Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

I move amendmentNo. 84:

In page 21, to delete lines 12 to 45, to delete page 22 and in page 23, to delete lines 1 to 39.

Amendments Nos. 84 and 89 to 92, inclusive, are in my name and relate to crime prevention orders. At present, before a convicted person is released, it is often possible for the person to be granted temporary release. During that period, the person is usually subject to something similar to what the Minister proposes in that the person is not allowed to associate with certain people or get involved in certain activities.

When a person is sentenced, the judge takes into account all the facts and conditions. The idea is supposedly that when the person is convicted, he or she will go to jail, serve the sentence and pay his or her dues to society. However, I am of the view that imprisonment is meant to rehabilitate or, if need be, retrain a person so he or she would have a skill when coming out of prison. If enough time, effort and investment are put in to ensure this happens, such a person will not reoffend upon release.

There is concern with regard to the crime prevention orders as laid out in the Bill. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties raises a number of concerns and I have other concerns. By itself, the crime prevention order was not supposed to operate beyond the full term of the maximum sentence — my amendment No. 90 seeks to ensure this happens. The purpose of the order is supposedly to govern behaviour during the balance of the sentence up to the maximum. The ICCL has stated that the new orders would enable the courts to impose additional conditions on people who have already served a sentence and that breaching these conditions would be an offence. However, while one of the conditions might be to stay away from a certain location, to be in that certain location is not in itself criminal conduct.

The problem is we would create or criminalise the offence by taking that route. Similar to other areas of the legislation, we need to tease out the issues more. I have not heard any major clamour for this. The intention, obviously, is to prevent recidivism and to discover who reoffends, the reasons for doing so and ways to prevent them from doing so. This is important but, as I said earlier, we need to implement the first part of the project first, namely, to put the investment into education in jails and into support for those going through drug rehabilitation in our prisons. We need to put adequate supports in place so that when people leave prison they will have access to housing and additional support.

People who have served a long sentence will have lost many of their connections with society, family and friends and in many cases will be left on their own. I know the probation and welfare service has a role in this regard as well as other organisations. However, it does not have a big enough role or budget to ensure that people who fall off the wagon or who may be inclined to fall off the wagon are supported. The proposal in the Bill is a bit ahead of itself in this regard and we would need more time to tease out the issue.

Perhaps the Minister will outline in greater detail from where the proposal arose, other than coming as a result of one report. Will he also indicate whether there has been a clamour for such a provision? It seems similar to provisions in the draft legislation in England in terms of serious crime and serious crime prevention orders. If there are examples of how these work in another area or jurisdiction, they might help inform us better.

See this speech in context