clare Daly outlined. Currently, the section provides that an order may be revoked if the person poses an undue risk to the safety of the community or any person - that stalking example is a good one - or persons or has breached a condition of his or her parole. I would have very grave concerns about agreeing this amendment. Parole is in effect conditional release. A person knows precisely what the conditions are.

If a person was to pose an undue risk or breach a condition of his or her release, then the option of revoking the parole order must be available. That is what it is about. One is released on certain conditions. It is not merely about whether one commits a further crime. It is about all the varying conditions. I return to the quality of the parole hearing. If one has the proper risk assessment, one will have the proper conditions laid out in the order.

It is also the case that a person who has an order revoked is entitled, under the Bill, to a hearing following the revocation or suspension of an order. The grounds for revocation, as set out in the Bill, are common grounds in parole practice and we should retain them.

Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 to section 20 would require any breach of conditions to be a serious breach. The seriousness or otherwise of a breach of a condition is a matter which can be considered at the subsequent hearing. A breach of a condition as a trigger for revocation or suspension of an order is a straightforward matter to determine. Determining what amounts to a serious breach and who would make such a determination would introduce a subjectivity which could cause delay in what may be a high risk situation - one must keep that in mind. Persons granted parole will be fully aware of the conditions of their release and their need to abide by those conditions. All of that is part of the parole hearing. It is laid out clearly. The person will know precisely the conditions by which they must abide.

Amendment No. 81 is unnecessary, in my view. There is no reason to consider that the hearing into the revocation of a parole order could amount to a renewed parole process. It is clear from subsection (4) of section 25 that the person who is subject to the revocation of the parole order may make submissions – for the purpose of a hearing – in respect of the proposed grounds upon which it is proposed to revoke or suspend the order.

Amendment 82 was discussed in a fair bit of detail by us already. It proposes the reduction, from two years to one year, in the subsequent period before which a person can seek to be further considered for parole. I have already made clear my view on that.

I will comment on section 25 at a later stage.