Maurice Hayes (Independent)

I also welcome the legislation and I congratulate the Minister of State on the way in which he has brought the legislation forward. While we are not engaged in a wide-reaching review of the Prison Service, I would like the benchmark to be set a little higher than in Colombia or Iraq. Aspects of the Prison Service, which are not a reflection on the people working in it, need to be examined, including resourcing and the suitability of buildings and surroundings and so on. However, it is important to recognise the rehabilitative nature of imprisonment. Prisons are not simply places in which to lock people up. All of us live in the hope of amendment and restoration at the end of the day. It is important, in the circumstances, that prisoners have hope. The worse thing that could be done in terms of running prisons is to leave people without hope of amelioration. That is an important part of the discipline of the system.

Implementing temporary release under a set of criteria on a statutory basis is welcome. The Minister of State or his successor could face a judicial review but that will help to develop a set of criteria for dealing with these issues. There is a strong argument for ensuring that prisoners in the second half of a long sentence, in particular, are helped in preparation for release. However, even for people in the early part of a sentence, "hope deferred maketh the heart sick." Liberty is taken from prisoners under the law and nothing else. They are members of families, which suffer as a consequence, and children who have lost a parent through imprisonment should be helped. That is an important humanitarian reason for the exercise of discretion in these matters.

Senator Tuffy referred to the classification of prisoners and this must be applied objectively, whether we like what people have done or whether they are fashionable or whether they engaged in white collar or other forms of crime. Reasonable judgments can be made on the criteria set out in the legislation such as being a danger to the community and the likelihood of re-offending. There should be no sense in which a prisoner should not be released if people dislike his or her politics. It is proper that when people are on temporary release, a condition should be built in that they do not engage in political activity.

Equally, if people are imprisoned for sexual offences, they should not be locked up forever but the terms of their release should make it clear where they can go in order that children are safeguarded. As the Minister of State said, no regime is without risk but it is important to minimise the risk. There is a great deal to be said for putting more resources into the preparation of prisoners for release, as Senator Kett stated, so that they see it as part of a process, particularly if it can be linked to restorative justice if the victims and others want it.

My reservations regarding the legislation centre on the victims. I had experience of a case in which a man was murdered and his murderer was quite properly released. However, his extended family was shocked at the release. Their rough and ready notion of justice was that the murderer should have remained in prison and that is particularly the case in small, closed communities in country areas where the victim and murderer often live cheek by jowl. Where possible, the victims should be informed about the release of the offender, particularly if they live in the same area and are likely to bump into each other. A veto on releasing an offender should not be provided but, nevertheless, victims should be informed and help should be provided to allow them to deal with the issues that arise.