Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I do not know who is due to speak after me but I would like to put him or her on notice that I will take just ten of the 15 minutes available to me. I hope the Deputy in question is aware of this so that he or she can come to the Chamber.

I thank Deputy O'Callaghan for sending me a copy of this legislation and the explanatory memorandum that accompanies it. When he first published the Bill, he offered to meet me to go through its provisions if I wished to do so. I also recognise that when the Minister published the legislative programme - I think it was the week before last - she flagged that she is in the process of drafting her own parole Bill. The Minister raised some issues and gave us some useful information regarding the constitutional position in respect of one section of the Bill. In broad terms, we would agree completely with the proposal before us this afternoon. I know it has been a long-standing position of the Government that the parole process should be placed on a statutory footing. As I have said, the Government is in the process of providing for this through its own Bill.

In fairness, the explanatory memorandum that comes with this Bill is very detailed. Section 8 of the Bill proposes that the Parole Board should have 15 members. We can debate whether 15 is the correct figure. Perhaps it should have more or fewer members. Deputy O'Callaghan can correct me if I am wrong in my understanding of the composition of the board. He said in his contribution that the chairperson should be a retired judge of the Circuit Court or higher, nominated by the Chief Justice. However, the legislation provides that the chairperson shall be a current or a former judge. I wonder if we could get some clarification on that. Is it possible that a serving judge could be the chairperson of the board?

Deputy O'Callaghan's legislation also outlines a number of individuals who should serve on the board, including a psychiatrist, a psychologist and a member of the Irish Penal Reform Trust. I would be concerned that the Bill does not provide that someone from the civil liberties side of the debate should be represented on the board. Maybe this is something we can address on Committee Stage. I do not think it is a huge issue on Second Stage. I certainly believe the composition of the board warrants further consideration on Committee Stage. The Minister suggested that this Bill proposes to replace the community representatives on the board with people who come from a completely legal background. I do not know whether that would be a wise or an appropriate thing to do. If one is looking at the granting of parole, one will need a balanced view. One will certainly need a community view, given that we are going to be asking people to integrate back into the community. It is very important that the community should have a say in that respect.

I want to touch on section 16 of the Bill, which outlines how the hearings will be conducted by the parole panel. It provides that "hearings shall be conducted in such manner as the parole panel thinks fit and the parole panel may receive submissions and such evidence including oral evidence as it thinks fit". It further provides that decisions by panels conducting hearings "shall be in writing and shall include reasons" and lists the people to whom copies of such decisions "shall be provided". Section 16(4) provides that if the panel's decision "is to decline to make a parole order in respect of a person, the decision shall specify a date at which the person shall next be considered for parole, not later than 2 years from the date of the decision". I would have some questions in that regard. I do not have an issue with the timeframe, as it is something that can be debated, but I think some flexibility needs to be built into the system. I do not know how the case of a terminally ill prisoner who was declined parole at a hearing before having a sudden change in circumstances - he or she might now have just a couple of months to live - could be dealt with if legislation provides it is not possible for someone to have another hearing within a two-year period. Maybe we can have further discussions on this aspect of the Bill. I do not even know how we would legislate for the flexibility that would be desirable in such circumstances. I certainly think it is something we need to discuss further.

This Bill proposes that there should be a review every three months to ensure those who have been granted parole are complying with the terms of that parole. I would have concerns about how such compliance could be monitored. As the Minister outlined, this is currently done by the Probation Service. This legislation proposes to transfer that power to the Parole Board. I do not know how that will work in reality. While we are not going to oppose the Bill on this basis, we believe greater consideration should be given to this aspect of the matter. I accept that the Parole Board needs to have the power to set the conditions of parole but I emphasise that the conditions in question need to be realistic. It may be one of the conditions of parole that the person who has been released must reside at a particular address but it may subsequently transpire that he or she is no longer able to reside at that address for some reason, perhaps through no fault of his or her own. This is particularly likely to happen in the current climate, when people are being evicted from properties and families are losing their family homes on foot of bank repossessions.

While technically they have breached their conditions, there needs to be some flexibility built so the Parole Board, when reviewing those conditions, can actually change them as the prisoner progresses.

The Bill states one reason why somebody should be considered for parole is if it would enhance their employment opportunities. It would be important if we could also insert a provision to allow for parole to enhance maintaining family connections and ties.

Section 26 provides for the board to issue a warrant authorising a member of An Garda Síochána to apprehend or return to prison a person released on parole on the revocation of a parole order. This is currently in the Minister’s power. Giving that power over to the Parole Board, albeit on a statutory footing, warrants further consideration.

I am not too sure how the Bill actually got past First Stage because, technically, any Opposition legislation which would incur a cost on the Exchequer usually does not get past First Stage. Not only does this Bill have such a cost, it actually sets out expenses, how the proposed agency will be funded and the secretariat staff applied to it. I congratulate Deputy Jim O'Callaghan for getting around the system. Maybe I will give him a telephone call later on how to do this because it is the first time I have seen Opposition legislation which refers to costs not ruled out of order. Saying that, this is a good development and I hope a precedent set by Deputy Jim O'Callaghan.

See this speech in context