Vol. 359 No. 4
asked the Minister for Justice, in view of the extent of the severe overcrowding problem in Irish prisons, if he will outline his current and future plans to expand the capacity of prisons and centres of detention; and if he will provide a schedule showing the expected changes in the capacity of prisons and centres of detention in the future.
6.
asked the Minister for Justice when the Government proposes to proceed with the new prison at Portlaoise.
(Limerick East): I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 and 6 together.
I refer to my reply to Questions Nos. 381 and 382 of 18 October, 1984 about a place of detention and a prison at Wheatfield, Clondalkin, County Dublin. As regards other locations, further progress towards building at Rathmore Road, Cork, for 180 and at Portlaoise for 120 depends on availability of funds. Apart from proceeding as quickly as possible with these new places, the pressure on accommodation makes it necessary to take urgent steps to provide temporary accommodation for use at short notice. The bringing into use of Fort Mitchel on Spike Island and the taking over of the Education Units at Arbour Hill and Cork prisons are examples of measures that have enabled me to increase the prison population from about 1,670 at end of January to over 1,900 this week. Further changes in use of existing accommodation will be made if necessary in order to hold all those committed by the courts and I am still pursuing my search for other premises that could be used as prisoner accommodation.
Would the Minister agree that the present crisis in the prison service has arisen mainly because the Government of which he is a Minister abandoned the prison development programme which was initiated by Fianna Fáil? I might further put it to him that, having abandoned that programme, at least he should have proceeded with preparatory developments on the Spike Island site with a view to rendering that prison safe for the short term accommodation of prisoners?
This sounds very like argument.
(Limerick East): The Deputy misunderstands the situation. He should have consulted the people in his own party who would have been familiar with decisions taken. There were plans to expand prison accommodation which were initiated approximately in 1979. Certainly decisions taken by the Government in 1981 and also in 1982 slowed down that process. But once I came to office I proceeded in all speed with advancing the project which was furthest advanced, that is the Wheatfield one. The availability of funds since I became Minister in 1982 has not inhibited me from providing prison space. It is simply that of picking up the plans that were there and advancing them as quickly as I could. The amount of money available still leaves me with a situation in which I cannot get Wheatfield into use until 1987. I think the Deputy is aware that even the amount of capital provided by the Government in 1983 — or was it 1984 — was not fully utilised because the plan was not sufficiently advanced. Therefore there is no question of there being a possibility of providing any other new prison building, regardless of the amount of capital funds made available to me, simply because the Wheatfield project was the one most advanced and that is the one we carry on with. Down along the line, if I had extra money now I could move along the Portlaoise project and I could move along a project in Cork, but they would not be of benefit until the years 1989, 1990 or 1991. Regardless of what way I proceeded I was left with a situation where with existing accommodation and any new temporary accommodation I could acquire, I had to provide accommodation for a number which had increased from approximately 1,200 to 1,940. That is what has happened over the last two and a half years.
The Minister will accept that premature releases are at the rate of 1,000 per annum. In view of the fact that this programme was originally launched in 1978-79 and that in 1982 the amount of money provided for the capital programme was initially £11.5 million subsequently increased by £4 million to cover four projects — two at Wheatfield, one at Cork and one at Portlaoise — would the Minister not acknowledge that if he has not abandoned the programme he has certainly from the earliest time of his responsibility——
That is more appropriate to the Estimate before the House today.
Will the Chair advise me as to whether the question is relevant.
It is relevant to the question but whether the question is appropriate when there is already before the House today an Estimate for the Department of Justice is another matter.
Some of us may not have the opportunity to speak on that Estimate. I only need to know if my question is relevant. In view of the premature releases running at over 1,000 per annum and the fact that in 1982 over £15½ million was allocated and upwards of £12 million to £14 million has already been spent on consultants' fees on the original programme, would the Minister acknowledge that if he has not cancelled the project he is slowing down which has not only undermined the whole prison system but the legal and judicial systems? Will the Minister acknowledge that it is time the facts were stated and something was done to correct the situation.
(Limerick East): I would not acknowledge that. The Deputy is already in possession of a reply to a written question which gives him the information for which he is now asking. I advanced the project which was most advanced when I came to office and it will still take me until 1987 to get that prison in Clondalkin into operation. There is no connection between the development of the prison building programme and the present lack of accommodation in the prisons——
That is crazy.
(Limerick East):——because the administration of which the Deputy was a part did not advance the project in time. One must plan ahead.
What about the figures I quoted?
(Limerick East): If the Deputy comes back to me in 1992 and says that decisions taken by him in 1983 and 1984 have brought about a situation in which we do not have an extra prison in Portlaoise or in Cork, that would be a valid criticism but there is no relationship between anything I have done in office——
That is argument.
(Limerick East):——and the present lack of accommodation. The contrary is the truth as I have provided 700 extra places in prisons.
I would remind Deputies that there are 150 questions on today's Order Paper and that today is an exceptional day——
And they will not all be reached here.
——because any questions not reached today will be answered by way of written reply.
The measure of the importance of Question Time is not necessarily the number of questions covered but rather the importance of the issues being dealt with.
It is important that we use Question Time as question time. We are not having a debate and an argument.
Would the Minister acknowledge that the original target——
I am calling Deputy De Rossa.
Perhaps Deputy De Rossa would ask his question and I will come to the Minister again.
If Deputy O'Kennedy wishes to ask a question he may but he must keep it short.
Would the Minister acknowledge that the target when this programme was planned and developed and money was provided for it was to have all of those four projects completed in 1985-86 and that as a consequence of his decision, albeit forced on him by the Minister for Finance in early 1983, there is now no prospect of any of them being finished before 1987 or 1988? Will the Minister acknowledge that the problem we have in the criminal system and the failure to deal with offenders is a consequence of a decision the Minister took in 1983 in the name of fiscal rectitude?
That is not a question. It is an argument.
(Limerick East): This is another example of the Sirocco from Nenagh coming in and blowing hot air and sand in the eyes of the public.
Is the Minister not prepared to answer?
I am moving on. I am calling Deputy De Rossa.
When the Minister cannot give the facts he engages in vulgar abuse.
Deputy O'Kennedy will resume his seat. Deputy De Rossa.
(Limerick East): I remember when you were a commissioner for 12 months.
In relation to the new prison at Portlaoise and when it is proposed to proceed with it could the Minister indicate what portions of the complex proposed for that site have been completed and at what cost; how much the Minister expects the completion of the project to cost and when it will be completed?
(Limerick East): The new prison at Portlaoise is a new project which is at the planning stage and work has not commenced on it.
Despite the fact that it was planned as long ago as eight years.
I am moving on to the next question. We could have this for the rest of Question Time. I have a discretion which I am going to use.
In view of the fact that one of the questions is in my name I would appreciate it if the Chair would allow me to ask one further supplementary.
I will allow Deputy Hyland to ask one further question and then I am moving on to Question No. 7.
There are really two questions. If what the Minister said in reply to Deputy O'Kennedy's question is true, why did the Government decide to publicly announce that they were abandoning the prison development programme? Having decided to do that does the Minister not consider that it was irresponsible not to proceed with the preparation of Spike Island's development for the purpose of the security of prisoners.
(Limerick East): I do not recall a public announcement abandoning anything and I would be pleased if the Deputy would draw my attention to when and where the announcement was made.
Postponing — slowing down.
(Limerick East): On the question of preparing Spike Island, Spike Island was examined during the term of the previous administration. I looked at it again in view of the fact that an enormous number of car thieves were being arrested in Dublin, over 650, and there was an emergency. The House should remember that when I came to office the accommodation available could accommodate approximately 1,240 offenders and it can now accommodate 1,940. That is an increase of 700.
Question No. 7.
