Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I accept my amendment is covered in section 26. It is important my proposal is included as it was not included originally. The onus is now on the Parole Board to inform the prisoner, and I welcome that. I will be guided by the Acting Chairman on this. I have a difficulty with the 12-year period. I have a later amendment proposing that the period be reduced to eight years. It is actually seven years. I will not be supporting the period of 12 years. I fully support the victim. The victim and the protection of the community must be foremost in this respect. I am not sure where the Deputy is coming from in this regard. The Parole Board annual report 2017 points out the difficulties on the ground. The report refers to the delays in the timeframes for the review of an individual serving a life sentence. There are major delays on the ground. The report states that such delays can be based on the Parole Board not receiving reports in a timely manner, delaying the complete dossier from being available, and-or the capacity within the Parole Board secretariat to administer the volume of cases. The report concludes that the current parole model is not efficient and requires change and states that hopefully, the new Parole Bill, which is due to be debated, will bring about substantial changes. The Parole Board is highlighting the problems on the ground and stating that the reviews cannot be done.

I agree fully with what Deputy O'Callaghan is trying to do with this Bill and I support almost all of it. I read the debate on the Bill when it was considered by the Select Committee on Justice and Equality on 24 May. On the proposed amendment to delete "eight" and substitute "twelve", Deputy O'Callaghan stated:

At present the Parole Board is required to consider people who are convicted of a life-sentence offences for parole after eight years. It is just not feasible because people do not get parole after eight years. Parole is not generally considered until after 12 years...

For that reason he proposed putting on a statutory basis something I cannot support on the basis of that logic. I would have thought we needed to improve the system rather than copperfasten a bad system. The Parole Board's report highlights victims and families and clearly states how often it receives letters from victims and families. It states that if a case involves a murder, many family members are still experiencing severe trauma and mental health problems after the death of their loved one. I want to put that on the record. The Parole Board's report states that these letters are seriously considered before deciding on a recommendation.

8 o’clock

The difficulty I see here is the logic behind it because in reality they are not considered for parole at eight years in any event. I do not know why Deputy O'Callaghan would want to copper-fasten that in legislation. I would leave the little discretion that is there to the Parole Board if the practical difficulties can be worked out.

As a general principle, they say that parole only operates, as we know, for those who have received a sentence of more than eight years or a life sentence. It goes on then to point out, as Deputy O'Callaghan has already said, that it is up at 15, 16 or 17 years before parole is ever considered. I have a difficult, where it is highlighted as a problem that should be analysed and helped, that we will copper-fasten it in legislation.

I do not know where the amendment is taken but I have that amendment in. One is already being taken care of, I think, in amendment No. 50. Then I have amendments Nos. 49 and 47. Amendment No. 49 was to reduce it, to take out the "twelve". I will move that amendment.

Amendment No. 47 is one on which I will be guided by the Minister and Deputy O'Callaghan. In amendment No. 47, I ask that "clear and accessible information and support" be provided to the prisoner. That arose from section 18(2)(b) of the original Bill.

See this speech in context