Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Bill and well done to Fianna Fáil. There is a background to it, and the Irish Penal Reform Trust has long called for such a change and for the Parole Board to be put on a statutory basis. It was a key recommendation of the strategic review of penal policy in 2014. I thank Fianna Fáil for doing something about it.

Generally the Bill is very good. I have no difficulty with it and I will support it. However, I will highlight a number of matters and perhaps they can be looked at on Committee Stage. Section 24 deals with the variation of a parole order. The purpose of the Bill is to establish a parole board which is completely independent of political control and of the Government, but section 24 states an order may be changed on the direction of a Minister. I would like this to be examined with regard to how it would infringe on the independence of the Parole Board.

Sections 18 and 19 deal with the guiding principles and criteria for parole. I have no difficulty with these, and clearly the safety of the community, family and victim must be paramount before we release prisoners, but there seems to be an undue emphasis on the offence committed a number of years prior to the Parole Board seeing the prisoner. There is not enough emphasis on the risk assessment that pertains at the point where the Parole Board is making a decision on whether a prisoner should be released into society and whether there is a risk at that stage. It should be with regard to the risk posed at the time the decision is being made. I also have a question on the standard of proof to be applied with regard to the decision, which is not clear from what I have seen.

I welcome the broad nature of the composition of the board. This has been repeatedly asked for by various lobby groups. The Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, has pointed out there is room for improvement with regard to community representation on the board. I ask for this to be examined on Committee Stage.

The point has been made that our prisons are full of poor people, whether we like it or not. We can predict at a very early age who will end up in prison and this prediction has never changed. One might say poverty is no excuse for crime, and it certainly is not, but the fact that prisoners consistently come from a certain class and areas has been repeatedly pointed out to us by the very experienced former governor of Mountjoy Prison. The Government and Dáil have failed to look at this.

White collar crime is treated completely differently. Deputy Howlin referred to a Government of chaos, but I do not see any chaos, and I hope that during the time we are here we will examine prison policy and how we send the same people to prison over and over again. As Deputy Paul Murphy said, it must occur to us that we are doing something wrong. It simply is not working if we send the same people to prison over and over again.

When considering the Bill I ask that we examine the balance that must be struck when releasing somebody. The safety of victims and the community must be paramount, but what should be of equal value is the chance of rehabilitating the prisoner. Ultimately, this is what prison is for, in addition to protecting society. It is supposed to serve a rehabilitation role so that when somebody goes to prison he or she is better coming out than going in. I would like to see this in the Bill and it is something to which I will return.

Professor Harry Kennedy of the Central Mental Hospital has pointed out we have only two beds per 100,000 people in the population, compared to England which has 7.5 beds per 100,000 people. Our prisons serve as emergency departments for people who are sick and who should be in hospital receiving treatment. This is not happening and is something we need to examine.

I welcome the fact that prisoners would be entitled to legal representation at an oral hearing. The Bill also states a prisoner would be entitled to documentation, but it does not specify all documentation. This should be clarified. Are prisoners entitled to all documentation on which the decision will be made? This is paramount. It should not be just some documentation or relevant documentation, but all of the documentation on which the decision will be based.

The section stating that a victim may be heard is extremely important, but how will this decision be made? Who will communicate with the victim? If we take somebody who has committed sexual abuse and there are a number of victims, on the practical side how will this be dealt with and how will the victims be notified? It is an essential element of the Bill, but on a practical level how will it be dealt with?

I welcome the Bill and I look forward to Committee Stage.

See this speech in context