Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am one of the few people in the House who has never been scared of the idea that people with political accountability should in the end make far-reaching decisions about certain kinds of people who have been sentenced to prison for life. It has always surprised me that people should claim that it is wrong that somebody who is politically accountable should have the final say on such matters. This is why I believe that the idea of an advisory parole board is preferable to a board which makes parole orders itself. I have always thought that Ministers in particular are sensitive to issues of public satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the implications of sentencing policy and early release. One need only consider the well-known Lough Inagh murder case of Shaw and Evans, in which a life sentence meant very long life sentences for two offenders convicted of murder, to realise that there are certain things which can be put on the scales in determining whether or not to grant parole or to allow somebody out on licence, including in the last analysis issues such as the message that is sent out to potential offenders, particularly people coming to Ireland for the purpose of committing sexual murders and rapes. We just have to be careful we do not sweep away in this legislation powers which ought to be retained in the political sphere. It should also be said that the power of remission and commutation of any sentence is vested in the Government under the Constitution to operate through the President. Therefore, the Government has, and cannot be deprived of, an overriding role to commute or remit a sentence regardless of this legislation, and we must bear that in mind.

I echo what Senators Bacik and Marie-Louise O'Donnell said about rushing this through in the last days of this session. There is no rush. The Bill took a long time to get to us from the Dáil. It only passed the Dáil on 3 July of this year, and why this House should effectively turn off its critical faculties to facilitate the Bill's early passage into legislation I do not know. I do not see any reason matters would be in any sense prejudiced if we were to give ourselves a couple of months to look at this legislation to make sure that it is what we wish it to be.

I wish to zero in on section 24 of the Bill. It states:

(1) Subject to this section and section 6(2), the following persons shall be eligible for parole:(a) a person serving a sentence of imprisonment for life who has served at least 12 years of that sentence;

(b) a person serving a sentence of imprisonment of a term equivalent to or longer than such term as is prescribed in regulations made by the Minister under subsection (3), who has served at least such portion of the sentence as may be prescribed by the Minister in accordance with that subsection.

One must look to subsection (3) to see what is the Minister's power. It states:

The Minister may, for the purposes of subsection (1)(b), following consultation with the Board, by regulations prescribe—(a) a term of imprisonment of not less than 8 years, and

(b) the proportion of such a term to be served by a person prior to becoming eligible for parole.

One of the problems with the Bill is that it is not clear from its terms whether these regulations can differentiate between offences. Is it simply intended to be 60% or 50% of the sentence regardless of the offence for which it is imposed or is it a power to make regulations intended to apply different minimum periods or proportions of sentences to different offenders? That is not made clear by subsections (3) or (4). Subsection (4)(d) provides that one of the criteria to which the Minister is supposed to have regard is "the desirability of equality of treatment with regard to eligibility for consideration for parole, insofar as is possible, between persons serving sentences of imprisonment for life and persons serving sentences of imprisonment for a determinate term, and between persons serving sentences of imprisonment for determinate terms of differing lengths".

I do not know what this section means and it has not been clarified. We should not be in a situation where I have five minutes to pose that question. I do not think I will get a very enlightening answer, although perhaps the Minister of State will explain exactly what the section means. It seems to me that section 24 is significantly problematic in terms of the language used in addition to the difficulties raised by Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell in respect of whether it is appropriate that a sentencing judge imposing a life sentence may make a recommendation that would override the 12-year period by raising it or otherwise, which I presume is what she has in mind.

I will finish on that point as I only have five minutes to make a contribution, which is ludicrous. This Chamber is shaming itself again by running through legislation. Although I am not comparing myself to him, under the current rules of the House former Senator W. B. Yeats would not be allowed to make the speech in which he proclaimed "we are no petty people". Rather, he would be told to sit down after five minutes or so. I make the point, if I may, that-----