I would like to welcome the fact that this Bill is before the House. It is a measure I had considerable interest in, and before I was a Member of this House, for some years sought legislation to provide for a system of community service orders. I welcome the fact that this Bill seeks to establish such a system. I agree to some extent with my constituency colleague, Deputy John Kelly, who yesterday referred to the fact that it is very difficult to understand why a Bill of this nature has been in force across the water for over ten years and it has taken us until now to deal with this particular problem and provide for this type of Bill.
The Bill before the House should be put in its proper context. It is fair to say that its context has been somewhat lost in the remarks made by some Members of the House. Some of their remarks seem to indicate a lack of understanding of the nature of this Bill and the problems it is intended to deal with. In this context a most instructive document is the 1981 Annual Report on Prisons, which has just been made available to Deputies. It reiterates some of the information contained in previous reports and highlights the need for us to find alternative mechanisms to deal with people convicted of criminal offences and to provide the courts with the possibility of a whole series of different remedies and different types of sentences to be used by them when a person is convicted.
The problem that has faced successive Governments in the House is that, due to the increase of criminal offences in this country, there has been a lack of adequate prison facilities to provide for the expanded prison population and there has been insufficient room for the prisons to cope with the numbers of people who have been sentenced to prison for committing offences.
The 1980 Prison Report, produced by the Department of Justice, indicated that in 1980 there were 891 prisoners released before they completed their sentence for no reason other than overcrowding in our prisons. The 1981 report notes a decrease in the numbers and refers to 441 people who were so released. However, it sounds a note of warning by saying that 1982 was likely to be worse. No doubt, when we have the up-to-date report covering 1982, we will have similar, if not worse, figures indicating that when the Garda have done their job and people have been properly prosecuted and sentenced in the courts, our system of criminal justice lacks the capacity to ensure that people serve the sentences imposed on them. In this context there is a need to provide alternative forms of sentencing for our courts not, as has been suggested by some Deputies on both sides of the House, to provide an easy solution for criminals or a flabby liberal mechanism for dealing in some way with criminals without ensuring that society is fully and properly protected. It is necessary to ensure that we do not have just a facade of a criminal justice system but that we have a system which is operating, workable and meaningful. When the court passes sentence, there is a need to ensure that the sentences are carried out.
The option of sentencing a person to carry out a form of community service is now available in a large number of jurisdictions and I believe it will be welcomed as a form of sentencing by our judges and courts. It will ensure that some of those people who are at present sentenced to three or four months for committing offences will no longer find themselves in a situation where, when they arrive at Mountjoy to serve their sentence, they are told to come back next week as the prison is full, which is the height of idiocy, or, even worse, they are taken into Mountjoy and told at the end of a week that they have to be sent home because someone else is coming in and they have no room. It will ensure that that sort of ludicrous situation does not continue and that some people at present sentenced to short terms of imprisonment will have a meaningful sentence passed on them that requires them to make restitution to the community, to some extent, for the wrong they have done and will also provide them with an incentive not to commit similar offences at a later stage. It will also ensure that the sentence imposed is properly carried out and will, I hope, terminate the problem of the courts sentencing offenders who are then sent home by prison staff because there are no facilities to accommodate them.
Much of what is contained in this Bill is the same as the contents of the Private Members' Bill which I had the honour to introduce on behalf of Fine Gael last summer, and which is similar in content to the Bill which the former Minister for Justice, Deputy Seán Doherty, introduced. Some aspects arise more fittingly on Committee Stage but I would like to refer to two or three of them. In this context, I also want to refer to the remarks made by the Minister in the House. When introducing this Bill he indicated that he was inviting Deputies to indicate on Second Stage what other form of sentences or remedies of a practical nature they believed should be made available to the courts as an alternative to custodial sentences.
The Bill before us effectively allows the courts to sentence offenders to a period of community service for something between 40 and 240 hours. The Minister, when introducing the Bill, indicated that he had no ideological attachment to those hours and that he was happy for Deputies to contribute in this area and indicate whether they consider that is an adequate period. We should increase the maximum that the courts can order by way of community service. The 240 hours referred to in the Bill is unnecessarily restrictive and is, as Deputy Kelly said, copied from British legislation in this area. In the Private Members' Bill which I introduced, unlike the Bill introduced by Deputy Doherty, I increased the maximum to 480 hours. The figure had no magical implications but it was done to afford the courts a degree of flexibility in making orders for community service and, in the context of different types of offences, a degree of flexibility in measuring how much community service is appropriate in the light of the seriousness of the offence or offences for which somebody is convicted. The 40 to 240 hours limit placed by the Minister is somewhat restrictive and there is merit in affording a greater degree of flexibility to the courts. I have no particular ideological adherence to 480 hours but I suggest that the maximum of 240 hours, during which time community service can be undertaken pursuant to this Bill, is a relatively short period and could be extended. I hope the Minister will see his way to do that.
Another aspect of the Bill which deserves to be looked at relates to the fact that as the Bill is at present phrased — and, in fairness to the Minister, the two previous Bills which came before this House were similarly phrased — it permits community service only in the context of someone who is liable to a sentence of imprisonment. The intent of that is quite clear and the rationale behind it is also quite clear in the light of the figures I indicated. In some cases, where short custodial sentences are at present imposed and where we do not have within the prison system the capacity to provide for these prisoners, it is important that some of these prisoners are diverted to community service. One of the representations which I received following publication of my Private Members' Bill almost a year ago suggested that community service should be available in circumstances other than where a judge believes that a sentence of imprisonment would be appropriate — for example, the type of area where the courts at present simply impose fines or where an offender is given the Probation Act, effectively let off and told not to misbehave again. There is a role to be played for community service orders in this area. I would like to see this aspect of the legislation extended and it could be amended on Committee Stage to do so.
I would like to see the courts having the option of community service available where persons are convicted of offences, whether or not the judge believes that imprisonment is appropriate. The legislation must clearly state that, where a custodial sentence would be appropriate, community service orders are available as an option. I can think of many instances where young people, in their late teens, have come before the courts on a first or second offence and judges who were reluctant to send them to prison have said they will give them a chance. They have given them the Probation Act and within a matter of weeks they are back before the courts again. Getting off under the Probation Act is seen by many offenders as what it is, simply getting off. It is not a deterrent and it is seen by people as an easy option. In those circumstances the option of community service should be available and would be seen as appropriate by many people who are familiar with the courts. It would not be seen as an easy option by many offenders and it could instil in them the type of responsibility that would be lacking and prove a deterrent from committing crimes again. I would urge the Minister to extend this legislation beyond the area of offenders for whom a judge believes imprisonment would be appropriate.
The Minister referred in his speech to the fact that he was considering the feasibility of establishing a committee to monitor the operation of the scheme and to advise on any problems which may arise in that regard. It is worth stating that when schemes of this nature have been introduced in other jurisdictions — not just in England, but in Scotland, New Zealand, the United States and elsewhere — it has been the practice in the initial stages of the schemes to engage in a strict and very real monitoring of them to see where problems arise and to ensure they are met and when necessary to amend the legislation at an early stage. I would urge the Minister to provide for the establishment of a body that would monitor the operation of the community service scheme. I would see a body that has a statutory duty to do this composed of some members of the public with departmental representatives and representatives of the Probation and Welfare Service but also I would urge having some representatives of this House on it. A statutory body of that nature would have a very real function in ensuring the uniform application of the scheme throughout the country, in monitoring its progress and seeing how successful it is, in highlighting defects in it. A body of that nature would have more status and would be taken a good deal more seriously if it was given a statutory framework. I urge the Minister to consider that as a serious possibility.
In the last two or three years the reports on the prisons seem to contain more information and are more comprehensive, but traditionally in operating our prison system and sentencing powers we have not carried out sufficient monitoring of a general nature and we have not had sufficient statistical information available or sufficient research carried out to ensure the schemes introduced are working properly. Often these things are dealt with within the bowels of secrecy in the Department of Justice and the general public know very little about whether schemes are successful or not. This is a scheme that could either be very successful or could fall flat on its face due to administrative problems or to a variety of other problems. It is important that we have this sort of statutory monitoring committee that would have a duty to report annually to the public and to the Department on their view of how the scheme is working and to which members of the Probation and Welfare Service would have access to tell the members of such a committee of any difficulties they are experiencing or any amendments they would like to see to the scheme.
The Minister indicated that he wished us to comment on alternative mechanisms that might be available to deal with sentencing and the difficulties of offenders. There is a tremendous need for us to carry out a comprehensive examination, by way of a specialist committee of this House or by way of a committee established outside this House, of our whole criminal justice system and our whole system of sentencing. There is no coherent philosophy behind what we are doing and it is quite clear that to a great extent the system we are now operating is failing. That can be seen from the statistics supplied in the report of 1981 on the prison service which indicate that 66 per cent of those persons sentenced to custodial detention in 1981 had previously been sentenced to terms of custodial detention. Whether we regard our prison system as a rehabilitative mechanism or a deterrent to crime, it is not acting as either.
We have an enormous problem in recidivism. It is something that has never been adequately and properly researched. We have changed and developed our prison system and our criminal justice system in a piecemeal way without any comprehensive philosophy or overview of what we are about. We have often introduced changes in a piecemeal way as a reaction to circumstances. I have no doubt that this present legislation is before the House, partly — and, it is meritorious in itself — because it has been forced on Government by the fact that the prison system cannot cope with the number of offenders who are being sentenced to terms of imprisonment. This aspect of it has become a major embarrassment to Government.
The time has come for us to start asking serious questions as to what we are at and what effect our prison system has. If it is to have a deterrent effect it is clearly not working and if it is to have a rehabilitative effect it is equally clearly not properly working. There is a need for us to redefine what we are about. I am saying that as someone who fully accepts and recognises that there is a need to have a proper prison service and indeed to sentence many people to terms of imprisonment for some of the terrible crimes that are being committed. My experience relates particularly to Dublin and daily one is hearing of burglaries and robberies within one's own constituency.
It is not so long ago that my wife woke up at 3 o'clock in the morning to find a burglar in our own house, so I am well aware of the situation. We are not tackling it in a coherent way. We are introducing various forms of remedies without any clear insight into where we are going. I would urge on the Minister the establishment of a formal body, be it composed of Members of this House or people outside this House, to carry out a thorough examination of both our prison and probation services and our sentencing.
There are two things having a demoralising effect on those to whom we look to provide protection for the community and on the personnel in the Department of Justice and the probation service all of whom are working day and night to tackle the problems about which I have been speaking. The Minister referred briefly to the intensive supervision scheme inaugurated some years ago which operates in a number of our prisons. Under that scheme members of the probation welfare service assess prisoners to see what offenders are most suitable for early release on the basis of integrating them into the community under a system of intensive supervision through the medium of regular contacts with those so released. Members of the service carry out comprehensive examinations on individual prisoners to decide which are most suitable for release and most likely to benefit from the scheme of supervision. Since the inauguration of this scheme those operating the service have suffered a major difficulty because of the overcrowding and accommodation difficulties within the prison service. Because they are employees of the Department of Justice they cannot speak out publicly about the problem.
The scheme qua scheme is a very good one. The social worker goes in to carry out an assessment on individual prisoners and comes to the conclusion that a particular prisoner is suitable for release into the community. He or she suddenly finds that the prisoner has been released without any notification whatsoever to the welfare service and for no other reason than the fact that the prison is overcrowded. The assessment work done is an utter waste of time. These unfortunate incidents have occurred continuously over a period of time since the scheme was initiated. This has a demoralising effect on the personnel involved in the scheme. Indeed, if the Minister looks at the turnover of personnel the reason why there is such a large and rapid turnover is that many leave the scheme out of feelings of frustration. The scheme has an important part to play and should have the co-operation of all concerned in it.
As I say, it is most demoralising for the assessment personnel to find prisoners released and sent home without any supervision whatsoever. The effect must naturally be that many of these will land back again in our gaols some months later. Serious questions can be raised about the efficiency and the desirability of the intensive scheme being used in this way. The present situation is not the fault of the Minister. Neither is it the fault of his predecessor. The failure of the scheme is due to the increase in crime and I hope the Minister is aware of the problem.
Another problem is the demoralising effect of early release on the Garda. They do their job properly, bring offenders to court and succeed in having them convicted and sentenced. The offenders may be sentenced to six months. To the dismay of the Garda those same offenders are seen walking the streets again within three or four weeks. This is making the general public quite cynical about the ability of our criminal justice system to tackle the problem of crime. To some extent it is turning the entire system into something of a joke.
In the context of alternative remedies the Minister invited us to make suggestions. At the moment we have fines, terms of imprisonment, the application of the Probation Act under which offenders are required to visit the probation officer weekly or at longer intervals. Some of the steps now being taken should be incorporated into legislation. There is no coherent code in the context of sentencing. The fines the courts may impose have long since become meaningless because of inflation. There is need for legislation dealing in a coherent and comprehensive way with the sentences courts may impose. There is need to increase considerably the amount imposed by way of financial bond.
Reference has been made to the possibility in some instances of parents being required to pay fines imposed on juvenile offenders. I agree with that. That is a penalty the Minister might consider. At the moment parents may be so required but the amount is derisory, so derisory as to be irrelevant, and so the power is no longer used by the courts. The law in relation to the probation service is long out of date and under grave need of reform. There are many things now provided by the probation welfare service which have no statutory basis. There is need for comprehensive legislation. Supervision is operated on an ad hoc basis. According to the 1981 report something in the region of 50 per cent or 60 per cent of offenders sentenced are sentenced to six months or less. The ordinary type of probation service, under which such offenders see the probation officer once every couple of weeks is not appropriate, and it does not provide protection for the community. Neither does it assist the offender in integrating into normal social life or put some pressure on him to get out of his involvement in criminality. Should not the courts have power to order that a form of intensive supervision such as now operates for offenders who have served some portion of their prison sentence be imposed?
We have also within our criminal justice system moved away from something that many centuries ago was part and parcel of it. It was very much part of the Irish criminal law system that if a wrong was committed — here one looks at the Brehon Laws rather than across the water to English law which we ape regularly — that some form of reparation or compensation was paid or made to the victim of the crime. We need to refocus on the victims, particularly of some of the assaults that take place as well as other types of crime. I would like the courts to have far greater powers not simply to send people to prison or order them to pay fines to the State but to order offenders to pay a form of compensation to the victims of the crimes for which they are convicted. This would to some extent restore the faith of the general public in the criminal justice system and concrete examples would be seen of people convicted of crimes paying back to the victims of crimes some form of damages for the injuries suffered. This area has not been fully and properly dealt with in our criminal justice system.
In the context of the short term of imprisonment being imposed we should look at another possibility. The major disincentive or deterrent in the context of the prison system is the fact that somebody is deprived of liberty or certainly of free time. At present many people convicted of criminal offences are in employment at the time they are convicted. They are sentenced to terms of imprisonment and their families then become dependent on the State immediately. Large sums of money are being paid out by way of prisoner's wife's allowance and allowances for children to the families of offenders sentenced to terms of imprisonment. I am not suggesting that this money should not be paid out. Obviously, the families should not suffer, but there is a case to be made for a different form of prison sentence whereby somebody is sentenced, for example, to every weekend for a period of six months and then would be obliged to appear at a prison, perhaps in Dublin, on Friday evening and remain there until Monday morning. That equally would have a deterrent effect. It would mean that if a person was in employment he would maintain his employment and his family would not become dependent on the State. He would be deprived of his liberty and free time in a way that would be perceived, certainly by the offender, as undesirable to him. It would benefit the community and save the State money. Clearly a form of sentence of that nature would have to carry the proviso that if it was not properly being complied with the offender would be sentenced to a term of imprisonment simpliciter, uninterrupted. This form of imprisonment is being used in a number of states in the US in relation to certain types of offenders and it is proving successful as an option. I ask the Minister to consider it.
I do not want to repeat what has been said by many other speakers but I urge on the Minister that he look at other aspects of sentencing. There is a need for research into sentencing and its effects and to develop a coherent policy in this regard. There is a very real need for uniformity of approach in our criminal justice system. We had a debate in this House some weeks ago on what has become known as the Fairview case. The judge in that case has been subject to a good deal of criticism. As somebody still new to this House, I believe that this House and successive Governments have to a great extent abrogated their responsibility in this area by not at any stage undertaking a comprehensive review of the criminal justice system, by never articulating any real policy of philosophy, by never at any stage passing legislation of any nature to ensure some overall monitoring by an independent body of the whole workings of the criminal justice system, and, most of all, by doing nothing to ensure that in any of the courts there is any uniformity in sentencing.
All Members of this House recognise as essential that the independence of the Judiciary be preserved, but there is a role for legislation to ensure some form of uniformity in sentencing and to providing for a twice-yearly meeting of all members of the Judiciary to discuss sentencing. Some from of statutory obligation should be imposed on the Judiciary themselves to exchange information about sentencing and to develop some form of coherence and uniformity in the type of sentences passed. Sentences on offenders vary widely from court to court, from judge to judge, within individual court jurisdictions such as the District Court and between courts such as the District Court, the Circuit Court and the Central Criminal Court. This House has failed in its obligation to deal with this area. A judge who makes a decision that appears incomprehensible to many people outside the court case is an easy target for criticism, but Members of this House have not always fulfilled their duties as legislators in this area, although they are always extremely quick to use problems of crime as good script material for getting publicity in the media.
In concluding, I welcome the publication of this Bill. I am sorry that some Deputies seem to regard it as some form of easy option for criminals. It is not. Community service certainly involves a form of punishment in that regular attendance at placements where offenders are doing community service deprive them of free use of their leisure time. It is hoped that in some instances it will have a rehabilitative effect. This has proved to be the case elsewhere, but I do not over-emphasise that. It also contains an indirect element of reparation in that the unpaid work which an offender does would benefit the community in genral as well as specific areas within the community. It enables a person sentenced to a term of community service to do something else that is desirable also, that is, to retain his job. With the enormous unemployment problem that we have at the moment, when 200,000 people on the unemployment register are unable to find employment, it is virtually impossible for an offender who has served a term of imprisonment to find employment. I am not saying that offenders should get any special privilege and be treated in any way better than the vast majority of people who never become involved in crime and never commit offences. The difficulty with an offender is that if he is released from prison and has no job and very little or no real income the danger that he will go back to prison again after committing other offences is great.
There is a need for us to redefine our objectives within our criminal justice system and the goals of the achievements intended by tems of imprisonment, to introduce new sentences, and in this context the community service order procedure which will operate under this legislation is one step along the road towards providing a new sentencing power to our courts, but it is only one step and I look forward to seeing what other remedies and forms of sentences the Minister will introduce in his term of office.
