On the last evening I was not able to finish my reply. When the debate was adjourned I was dealing with the prison system and the fact that some people find it difficult to understand why a prison system which already accommodates 1,200 persons in custody cannot find space for the 27 or so who are now in the Curragh. I should like to stress that it is not a matter of space alone. If there were no risks involved in their returning to the civil prison system, the space could be found for them.
The problem is that these prisoners are known trouble-makers and disrupters. They have demonstrated in the past a capacity and a willingness to foment disorder among the general population of prisoners. Some of them have been involved in disturbances in the past even, I gather, as far back as 1972-73. They are not the only long-term prisoners in custody. Excluding Portlaoise, there are some 300 prisoners serving sentences of two years or more. What distinguishes those in the Curragh is that they are not prepared to serve their sentences in peace, or avail themselves of the normal facilities available to prisoners. On the contrary, they want to create as much trouble as they can and, if possible, prevent others from availing of those facilities.
The problem is to find accommodation in the civil prisons which is secure enough to hold the Curragh prisoners and, more important, which is so arranged that they are separated from the main body of prisoners. Separation is imperative if the opportunity of fomenting disorder is not to be given to these prisoners. I have looked at a number of possibilities and I should like to assure the House that there is no suitable arrangement which can be made to accommodate these prisoners within the present civil prisons system. That is why work is now going ahead, for the first time since 1972, on a new security prison which can accommodate them.
There have been many statements about the unsuitability of the Curragh for long term prisoners. I agree conditions there are not ideal, although I understand improvements are being made. Even now, the conditions there are much better than they are in some areas of the civil prison system. Mountjoy Prison, which has 150 long term prisoners, is not suitable for them in its present condition. Neither is St. Patrick's Institution suitable for juveniles, nor the existing women's prisons suitable for women.
Prisoners in the Curragh are eligible for parole just as prisoners elsewhere. The factors taken into account in deciding a prisoner's application for parole include his general behaviour, the likelihood of his returning to prison, and his likely behaviour while at liberty, as well as the safety of the public of course. Prisoners in the Curragh are less likely than most to qualify for parole on an evaluation of such factors and, accordingly, they do not benefit to the same extent as some other prisoners do.
During the course of the debate reference was made to the administration of drugs to prisoners in the Curragh. I understand that five of the 27 prisoners are on drugs prescribed by the consultant psychiatrist. The health care of persons in custody is in the hands of the professional medical officers, and I am quite satisfied to leave medical treatment in the hands of professionals. If they prescribe drugs for individuals, I accept that they are prescribed as part of a treatment programme. Indeed, Deputy Dr. Browne was told in reply to a Parliamentary Question in June 1978 that these drugs are prescribed for medical reasons, and not for the control of prisoners as suggested by him. That remains the position today.
Reference was made during the debate to alternatives to custody. At the moment the courts apply probation on an extensive scale. There are about 1,600 prisoners on probation, which is more than there are prisoners in custody. They are supervised in the community by the probation and welfare services of the Department of Justice. As I have already said, parole is operated on a very extensive scale and this is also an alternative to custody. Recently I increased the number of welfare officers in the probation and welfare service so that a scheme of intensive supervision in the community for selected prisoners could be introduced as an alternative to custody. By the end of May of this year there will be about 50 offenders under intensive supervision and the aim is to increase this number to about 150 by the end of the year.
The Department of Justice are examining the possibility of introducing legislation to empower the courts to impose community service orders as an alternative. This proposal, which is an alternative to custody, requires a very detailed analysis and it will take some time yet to formulate a final scheme.
