Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I will share time with my seconder, Senator Eileen Flynn. I will not be using all the time anyway.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach and welcome the Minister.

I know this Bill came to the Minister's attention within the past week with respect to having time with the legislation but I think it is extremely straightforward. It is a simple, short Bill. I will give it some context in terms of where it comes from and what it is trying to achieve. First, for anyone who is unaware of the parole process - I know most of those present are aware of it - it applies to a person or persons who are serving life sentences and have served 12 years or more of their sentence, which is the beginning of the process of them being released pursuant to a parole order.It is important to state that the parole process only ever begins at 12 years. I know the public, and victims especially, quite rightly get upset or disheartened at the prospect of someone who may have taken their loved one's life being out on parole after 12 years, but that only happens when the parole process is actually instigated. It will take a long time from that starting date before a person is actually released. There are several steps that need to be taken throughout that process.

Parole is not an entitlement for all life prisoners, with decisions regarding a person's eligibility to return to the community being made by the Parole Board upon application. With regard to the importance of the parole process, sometimes the fact it begins at 12 years is a disincentive for people to engage with the parole system. Often, people do not engage very well in the early days of a life sentence with regard to psychology, counselling, addiction supports or education. It is often at that 12-year starting point that people see there is something that needs to happen for them to completely change their life, situation and trajectory if they are going to be considered somebody who can be released at a certain point and date in the future.

The Parole Board was established by the order of the Minister for Justice in July 2021 in accordance with the Parole Act, so it is a relatively new board and procedures. The board is completely independent in its functions and has the power to engage with parole applicants and victims of crime in reaching a determination. When processing an application for parole, the board must follow the procedures as set out in section 14 of the 2019 Act, the most recent version of which was adopted in 2024. As part of the process, the board may request reports regarding applicants from a variety of sources, including but not limited to the Irish Prison Service, the Probation Service and An Garda Síochána. As I said at the start, this process can be a lengthy one and, going into the parole process, you are not looking immediately at release. You may be looking at other enhancements as part of your sentence, whether that be neutral venues or a job, such as an outdoor job on the grounds. There are different elements to what people look for in parole with respect to their parole recommendations, and it is not always necessarily at a certain point that the person would be released.

The information gathered by the board in its consideration of an application is generally shared with applicants and their legal representative but can be withheld in exceptional circumstances. It is through my work with several life sentence prisoners, and the work I do in prisons and around fair, just and transparent access to justice, that it became apparent to me that there was potentially a lack of oversight in that part with regard to those exceptional circumstances. I must state strongly that I am not saying that invoking exceptional circumstances, in certain cases, is not something that may be required. I understand historically as well why that exists. It existed historically with regard to political prisoners, terrorism or persons who were a threat to the State. An Garda Síochána may say that a person is still involved with criminal activity. It became somewhat apparent to me that there may be a lack of access to justice at that point.

With regard to exceptional circumstances, they are currently undefined in the Act, and that also causes an issue. If we look to An Garda Síochána for a report or insight when a person is at a certain point in his or her parole and An Garda Síochána says it has evidence that the person is involved in X, Y or Z or is a potential threat to the State, at that point it can share that information with the Parole Board and then it can decide under the guise of exceptional circumstances that the information cannot be shared with the individual or their legal representation.This may be true in some cases. Obviously, I do not know what information is there or not there. The problem with this is that it means there is absolutely zero oversight of what exact evidence the Garda may have on a particular person. Is it being used appropriately? Who actually makes that assessment? If somebody has evidence and is taking a case in Ireland - obviously not in relation to a life sentence prisoner but just in general - the DPP's office evaluates all the evidence available to it and then decides whether the case should be taken to court. That does not happen here. There is no extra layer of oversight in relation to exceptional circumstances. Also, we are not clear what "exceptional circumstances" actually are.

I thank Robert Somerville, who works in my office, for drafting this legislation. I also thank the legal experts who supported us to understand the process here in Ireland and assess how it compares with the process in Northern Ireland in the hope that we could create legislation that would bring us in line with other jurisdictions rather than create a new process.

According to section 14 of the 2019 Act, the applicant and their legal representative will receive "a copy of any document" or information "furnished to the Board ... where the Board is of the opinion that exceptional circumstances exist that warrant such a document or indication ... not being so given". This means that the representative or the parolee never actually gets to answer any sort of case to any sort of evidence. They are never questioned by the Garda, and they are never brought to court. They can never refute any allegation or give any documentation to say that it is not accurate or that it is not a good use of exceptional circumstances. They have nothing to argue against because it is kept from them. When the documentation and information are withheld, applicants and their legal representatives do not receive an explanation as to why. Additionally, they have no right of reply or recourse. While there are certain circumstances where this may be necessary, and I do not discount or disagree with that, we need to ensure the applicant has a right to due process and it is not negatively undermined. Additionally, there should be greater clarity about the nature of the exceptional circumstances that might give case to the board's decision to withhold in the first instance.

We have tabled an amending Bill. Therefore, we propose that special advocates are appointed to represent the interests of parole applicants in circumstances where information is to be withheld in the parole process. Special advocates would be independent of the parolee and his or her legal representation.

The Bill, additionally and importantly, inserts an amendment that provides a definition for "exceptional circumstances" to provide greater clarity to applicants, legal representatives, the Parole Board and the general public. I feel that An Garda Síochána should have an extra layer of oversight in terms of how exceptional circumstances are used and this Bill protects their decisions.

On the alternative, where this occurs the commissioner or chairman of the panel dealing with the parole application has the power to recommend that the advocate general - the Attorney General for these purposes here in Ireland - ensures that a special advocate be appointed to represent the interests of the prisoner in the parole process. The use of special advocates in the North is designed to ensure fairness in proceedings where sensitive information, often related to national security or public interest, can be disclosed to the parole applicant or his or her legal representative. The context for when this occurs is clearly provided in rule 9 of the Northern Ireland legislation and provides absolute clarity regarding the contexts which might give rise to information being withheld in the parole process. They are where disclosures would be likely to adversely affect the safety of an individual, result in the commission of an offence, facilitate an escape from lawful custody or the doing of any act prejudicial to the safekeeping of persons in custody, impede the prevention or detection of offences or the apprehension or prosecution of suspected offenders, be contrary to the interests of national security, or otherwise cause substantial harm to the public interest. People can see where it is laid out under similar legislation in the North, under rule 9, that there are lots of safeguards for when to use exceptional circumstances. However, where a determination is made to withhold the information for any other reason, which I have outlined, a special advocate is appointed from a panel of qualified barristers. We must remember that members of An Garda Síochána are not barristers. Gardaí uphold the law but they do not legislate, do not argue the law in court and do not engage with the law in the same way as a barrister. Once appointed, the special advocate is granted access to the sensitive information to form an understanding of its content and implications. The advocate is precluded from communicating with the applicant or their legal representative throughout the process unless leave has been granted by the commissioner or chairman of the panel. Again, this legislation provides an extra layer of protection to make sure that the special advocate is completely independent of the parolee or their legal representative.

Having reviewed the sensitive information, the function of the special advocate is to make submissions, where he or she deems appropriate, to represent the applicant's interests to the commissioner and the Parole Board. In closed parole hearings the special advocate may additionally make oral submissions to the parole panel and cross-examine any witnesses called to attend such hearings. The parole commissioners, in reaching their determination regarding an application for parole, will consider both the open evidence that is shared with the applicant and the closed evidence, which is the information reviewed with the assistance of the special advocate.

This Bill closely mirrors the provisions of the Parole Commissioners' Rules 2009 in Northern Ireland and amends our Parole Act 2019. Section 1 is a standard Short Title, collective citation and commencement provisions. Section 2 sets out the interpretation. Section 3 amends section 2(1) of the Parole Act, providing definitions as to what constitutes exceptional circumstances. Section 4 amends section 14 of the 2019 Act to include provisions which set out the procedures to be followed where exceptional circumstances are deemed to exist. Section 5 amends the Act of 2019 through the insertion of a new section which sets out the functions of an appointed special advocate in the parole process.

As I said at the beginning, this Bill will definitely not be everyone's radar and it affects only a small minority of people in this country. Also, this Bill will probably never be something that many people will want to champion because it seeks to ensure there is an extra layer of access to justice for life sentence prisoners who often will not be able to raise these concerns or represent themselves in a particular way when they believe there is a barrier to them accessing justice or an unfair decision has been made against them, especially when that unfair decision means they do not know what the information is that is being used and has stopped them from progressing. The Bill ensures that these prisoners have access to justice but it also ensures that we acknowledge the exceptional circumstances, ensure an independent person is brought in to assess the information and that it is not shared with the parolee or their legal representatives. This Bill is good law, just and transparent and replicates successful parol procedures elsewhere.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I second the motion. I thank Senator Ruane and her office for bringing forward this important legislation. As the Senator said, this issue does not impact on many people within Irish society but it will have an impact on people seeking parole. I support the Bill as it will bring fairness and justice.

As a member of the Traveller community, a minority group, I know how unfair the justice system can be to people from minority groups. Earlier today, Senator Ruane and I discussed how some people do not understand what is written on a search warrant. This legislation is very straightforward. It gives a person the opportunity to again participate in society and build up trust in society. We do not talk enough about this issue. There is a sense that people who do the crime do the time and that kind of thing and people should be given a second chance. We have seen the provisions in this Bill work in other parts of Ireland and in other countries.I understand this Bill will not be accepted this evening. We look forward to debating this legislation again and the Minister's office really taking it into consideration. We know the Minister's heart is in the right place when it comes to justice but justice is not just for one certain set of people. It is also for people going through the system.

Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister back to the House this afternoon. On behalf of the Government, I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after “That” and substitute the following: - “Seanad Éireann resolves that Parole (Special Advocates) Bill 2024 be read a second time on this day six months, to allow for further consideration of issues arising in the Bill.”.

I believe the Minister would like to make his contribution at this point. I will be better informed to make my contribution thereafter.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with the amendment that proposes postponing the passing of Second Stage of this Bill for a period of six months. I thank Senator Ruane and Senator Flynn for introducing this legislation. It raises important issues, as has been identified by both Senators. It is not something that is highlighted publicly as an issue which is causing ongoing mischief in society but that is not a reason to oppose legislation.

This is the third time I have encountered legislation in the Seanad and I have always found it a very useful place to come. I was here a number of weeks ago when Senator Harmon introduced a Bill seeking to outlaw sex for rent, as it was referred to. It was a very sensible Bill and I have now included it within the criminal justice (miscellaneous provisions) Bill that I published last week. I want Senators to know that when they put forward legislation and they go to the bother of drafting Private Members' Bills, I will give careful consideration to it. I did the same in respect of Senator Mary Fitzpatrick's Bill in respect of retail workers.

I fully understand that this Bill has come up on short notice. I make no criticism of Senator Ruane in respect of that. It just happened that the Bill came up on short notice but I am grateful to the Senator for engaging with me yesterday. The Bill is very well drafted. It raises a couple of interesting points in respect of the processes before the Parole Board, but the main reason for the amendment proposed is that I and the Department need more time to consider what is proposed here. I will also have to engage with the Parole Board. Obviously, that is the entity that will be directly affected by it in terms of the procedures. I will also have to engage with An Garda Síochána.

I will not express a final view in respect of the matter until I have done that but I want the Senators to know I will engage on the issue in good faith. I know the period of six months will also give Senator Ruane an opportunity to consider further amendments that might help which I will outline here in due course.

First, I commend the work of the Parole Board. I derive great satisfaction and a bit of pride from the existence of the Parole Board since, back in 2020, I introduced the Private Members' Bill, the Parole Bill, that resulted in the enactment of the Parole Act. I am very well disposed towards Senators, or indeed Deputies, who introduce Private Members' Bills if they are sensible and contain sensible proposals that are beneficial. I have no sense of being proprietary. It is appropriate that we should try to progress them.

It is important to note the Parole Board operates independently of the Minister for Justice. It brings diverse and important skills and experience together and it has unquestionably improved the process of the granting of parole that operates in Ireland today. Prior to the enactment of the Parole Act, many of the decisions - all of the decisions, in fact - of the Parole Board were decisions that were made by the Minister for Justice of the day on the recommendation of the then non-statutory Parole Board. It is very appropriate we have a statutory system in place in order that people can see how it operates and that it is set out in legislation how this important process should take place.

One of the reasons we can have this debate today is there is now far clearer public understanding of the parole process, what information is considered within it and the respective roles of the parties that come before the parole decision-making process. As Senator Ruane has indicated, the purpose of her Bill is to amend a provision so that we can bring in special advocates who will determine whether information that is provided to the Parole Board should also be provided to the parole applicant.I am not aware of any circumstances where this has arisen as an issue. There may have been some cases that were initiated but they have not resulted in decisions or reserved decisions of the High Court. Nonetheless, as was stated earlier, it is not always the case we have to wait for somebody to go to court to improve legislation. The fact it is not a pressing issue in the public domain should not be a reason the Bill should not be considered.

The Senator's Bill would provide that where information is not disclosed, the Minister would be informed and would be required to consider whether to appoint a special advocate who would review the information and potentially make submissions to the board. In practice, there may be quite legitimate reasons to withhold and protect confidential information within the parole process. Such information may arise particularly in relation to organised crime cases and where there are national security implications.

For example, where a person has applied for parole to the Parole Board, one of the factors the Parole Board has to consider is whether the individual will be a threat if granted parole or will continue to be involved in criminal activity. If An Garda Síochána was aware or had information leading it to believe the individual was still involved in criminal activity and, consequently, advocate against the granting of parole, that is a factor the Parole Board would have to take into account. I do not think anyone disputes that is a factor that should be taken into account. What Senator Ruane suggests, however, is that, as well as taking it into account, there should be an opportunity provided to have the veracity and quality of that information assessed. She recognises that there could not just be a situation where the information is passed over to the parole applicant who then gets to see it, but she is putting in place a filter system through the position of special advocates, who would determine whether the information should be disclosed to the parole applicant.

Let us take a straightforward example. In an organised crime context, it may arise that an applicant has ongoing links to an organised crime group and there may be an investigation into the group that is relevant to the parole decision. The integrity of that investigation must be protected but the information is clearly of relevance to the parole decision. Information may have been received from covert investigations or from intelligence sources where disclosure could potentially endanger law enforcement personnel or other persons or hinder investigative work into other offences.

It is, of course, true to say that special advocates in civil and criminal proceedings are used in a number of other jurisdictions. Senator Ruane referred to Northern Ireland, where it is on the Statute Book. They are also used in other parts of the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Canada. What is characteristic in those jurisdictions is a detailed body of law and procedures in respect of the operation of the special advocate system. In that respect, there is clearly work to be done beyond the scope of the current Bill. I will now outline some of the areas where I think there are difficulties with the Bill, but they are difficulties that Senator Ruane and, indeed, the Department could work on to improve it.

As it stands, the Bill is silent on various important issues: first, the criteria by which the Minister would determine whether to appoint a special advocate; second, how such advocates might be selected and what their qualifications would be; third, the basis for their clearance to view particular information; fourth, the terms of their service and how would they operate; fifth, what technical support they might receive; sixth, their powers and rights in respect of the parole process; and finally, the consequences of any breach of duties of confidentiality.

A particular issue arises with defining exceptional circumstances in the Bill. I do not think the intention of Senator Ruane is to broaden significantly the use of section 14(1)(b) to withhold information, but it would appear the criteria proposed are in fact quite broad in terms of disclosure being refused on general public interest grounds and might well have that unintended effect. More generally, I note that the importance of disclosed information and how that information is received, tested and weighed goes well beyond the parole process. These issues arise in relation to immigration and national security, Special Criminal Court proceedings and potentially in any criminal or civil proceedings. To take a recent example, Senators will be aware that the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023 put existing common law practice on witness anonymity on a statutory footing. Where appropriate, a court may order that the identity of a witness is not disclosed and material intending to identify the witness may be removed or redacted. Similar considerations arise with this Bill, so while the parole context we are discussing is very important, it cannot be fully separated from the other situations where such closed material arises. A coherent and consistent approach would be required from the State. At this stage, I am concerned that a clear rationale has not been identified. At the very least, these issues need to be considered in a broader context with a view to a more developed legislative policy and operational infrastructure. I do not say that to Senator Ruane in a negative way. This has been a very useful contribution and Bill. The Bill is an important first step.

These are not theoretical matters. I am conscious that there are practical examples of where this issue will arise in respect of people who are applying for parole. These issues are at the heart of public confidence in the criminal justice system. The Government amendment to the motion provides some space for further analysis. I would like to have further analysis in respect of it. I received correspondence from the Irish Penal Reform Trust, which is supporting the Senator's Bill. Obviously, I will give that very careful consideration as well. The main reason we would benefit from an adjournment for a period of six months - Second Stage will be passed in six months - is that I will have an opportunity to engage with the Parole Board. I will get to hear from it about the extent to which it relies on this closed information. From what has been said by Senator Ruane, there have obviously been some situations where it has relied on closed information. I also want to find out from the board what it thinks the effect will be of allowing for special advocates. The parole process has become more prescribed by legislation. That needed to happen, but I do not want to turn it into a very complicated and highly legalised area. It already provides for the presence of lawyers in terms of representation not just by the parole applicant but indeed by the families of victims. I want to ensure we do not set up a whole new body of legal complexity by introducing special advocates. However, I would have thought that if we went down the route of enacting legislation to provide for special advocates, the role and the amount of times they would be required would be very limited. I would have thought that most parole applications do not rely upon what is being referred to as closed information.

I thank Senators Ruane and Flynn for introducing the Bill. As I said, Government will not be opposing it. We are proposing an amendment that would adjourn the passing of Second Stage in the Seanad for a period of six months. During that period we will all have an opportunity to look at it in more detail. I would appreciate it if Senator Ruane, and her fine drafter Mr. Robert Somerville, could take on board some of the suggestions and see how they might come forward with proposed amendments on Committee Stage in this House.

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach. I will listen to the other contributions.

Garret Kelleher (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister to the House and second the proposal for a six-month period to give us an opportunity to reflect more on what exactly is entailed and to arrive at the conclusion that will best fit us and also take into account the concerns and considerations of victims of crime and of survivors, as Senator Ruane articulated in her opening remarks.

In the more than 100 years since the establishment of An Garda Síochána in 1923, we have seen the service be of immense importance in protecting the State and her people. We were reminded as recently as Sunday last of the dangers and perils faced by members of An Garda Síochána when they go about their duty. I take this opportunity to express my condolences to the family of Garda Kevin Flatley and members of An Garda Síochána on his tragic passing. This Government is committed to a radical overhaul of the criminal justice system and we need to see more gardaí on our streets. We have seen the appointment of judges, which is crucial to the criminal justice system. I commend Senator Ruane on her work. I will not go into the detail because she articulated what exactly is involved very well in her opening remarks, but it is about fairness and ensuring those applying for parole are given due process. As I said a moment ago, and as Senator Ruane alluded to, it is important to consider the victims of crime and survivors. The proposal to defer this for six months is the right one and something we are happy to support. Once again I commend Senator Ruane as well as her office. It is very important and I look forward to revisiting the issue after the period of deferral.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister. I congratulate Senator Ruane on her initiative in tabling this legislation. The Minister's request for more time to consider what is involved is sensible and reasonable in all the circumstances. The whole idea of a special advocate is novel in Irish law. A series of issues arise in respect of restricted evidence confined to legal practitioners who are not in a position to disclose that material to the person on whose behalf they have been appointed to act. It is a concept that is well-known is European law, perhaps, and has crept into UK law too. However, let us remember that secret evidence is available in European law in circumstances that would cause most Irish lawyers’ eyebrows to raise to somewhere around the backs of their necks when they consider the very concepts.

I wish to make two points. If we are going down this road we must, as I think the Minister hinted, carefully work out what the obligations, sanctions and rules are that would ensure the special advocate does not end up imparting this information either formally or informally to third parties, especially the affected person. Can they test it out with the third parties? Can they bounce it off others, so to speak? In so doing, does a trail of confidentiality, an obligation of confidentiality and a legal duty of confidentiality attach to that process? These are serious questions that must be considered very carefully.

The second point, which I think Senator Ruane will agree is legitimate, is the question of what the duties of the special advocate are. If they come to the conclusion that information is being suppressed, effectively, for the criteria set out in the Bill, are they entitled to initiate a judicial review or are they simply stuck with the outcome? There is not clarity in the Bill as it currently exists as to what the potential consequences are for what might appear to the special advocate to be an entirely unreasonable invocation of the confidentiality procedures that exist and what the consequence of that would be in terms of the entitlement to challenge it legally. That goes to the point that the Minister has made and made well, which is that we do not want to create some kind of cathedral of complexity over a principle which, in Senator Ruane's Bill, is just a basic principle of equity, that somebody should have the right to know whether information is being properly or improperly brought into the statutory parole process. In that context, there needs to be further balancing consideration put into this project. We need to examine what the consequences are in the appointment of a special advocate. We need, in particular, to consider very carefully what sanctions, duties and enforcement there will be for special advocates and what penalties there will be for breach of those duties. We need to consider their powers and whether they are entitled to test out the material which they have seen by, as I said earlier, bouncing it off anybody else for credibility, proportionality or anything like that. Are they to be given that right? If so, what are the consequences in terms of extending the duty of secrecy to them? If there were judicial review proceedings, and I can well imagine that there would be because so many people in this predicament have nothing better to do than to cook up a judicial review if they can possibly do so - I am not talking here about special advocates but, rather, the people who are dissatisfied with the outcome of the process - would those judicial review proceedings be held in public? Would the material which was excluded from the purview of the affected person be amenable to High Court judicial review and examination as to its substance and weight? Would that process be entirely secret or would it be semi-public? Would there be redaction? No one knows.

What appears to be a very simple precept of fairness carries with it very serious implications for the administration of justice and for a fair parole system. The Minister should take six months to think very carefully through where all of this might lead.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senators Ryan and Collins are sharing time. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Nicole Ryan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is great to see the Minister in the Seanad Chamber again. I thank Senator Ruane for bringing this Bill to the floor of the House today. The Bill seeks to address the imbalance in our parole system whereby information can be withheld from parole applicants and their legal teams under the guise of exceptional circumstances. This is a barrier in our justice system and the proposal for the appointment of special advocates in such cases is a reasonable step forward. The reality is that the parole system can only work fairly when there is transparency and accountability.

The Irish Prison Service is under immense pressure. Overcrowding, underinvestment and a lack of meaningful rehabilitation services mean that many prisons cannot properly support reintegration. The one-year reoffending rate stands at 41% and for younger adults under 21 it is 60%. In countries such as Norway only 20% reoffend within the first two years. What Norway has, and what we lack, is a properly resourced rehabilitation justice model.

As Senator Kelleher pointed out, we must centre the system around victims. The parole process is an incredibly traumatic time for survivors of sexual violence and families of homicide victims. They deserve timely information, clarity on release conditions and recognition of their rights throughout the process. If our parole system is to serve justice, it must do so to all sides.

Joanne Collins (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister to the House. I am pleased to stand in support of this Bill. I commend Senator Lynn Ruane and her team on the thoughtful and considered proposal.

The Bill addresses the clear procedural gap in the current parole framework, one that undermines natural justice and leaves applicants vulnerable to decisions made on the basis of undisclosed evidence without any avenue, response or redress. What the Bill proposes is modest, balanced and grounded in best practice. The Bill proposes the introduction of special advocates - legally trained and security-cleared professionals - who can represent the interests of the parole applicant where sensitive information is being withheld. These advocates will not share the information with the applicant, but will be empowered to scrutinise it, challenge it where necessary and ensure the parole board receives a full and fair picture before reaching its decision. This is not about tipping the scales in favour of applicants. Rather, it is about ensuring that the scales are even in the first place. It is about putting in place clear legal safeguards where the term "discretion" is currently undefined and unchecked.

The inclusion of the statutory definition of "exceptional circumstances", drawing on models from jurisdictions like the Six Counties, is another strength in the Bill. It gives clarity to applicants, legal representatives and the Parole Board. It reinforces public confidence in the fairness and integrity of parole decisions. In my county, Limerick, and elsewhere across the State, people want a justice system that is fair and firm in equal measure. They understand that rehabilitation, where appropriate, should be supported, but it must happen in a transparent framework.

The Bill does not diminish victims' rights or compromise public safety. Instead, it protects the integrity of the process that must be seen to operate above reproach. Sinn Féin supports the Bill because it strengthens fairness, accountability and trust in the parole system. I urge the Government to do the same.

Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for coming to the House. It is great to hear how willing he is to have a meaningful debate and discussion on the Bill. I thank Senator Ruane and her team for bringing it forward.

I will echo a lot of the words that we have already heard today around what justice and democracy are and how, to have a democratic society, we must have fair justice. A major part of a just society is recourse for everyone to understand why a State institution has taken action against them and to provide recourse for challenging that decision. Simply put, we all know the term that everyone should be entitled to due process. That is true for us in the Chamber and it is also true for applicants in prison seeking parole.

The Bill is about strengthening our justice system and making it more progressive. We have heard comments around complexity and not wanting to make the system unduly complex. We should not do that, but we are not making changes without necessity. The Bill is about closing a loophole that may exist but should not exist if people are to have access to a fair process.

The current process for seeking parole means that applicants can be put in a position whereby they are denied due process. Whether there are many cases of that happening remains to be seen, given the Minister's interventions, but that does not mean that, as he said, we should not try to close the loophole before an issue arises.

When information related to parole is withheld from somebody and their representation, we can all acknowledge that does not equate to fair justice. Under the current system, applicants can be denied access to critical information influencing their parole decision without explanation or recourse - that it can happen without recourse is an important thing to highlight. The Bill addresses these flaws by introducing two reforms which we have discussed but I will outline again. The first reform involves defining the idea of "exceptional circumstances". It is good for people in the parole system and for the public interest to have such things explicitly defined. The second reform is about establishing a framework for appointing special advocates to represent the interests of applicants where information is withheld. Again, it is about giving people the right to representation, which is so fundamental in a justice system.

Rehabilitation, as we have heard from many Senators, should be central to our justice system. Parole exists not as a privilege but, rather, as a mechanism to support reintegration and rehabilitation. When decisions affecting a person's liberty are made behind closed doors without scrutiny, we risk reinforcing the cycles of exclusion and disenfranchisement that lead many people into crime.

Special advocates provide a safeguard against arbitrary decision-making. No one is saying that the Parole Board is doing any of this with malicious intent. I acknowledge what the Minister said about the great work the Parole Board does, but it is about having legislative and procedural safeguards in place to avoid mistakes happening. In this we are following jurisdictions including, as we have heard, the North, other parts of the UK and Canada, and strengthening our system in line with that. I support the Bill and the fact it is closing an existing loophole. It recognises that not all information can be appropriately provided to parole applicants, there being particular instances where that is not appropriate. Having that highlighted for the public good is important. The idea of having no right to reply in certain circumstances is worrying. Strengthening the right to challenge a decision that is taken is really important. I hope we will have plenty of opportunities for discussion on the Bill. I am sure the Minister will work closely with Senator Ruane in the next few months and there will be the chance to debate it in detail when it comes back to the House.

Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I again thank the Minister for his attendance. I echo the comments by my colleague Senator Kelleher regarding the untimely death of Garda Kevin Flatley. I am sure I speak for everyone in the Chamber in extending our deepest condolences to his dear wife, Úna, and his children, Aoife and Erin. Our thoughts and prayers are with them in these dark days. They will face many such days on the long, hard road ahead of them. I say to them and to Garda Flatley's extended family that we are truly appreciative of the work he did. He really was a man of the community. His death highlights yet again the dangers the men and women of An Garda Síochána face when they put on their uniform and go out to do their duty. They go out the door and sometimes, like in this instance, they never return. We must never forget that. We owe them a great debt of gratitude for the work they do. Theirs is a unique profession. Not many professionals are faced with the possibility of not coming home safely. The men and women of An Garda Síochána do that every day of the week and I speak for us all in giving my sincere thanks to them.

I commend my colleague Senator Ruane on taking on this very niche legislation. As the Minister outlined, it deals with an issue people do not talk about on the doorsteps. For that reason, the Senator deserves even more recognition. Knowing her for as long as I do, I appreciate her sincerity in this regard and compliment her on bringing the Bill forward.

The Minister has been in the Chamber three or four times since his appointment. His attitude to this House and the Members of the House who bring forward legislation is refreshing and very much welcome. I commend him on it. The simple thing would be to close down such proposals and move on. In fairness to him, he has not done that and his door is always open. I very much welcome his approach.

The approach he is adopting in regard to this legislation is a very sensible one. There is a six-month window for Senator Ruane and her team to liaise with the Minister and his team to iron out the issues, particularly in regard to special advocates, the role they might have and the difficulties Senator McDowell outlined as possibly arising. There will be an opportunity to tease out all of that.

My two Sinn Féin colleagues mentioned victims. I am no expert in this field but when I think of parole, my first thought is for the victims of crime and how decisions made by the Parole Board will affect them. I am heartened in that I have heard little of discontentment in regard to decisions already taken by the board. That is a good thing. I certainly am not criticising the proposals before us but it poses the question about the need for them. However, I fully accept that, in Senator Ruane's experience, there clearly is a need for this legislation. We will have an opportunity at some point to tease out the different scenarios we have discussed this evening.I look forward to being part of that deliberation. I also look forward to us being back here safe and well in six months. It is to be hoped we will have advanced this legislation whereby we get to a point where we can pass Second Stage and everybody is moving forward in the one direction to conclude it as soon as possible.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senators Scahill and Byrne are sharing time. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Gareth Scahill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister to the Chamber once again. I compliment Senator Ruane on this legislation. My reading of the legislation is it is intended to improve the fairness of the parole system. While I acknowledge the genuine intent behind it, the right move today is to revisit it in six months when there has been more time to consider it. The current system provides for withholding information from parole applicants in exceptional circumstances under section 14 of the 2019 Act. If there is a case for reform, it is to improve oversight and clarity around those exceptions, not to introduce closed secretive processes that place a legal wall between applicants and the information being used to decide their future. I agree with the motion to move that for six months.

Cathal Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I echo the comments that were made previously relating to Garda Kevin Flatley and offer my condolences to his family. I can only imagine how difficult today and the past few days have been for them. I offer my condolences to all members of An Garda Síochána who served closely on the force with him.

I support the amendment tabled by my colleagues. I thank Senator Ruane for her and her office's work. I thank Senator Flynn for her work and contribution in this area. As a solicitor, I appreciate the contribution that has been made to the debate. I understand where Senator Ruane is coming from with the idea that information is being used to make a decision about somebody to which that individual does not have access. I appreciate the nuance of the point made. I very much take on board the point made by Senator McDowell that it is important in work that we do in this Chamber that we are not adding extra layers to a process that ultimately may not be regularly used. I echo the Minister's comments. It is important that he has an opportunity to hear directly from the Parole Board on how regularly this practice occurs and if it something that is used on a occasional basis or something that has not been exercised at all.

I am conscious that in this debate we must always have at the forefront of our minds the victims of these crimes. An individual must be serving a life sentence to be eligible for parole in the first instance. A life sentence is one where the individual concerned has been convicted of some of the most heinous, serious and grievous offences that anyone can be convicted of. It is important that in seeking to balance the rights of someone who is serving a life sentence to get access to information about them, we also respect that sensitive and confidential work could have been undertaken perhaps by members of An Garda Síochána, the Defence Forces or the security forces and perhaps dealing with issues of national security or serious gang or organised criminal activity. It is about finding a balance between the rights of the individual to information about themselves while not compromising anybody who is involved in protecting other issues of the State. It is important that in six months, should this amendment pass, the Minister comes back to the House with a better and clearer understanding of the balance between those competing rights. I agree with the point made earlier about the consequences for a special advocate breaching the confidentiality clause, should this legislation pass. Every barrister has a client and in this situation we would have the novel environment where even the special advocate, who de facto is representing the interests of the individual serving the life sentence, is in reality prohibited from giving them the information they may be under the impression is making the difference in whether they have a successful application for parole. The juxtaposition of those two competing interests could lead to a situation such that a special advocate is placed in an impossible position where he or she has insight to that information but is prohibited from placing it before the individual.

Should the amendment pass, it is important that when the Minister is reviewing this legislation, the security of special advocates, should they come into being, and the need to protect them in the same way we protect similar informers, confidential people and members of the Judiciary, is taken into account.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank everyone for their contributions. They will be helpful in teasing out what questions may come up for people. I am always grateful for the further exploration of a topic as it is coming up. I will try to answer some of them. Some of them I cannot answer just now. I considered approaching the Parole Board on this but I was also cautious around including the board in legislation that affects it. Now that it is on the Minister's table, it makes more sense to consult the board. I have consulted legal representation from the North where similar legislation is in situ. I have gone around the houses but have not negotiated or sat down with the Parole Board specifically.

To be clear, the special advocate does not determine whether the parolee should be given the information. He or she makes submissions or oral presentations to the Parole Board to determine the validity or the scale of that information and whether it is an adequate use by An Garda Síochána. It is not that the special advocate would, at the end of the decision-making process, decide that this information should be shared with the parolee or his or her legal representative. It is actually an extension of the parole process itself.

With regard to confidentiality, and maybe I need to understand this more, my inclination is that we could also say that about Parole Board members because they are made privy to the information. We already have a situation where the Parole Board members are made privy to the information and it is then decided whether they think it is appropriate to share the information. If we are talking about how we support or protect a special advocate, it would be with the same processes we have in place for the Parole Board itself, which carries out that function, but without the extra layer of a barrister's oversight. It is not a criticism of the new board. I engage a lot with the board. It is not always very popular. I do a lot of work with men in the prison system, so I am constantly engaged at various levels of parole processes. This particular issue relates to a very small number of people in that wider parole process. The parole process, in terms of who is applying for parole, involves a small number of people so this legislation affects a smaller number within that small number. Regarding additional layers of burden, the process is not going to add too many layers for a large number of people. It will probably be for one or two people along the way. When it comes to people who are seen as having an organised crime aspect, Garda advice comes up a lot and often says this person still has links to organised crime. What are we saying that means? It is very difficult for a person who grew up in a particular community, and who maybe grew up within a particular family and may have an uncle or someone who is heavily involved in it, to not have links to organised crime. It is very difficult to not have links to organised crime if someone's whole existence and life has literally been embedded within particular situations.

It is also to make sure we understand what we mean when we say "links". Are we saying this person has committed a crime as part of still having links to organised crime or are we just saying people still have links to organised crime? That is something we really should explore because it will be very difficult for some people to not have particular links to it. They would need to completely change their names, move country and no longer know their family, friends, loved ones, childhood pals or whatever. We can tease out those things in terms of how we think about these things.

The questions that have been raised are important in terms of understanding. I did not want the Bill to be too restrictive in terms of the criteria the Minister would use to decide whether a special advocate would be appointed. In some cases a special advocate would be appointed and would say this is a completely good use of this legislation and this information definitely should not be shared. This Bill definitely does not aim to try to open up information to being exposed, State secrets or other stuff such as Garda intelligence that is being unduly or inappropriately shared with anybody. It is just that extra layer which protects the Parole Board and the Garda in terms of the use of this function. This Bill also gives an extra layer of oversight to the individual where somebody else, independent of those factors, is there to assess this on his or her behalf, and if they say this is an appropriate use, it means all avenues are covered.

I will not oppose the amendment today. I will accept it and engage over the next while in terms of the use of this Bill. I reiterate that I understand this will concern a small number of people. I know how many people it will concern currently. I do not wish to go too much into that because I do not want to identify particular cases or things that are in motion. The parole process was only set up a couple of years ago, so if this has only come up as an issue now, we need to make sure we put those extra layers of access to justice to ensure people are properly supported going forward in the parole process, that it is clear and transparent, that all avenues are covered and that everyone is protected during the process.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When is it proposed to sit again?

Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Tomorrow morning at 10.30.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.