Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Jun 1985

Vol. 359 No. 7

Private Members' Business. - Prison Accommodation: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by Deputy Hyland on Tuesday, 11 June 1985.

That Dáil Éireann condemns the Government for their failure to provide adequate and secure prison accomodation to meet the present needs.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Dáil Éireann notes that the number of offenders accommodated in the prison system has increased by over fifty per cent since the present Minister for Justice took Office, commends the Minister for providing, despite the severe limitations in Exchequer resources, the necessary custodial accommodation, acknowledges the steps he has taken to develop alternative methods of dealing with offenders and welcomes his efforts to have the penal system examined and reported on by an independent committee of experts."

—(Minister for Justice.)

Mr. B. Ahern

After last night's debate I was reading through some of the notes and the Minister's speech. I thought my colleague, Deputy Hyland, spokesman for the Opposition, had made a fair and constructive contribution. For some reason the Minister took a very aggressive attitude and appeared almost to question the right of that Deputy to raise matters that we consider of fundamental importance. If the Minister were not tied up in this House and were involved on the election campaign like many of his colleagues, he would find out that only the subject of unemployment would surpass in importance that of crime, lawlessness and vandalism, the state of our prisons, the difficulties of our Garda and some of the old, outmoded ways in which our legal system works. This is an issue raised in almost every house across the city and equally, I am sure, in rural areas.

We make no apology for highlighting the seriousness of the situation, because it is the concern of people who are being mugged, robbed, attacked and assaulted. This is not just of importance among the old and middle aged, but among the young people who are prisoners in their own homes. The have worries about leaving their cars parked and about attacks on their property. This leads to great difficulty in obtaining insurance cover. Property is being lost and damaged, including vehicles, factory or company premises and homes. The Minister appeared to be coolly and calmly telling Deputy Hyland that there was something wrong with raising these issues. Our attack, if such is the case, on this Minister is because of our belief that it is his policies which are creating these difficulties —in particular the cut-back in the capital programme for prisons.

There are two reasons for our putting forward this motion and the first, most important in my view, is that criminals, vandals and thugs and those who contribute to lawlessness and major or minor criminal activity have been very happy in the last few years to take a chance in indulging in such activity because the chance of being put behind bars is very slight. The facts and statistics to prove that are there. In 1982, £11 million was spent on the capital programme for prisons. In 1983, £17.5 million was to be spent, but under the present Minister's leadership only £10 million or slightly more, was spent. In 1984, £5.5 million was spent. Where £35 million plus should have been spent on building prisons, less than £16 million was actually spent.

There is a clear indication that it is the policies pursued by this Minister that have led directly to the situation that in 1983 1,462 prisoners under category B were given full temporary release without probation or welfare officer supervision. That is according to the report issued in 1983, and goodness knows what the 1984 figures will bring. That is why there is daily crime in this city committed by people who, in the view of the legal profession and Judiciary, should be still behind bars. The Garda feel that they are in an impossible position and cannot win the battle against crime. Yet the Minister is of the opinion that Fianna Fáil should not be raising this matter of such fundamental importance.

The capital programme put forward by Fianna Fáil when they realised that crime was on the rampage and drug related crime had come to this city as to other western European cities, would have completed Portlaoise prison in 1985 or early 1986 and Clondalkin would have been open since 1983. Every visiting committee highlighted the fact that there would be a crisis in numbers. Mountjoy is a prison with accommodation for about 400 prisoners and the Minister of State and the officials of his Department would agree with the experts that that is the number for which it was built, but last night there were 552 prisoners there. Ten were not sleeping in cells, but on mattresses in various parts of the prison, five more were sleeping in the workshop and a person transfered from Loughan House a week ago was sleeping in some-body's office. Is that control of the prison system? Does that not clearly indicate that the Minister and the prison authorities have totally lost control? This is directly related to the fact that only £16 million instead of £35 million has been spent in the past few years. Money has been spent on design fees and architect fees, but not on building prisons.

The Minister has made an appalling mess of the whole position. I have spoken to some young people, the proportion of which is high in my constituency because of the high rate of unemployment and other difficulties, who say that it pays to be involved in crime. The chances of being caught are very small because of lack of number, resources, vehicles and so on within the Garda and the cutback in overtime facilities.

Even if these young people are caught and go through the legal system, their chances of being put behind bars are very slight. There is nowhere to put them, so they are in and out like a shuttle service. There has been an on-going battle since 1982 between the Minister and the Prison Officers' Association, with which I do not want to become involved, with the Minister saying that there are no real problems or difficulties there. The introduction and appendage to this report clearly set out the difficulties. It is stated that: there are levels of work and educa tion for prisoners and these difficulties can at times contribute to heightened levels of tension which can lead to instances of indiscipline by prisoners. Even those limited educational facilities have now been closed down.

We can only listen to the people working in the prisons every day. While senior officials of the Prison Officers' Association say that they will not allow a situation in Irish jails where physical conditions are brought down to a stage where disease could be rampant, where offenders can be the subject of sexual attacks by other inmates and prison officers work daily in the fear and knowledge that they can be seriously injured and maimed because of shortage of staff, this is the reality. The Minister implied that Deputy Hyland had a cheek to raise these matters, when he, as Minister at the Cabinet table, failed to fight for the allocation which would have given adequate prison accommodation. This has led to thugs and criminals rampaging about this city. The Minister has failed badly and should now try to correct this failure before the breakdown in law and order has gone beyond repair.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Gay Mitchell has ten minutes.

Mr. G. Mitchell

It is a good thing for us to debate the position in prisons. It would be even better if we were to discuss it in committee and have the same input from the Opposition when we are considering these matters there. With the exception of Deputy Wallace, there are very few ardent speeches made at the Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism about the situation generally. The running is left to the chairman of the committee and others. If we were to condemn anyone, we should condemn Dáil Éireann, not just the Government, because it becomes a very political issue on one side of the House.

This deterioration did not happen suddenly when we came to power two years ago last November. The issue is far too serious for people to make political capital out of it, particularly coming towards the local elections. If we really want a parliamentary discussion or debate on this subject, we should have a very fruitful debate at the select committee.

With regard to the provision of jails or prison facilities generally, we are up against the problem of communities who, in many cases quite rightly but in some cases I think for the wrong reasons, are resisting the provision of prison accommodation within their areas. In James's Street in my constituency people did not want a custodial centre provided on their doorstep without all kinds of reassurances. I can understand that because in my view the facility was not suitable. However, I was quite prepared to give consideration to it provided adequate steps were taken to meet the fears of local people. There was hysteria when we tried to provide a women's prison in Kilbarrack and there was further hysteria when that prison was built between Clondalkin and Ballyfermot. I can understand the feelings of people but if we are to provide prison facilities there has to be an acceptance in the community that they have to be located somewhere. I do not want to see all of them in the south inner city which has more than its share of problems. Every time a problem arises, whether it be itinerants or some other issue, we look at the same areas. It is time we started to look at some of the nicer parts of the city and country. I ask the House to remember the resistance that is put up when there is talk of taking over some old country house for use as an open prison. It is time that the entire community took a share in providing these facilities. It is not fair that what might be called anti-social facilities are put into one area.

As vice-chairman of the Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism, I led a deputation to Spike Island this month. The impression given is that Spike Island is some kind of haven, a five star hotel, where people have knee deep carpets, colour television sets and videos. Spike Island is a very drab place. The building has not been decorated, it has not been properly heated and is not properly habitable. The prisoners are working to develop it, first, as a prison facility and, secondly, as a facility that can be used by the State when it is returned to the Department of Defence. The existing facilities do not lend themselves to a top security arrangement. It is an open prison, but when the Office of Public Works or someone else left two rafts lying around so that prisoners escaped, immediately the whole matter became a political row. Questions were asked, where was the Minister and what happened on the night in question. It is time we stopped all this nonsense. Both the Government and the Opposition have been played along by the Prison Officers' Association, not by the prison officers. Generally, they are doing a good job but their association are making politicians, capital out of everything that happens. They are making fools of the politicians, they have us at one another's throats. We have provided plenty of money and facilities for the prison service, even if those facilities need to be developed.

The motion, which condemns the Government for their failure to provide adequate and secure prison accommodation, is laughable coming from an Opposition who, in Government, provided 50 per cent less accommodation two years ago. Let us have a rational and reasonable discussion on what needs to be provided. We need to provide secure prison facilities where people can be detained when the courts, having considered their case under the laws made by this House, so decide. We do not want a prison system where there is a swinging door policy in operation. Where a judge appointed by the Government under the Constitution decides that a person should serve a sentence that should be done. The case formerly was that such people could not be kept in prison because there was no accommodation for them. That happened for many a day when the Opposition were in Government. The Minister has made efforts to come to terms with the problem and he has provided a 50 per cent increase in the number of spaces available for direction. Whereas none of us like to see that the figures of detainees have increased, we should be able to boast that as a State we are capable of containing any persons whom the courts decide should be contained. We have made much progress in that regard.

I regret that in making that progress the availability of certain educational facilities has been interfered with. They have not been removed. On our visit to Cork prison we found that some of the area used for educational purposes was not available because it was being used for prisoner occupation but we were told it would be replaced within a fortnight. I hope that has been done. I hope that the Minister when concluding can give an assurance that educational facilities have now been restored to prisoners.

With regard to available space for real offenders, the State would benefit greatly if it ceased to act as a banker of last resort for all kinds of financial institutions. These bodies give money to individuals some of whom are not in a position to make repayments and then the financial institution asks the State to lock up these people until they make their repayments. That kind of contract between a financial institution and an individual is a private civil matter. I see no reason why the State should lock up individuals because they fail to make repayments on their television sets. The Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism visited Mountjoy, Cork prison and Spike Island——

An Ceann Comhairle

That is a matter for changing the law in another regard.

Mr. G. Mitchell

In some cases hardened prisoners were sharing dormitory type accommodation with people who were in prison because they could not repay their loans. There should be changes in legislation to enable these people to be dealt with in another way.

I welcome the role of the vocational education committee in the prison service. They are doing a very good job in difficult circumstances. Some people in the community who are under pressure and whose children are under pressure in school resent the provision of facilities for prisoners. We must ask ourselves if we are happy with the level of recidivism in our prisons. Are we happy to maintain the level of services provided in the prisons? People ask why their children should be less well off than are prisoners whom they claim are living in luxury, have five meals a day and are kept warm. That sort of emotional outcry is understandable at times especially when people are being offended against and are being attacked but as a Parliament we have a duty to consider calmly our objective in incarcerating people in the first place. That objective should be to rehabilitate them but we must agree that the prison service has failed as a rehabilitative process.

I welcome the establishment of the prison inquiry committee under the distinguished chairmanship of Dr. Whitaker. I trust that the committee will report soon and that their findings will be implemented. Under successive Ministers and Governments the Department of Justice, perhaps because of their over concern with the matter of secrecy, have not been renowned for implementing reports as those who have read the O Briain Report and some others also will realise. We must act on the recommendations of the Whitaker Report after those recommendations have been debated by the House because the only way we can serve the community properly is by making the prison service a rehabilitative service so that people leaving prison will be equipped properly to participate in society in a normal way.

It is most regrettable that in the process of imprisoning people for crimes they commit against the community they are not only incarcerated but lose much of their individuality and their freedom. A prisoner is locked in a cell on his own for about 12 hours at a time. I do not consider that to be the best way to rehabilitate prisoners. Some of these people may be in prison for up to five years or longer and having been through that ordeal it is difficult to expect them not to have a recidivist attitude after they have been released. There is something appalling about an individual being locked up for a number of years.

On the question of the public's attitude in regard to prisoners being well looked after. I would merely make the comment that anyone who visited a prison and who realised the loss to the individual in terms of freedom and of privacy in every sense would not wish to spend any time in prison. I trust the House will discontinue this business of one side castigating the other in respect of such matters as prison reform so that we may have a reasonable debate on the prison service when the Whitaker Report has been published.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice (Mrs. Fennell)

I am happy to contribute to this debate and to echo the views of Deputy Harney who last night appealed for a non-party political approach to this question. This all-party approach is necessary, first, because of the seriousness of the situation and, secondly, because as a society we have not addressed fully the question of how criminals should be dealt with. Millions of pounds are spent every year on the prison service and given the difficulties in the prison service and the fact that there is such a high rate of recidivism we must examine our spending in this area and try to analyse whether there is a better way of detaining people who must be detained.

It was with a certain degree of cynicism that I read the Opposition motion. I regard it as being related to the comming local elections. However, the electorate are not so stupid as to fall for any such tactics. There is the general conception now that the measures being taken by the Government are having effect. I cannot speak for the whole country in this matter but there is a very noticeable understanding and a lessening of tension among the public. They realise that the Minister is taking the measures that are necessary. There is further reason for cynicism in regard to the motion when one considers the efforts made by the Department to purchase further detention centres. The deputy leader of the Opposition was the first to express horror at this possibility.

Mr. G. Collins

He was supported by Deputy Gay Mitchell.

Mrs. Fennell

The people opposite have put down the motion. They want to have it every way but that is not possible.

Mr. G. Collins

It is not possible for the Government, either.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Collins should desist from interrupting the Minister. He should be reasonable.

Mrs. Fennell

As Deputy Mitchell has said, prison is a grim and sad place. I should like all Members of the House to spend some time in prison so that they might realise what it involves. There is a good deal of misinformed comment and also prejudice among the public as to the lifestyle of prisoners. Prison is not easy. It is a grim and sad reality that so many people have to be imprisoned.

I am sure the majority of TDs and Senators have visited prisons at some stage. As a former member of the visiting committee of Mountjoy prison I am familiar with the environment and with the lifestyle of prisoners. Many years have passed since an ex-Minister for Justice, Deputy O'Malley, said publicly that he was ashamed of conditions in the women's prisons. At that time he was speaking about Mountjoy in that context. Up to almost recently conditions in that prison were almost as bad as he indicated then. Only in the past 18 months has any serious work been done to improve these conditions. I was there recently and I was very pleased and surprised to find that within the past year there has been set up there a new workshop that is bright, cheerful and functional. The purpose of this project is to occupy women prisoners and the activity there is knitting. Everybody concerned seemed to be very pleased with the venture and the prisoners found it very useful. They were happy to participate because there was an end product in sight.

The Minister shares my concern that even when this kind of workshop is fully in operation more needs to be done. The living conditions of women in Mountjoy need to be much improved. There is a scheme in progress which will provide for better facilities for the women prisoners there. At present the number of women prisoners in Mountjoy is high. There are 52 women there but this is compared with the male prison population of 1,900. Perhaps that ratio tells us something about men and women.

Last evening the Minister gave the reasons for considering the use of the newly built officers' quarters at Portlaoise as a women's prison, having regard to the high cost involved and to the lack of demand in that respect at present. I have grave reservations about using this accommodation as a women's prison because most of the women prisoners in the Dublin area have difficulty already in regard to visits from husbands and families and particularly from their children. I know that, in an effort to relieve overcrowding in Mountjoy prison — which must be considerable with the numbers there now — some women are sent to other prisons like Limerick and to Portlaoise, with its improved living conditions, individual showers and so on which would represent an improvement on the present position. Certainly I would have grave reservations and would not want that to happen except as a last resort.

On the question of building a new women's prison at Clondalkin or Kilbarrack I, for one, am glad that no further progress on this building can be made at least until the report of the Committee of Inquiry under the chairmanship of Dr. Whitaker — to which other speakers have referred—is forthcoming. I am particularly glad that the terms of reference of that committee specifically refer to women prisoners. I and my Department have made a submission to him for his report. I am particularly concerned about young girls, often addicted to drugs, being sent to prison in the absence of any alternative. I hope that the Whitaker Committee will be able to suggest some more satisfactory method of copying with these girls.

I do not think that a proposal to build a women's prison at enormous cost, with accommodation for more than twice as many women offenders as we have at present in custody, constitutes a realistic approach to the problem. I acknowledge that some women may deserve long terms of imprisonment for their activities in drug pushing and other forms of serious crime, that these women need to be kept in secure accommodation. But most of the women committed to prison at present could be dealt with in some other way. For that reason I particularly welcome the introduction by the Government of the scheme of community service orders as one alternative to imprisonment. However, I am disappointed that, as yet, the courts have not had recourse to the scheme for women. I would urge judges and district justices to consider it in appropriate cases.

I welcome the generally more open approach to prison matters adopted under the present Minister. I hope that the co-operation apparent with researchers, in particular, will continue and be developed further in the future. It is through such research only that we will reach a better understanding of crime and its effects on society and, I hope, devise methods more appropriate to the treatment of offenders.

When I spoke in the Seanad about the use of education units at Cork and Arbour Hill prisons to accommodate prisoners I expressed regret at the necessity to use the units for that purpose. Indeed many people felt similarly. I am glad that arrangements to continue educational services at their previous levels have been made at Arbour Hill and at Cork, and that arrangements are being made to provide a larger unit which will enable education services there to be resumed at previous levels by next term. I understand that plans for the larger unit have been agreed with the city of Cork Vocational Education Committee and that tenders for the work will be sought within the next week or so.

I am conscious of the punishment and rehabilitative functions of imprisonment mentioned by the Minister and other speakers. From my experience on the visiting committee I know of the changes that can take place in people while serving sentences. The parole system, as it has operated under successive Ministers, with people serving long sentences, has been generally satisfactory. While there can always be criticisms in individual cases I accept that prisoners will be released eventually. It seems to me be only reasonably that efforts should be encouraged which are aimed at reducing the grudge which ex-prisoners frequently have against society.

Deputy Harney last evening drew attention to the instances of men accused of rape being given early release. One should say here that the suffering and punishment the rapist undergoes is greater than that of other prisoners. It is a heinous crime and it is perfectly right that there should be severe sentences and that the rapist should be made serve his full time. But one has to have a fair balance about this, that it should be recognised that he is suffering in prison in a far more severe way. This is occasioned by the fact that he is isolated. The crime of rape and child abuse carries a particularly low grade among criminals. In Mountjoy prison I have seen how rapists at the time I was visiting there — when there were fewer than there are now; I think at present there are something like 58 serving sentences for rape — were isolated in the base camp and were not generally in association with other prisoners. In fact they were at risk which is an undesirable and unhelpful situation. We must have a compassionate and caring approach to men who obviously need help, rehabilitation and understanding in the same way as do other prisoners. Even in cases involving the crime of rape there may be circumstances that would justify a programme incorporating release from prison prior to normal release date. It is important to stress that, in cases such as this, any decision to grant early release is made only after careful review by all the agencies involved with the prisoner.

I support the Minister's amendment. I would ask that the House realise that by and large we are talking about a socially disadvantaged group of society. As the last speaker said, the men and women in our prisons do not come from the more privileged sections of our community. By and large they are people — in many cases illiterate, unemployed — who have greater needs than those of detention and of constantly having the notion put about that if they are put into prison that will solve everything. It will not. Our whole approach to crime and vandalism must be broader and available resources must be spent in the future on having greater rehabilitation and undertaking of the difficulties and problems of prisoners.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Wallace has 15 minutes, by agreement.

Mr. Wallace

I must take issue with the Minister when she said that people will not be fooled by the Fianna Fáil Party putting down a motion on prison accommodation, it being a gimmick for the local elections. I might inform the Minister of what is being said outside this House, which is that the Government will do anything, find anywhere to put people at present, to lock the whole lot up until after 20 June. It should be remembered that, because of the unsuitability of the accommodation, many of them will be released again very quickly. That is what is being said outside.

Lack of prison accommodation now constitutes a major problem in this country, one which we foresaw but which the present Government have failed to appreciate. Last year there were many disturbances within the prison system, including an attempt in September to take hostages during Mass in the church in Mountjoy prison. It is only as a result of the publicity given to those incidents and to the general public reaction to the serious crime levels as, for example, in the case of stolen cars and the ramming of Garda vehicles, that the Minister has made any efforts to tackle the accommodation problems. In my view even those efforts are feeble, pathetic and constitute a belated reaction to the very serious situation at present confronting society.

Prisons are being forced to house ever-increasing numbers with deteriorating facilities and ever greater reliance on the use of early releases which, in turn, are said to contribute to the present high crime levels. Yet the Minister has failed to take any decisive steps to plan for the provision of additional accommodation. All his actions indicate that he is fighting a rearguard action with no idea of his objectives. The building programmes under way have had to be postponed because of lack of funds. The prison building capital programme for the past few years clearly shows the attitude of this penny-pinching Government even on issues where the safety and security of our citizens are concerned. It is incredible to think that this is the approach of a Government, the main party of which, Fine Gael, have long regarded themselves as the law and order party in this country.

I might devote a few moments to outline the harsh realities of this Government's approach to the provision of urgently needed prison accommodation. In 1982 the actual expenditure thereon amounted to £15 million. We on this side of the House provided £17.5 million in the 1983 Estimates. The Coalition Government reduced this provision to £11.5 million and even ended up saving a further £1 million on actual expenditure. It was very clear to all who took even the slightest interest in what was going on that there was a serious problem with the lack of custodial accommodation. Even allowing for the inordinate and inexcusable delays in publishing the annual report on prisons and places of detention, the 1983 report was published only last month, 17 months after the end of the year to which it relates. The 1982 report stated very clearly that "the urgent need for new prison accommodation is clear". In addition, that report states that "it is unsatisfactory that resort must be had to the practice of shedding" at a time when almost 1,300 prisoners were shed. If the Minister suggests that this was carefully monitored and decided on by all the groups involved, I must disagree.

Despite all of this, the Coalition provided only £11.5 million for 1984 and, to add insult to injury, proceeded to ensure savings of more than half of this sum. I fail to understand the Minister's logic at a time when the pressures on accommodation are so obvious and his own Department are projecting a need for over 2,000 places for custodial accommodation by the end of the century. The Minister is cutting back very severely on the level of expenditure. Is the Minister aware of what is happening? I think not. He together with the rest of his Cabinet colleagues seems to be living in a cloud-cuckoo land which has been created for them by the national handlers.

The 1985 Estimates include an estimate for £12.5 million for the prison building programme. Is this going to go the same way as last year's Estimate? Is the Minister playing more to public relations rather than getting down and doing the job for which he is being paid? When are we going to see a real commitment to providing secure accommodation for prisoners in the prison system?

The Minister makes great play, from time to time, of the number of additional places he has created for prisons since he came into office. He seems to want to create the impression that these places have appeared as a result of consistent and conscious decisions on his part. The reality is very different.

The renovation of Cork prison was undertaken in two stages. The first stage was completed in 1980 and work commenced on the second stage which was completed in mid 1983. The new unit in Mountjoy was almost complete before the Minister took up office. Loughan House which underwent major structural and ancillary work in the late 1970s for young offenders reverted back to the prison service. None of this was as a result of any commitment by the Minister.

The absence of planning by this Government is evidenced again in their haphazard approach to the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act. That

Act provides for increased sentences and for consecutive sentences for offences committed while on bail.

If the proposals in the Act are to have any effect in tackling the crime problem. the necessary resources must be provided. The Minister has not given an indication as to how he proposes to provide accommodation to meet this expected increased demand on prison accommodation. How then are the provisions of that Act to be implemented? Is this another con job on the public? When, where or how is the Minister going to make arrangements to ensure that accommodation is available? We have a crisis and, despite overcrowding and doubling up in prisons, we still have a system of early releases.

It is true that the Minister realised that the prisons are only a part of the overall criminal justice system. Any tinkering with one part, whether it be the legislation. Garda or the courts, will have an impact on the prisons. While there is, legislative backing enabling the Minister to release prisoners before the expiration of their sentences, the widespread use of such a procedure results in a loss of confidence by the public in the whole system. It also leads to a situation where criminals know they cannot be contained, and they are encouraged to further crime in the absence of adequate prison accommodation.

There seems to be a notion, which is encouraged in certain quarters, that prisons are like grtade A hotels. As a member of the Select Committee on Crime Lawlessness and Vandalism, I have visited Mountjoy and Cork Prisons and the new accommodation being provided on Spike Island. I do not consider that the prisons should be of a grade A hotel standard. What is required is accommodation which is humane and which respects the dignity of prisoners. While some of the accommodation was of a satisfactory standard, especially in Cork and a part of Mountjoy, other accommodation in Mountjoy, especially the women's prison, was in very poor condition.

Even in accommodation of an acceptable standard, the quality deteriorates rapidly as overcrowding occurs. There is a serious problem caused by overcrowding where the facilities in the prisons cannot cope with the increased demands. This is particularly so in the case of educational and work opportunities available to prisoners. In both Cork and Arbour Hill prisons the education units were closed down to provide additional accommodation. While I accept the Minister's statements that these were only short term measures, I am more concerned with the overall level of such services as are normally provided. During my visits to the prisons one aspect stood out very clearly as demanding attention and that was the extent to which prisoners had nothing to do all day except sit around in the yards. This is totally unacceptable. Education and work opportunities must be provided within the prison system. Yet the Minister congratulates himself on a job well done. Does he not realise the seriousness of the situation or the needs of the prison system?

When we are talking about pressure on prison accommodation, we must consider the extent to which prison is used as a dumping ground for various categories in society for whom there are no alternatives. For example, the 1983 annual report on prisons and places of detention records 54 males as having been imprisoned for drunkenness. These people, seven of whom were over sixty years of age, should be given proper medical attention for their problem. Prison is certainly not the answer. Could the Minister not look into this and consider pressing his colleagues in Government particularly the Minister for Health to provide alternatives for these people?

The 1983 annual report also shows that 14 per cent of committals to prisons were in default of fine and a further 6 per cent in default of sureties, debtors and contempt of court cases. There should be another means of dealing with persons who do not pay fines or who default on loan payments. It tends to be persons on low incomes who end up in prison. These people are unlikely to pose any real threat to society. The Minister should investigate the possibility of extending the Community Services Act to cover these types of cases. Using prison space, at costs of £447 per week per prisoner, is clearly a waste of taxpayers' money.

It appears that the new Wheatfield complex, in addition to providing accommodation for juveniles, is also to provide accommodation for 144 women and that plans for this prison are at an advanced stage and tenders can be invited. Is the Minister seriously suggesting that there is a need for such a large women's prison? The daily average population in the women's prison was 40 in 1983. Although this prison has been advanced as a women's prison I am sure that it is males who will end up being catered for there.

There is little that can be said about Spike Island that has not already been stated in one form or another. As it stands at present, it seems to be sufficient to say that it is easier to get out of it than it is to get in. I agree that Spike Island should be developed as a secure prison. The Minister has a responsibility to ensure that there is proper security for the prisoners on the island and for the families who live there. They have lived there all their lives and they are entitled to live in comfort without having to live in fear of escaped prisoners.

I note in the 1983 prisons report that 55 per cent of adults sentenced to imprisonment had previously served a prison sentence and that 146 prisoners had been in over 20 times. This may have a number of connotations, but that is not clear from the report which gives no indication of the reasons for such previous imprisonment. It seems that prison is not acting as a deterrent for a large proportion of the prison population. If prisons were provided with education and work opportunities prisoners might be more likely to go straight on release.

In conclusion, I call on the Minister to proceed urgently with the provision of additional prison accommodation and places of detention for juveniles particularly in the Munster area. It seems that The State spent about £12 million on various fees in connection with these projects. We want money spent on prison accommodation, not fees. The Minister should examine the need to imprison certain categories of offenders, those I have mentioned. Defaulters in payment of debts and so on are taking up prison space while serious criminals are still out on the streets. The Minister would do a service to us all by looking at this area.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Michael Ahern to conclude at 8.08 p.m.

Mr. M. Ahern

On 15 March 1985 the Minister for Justice announced that the Naval Service at Spike Island were to vacate the island and hand it over to the Department of Justice to provide extra accommodation for offenders. He said that no decision has been taken as to the number or type of prisoners who were to be detained on Spike Island, but it was planned that selected prisoners would be transferred there. It is well known that Fort Mitchel, which is on Spike Island, is not suitable for the holding of prisoners, but the hype that was presented to the public gave the impression that Spike Island was Ireland's Alcatraz. These press releases were for public consumption. On a number of previous occasions Spike Island had been inspected and considered as a prison but it was rejected on each occasion. Not more than ten days before it was opened those who inspected it advised against its use as a prison. One must ask then why the Minister went ahead with this project against all the advice that had been given to him.

Mr. G. Collins

The handlers.

Mr. M. Ahern

The reason for his action was that the Government were coming under severe pressure due to a breakdown in law and order throughout the country precipitated by the astronomical rise in unemployment as a result of the Government's total lack of ability to control or reduce the worsening economic situation. In conjunction with other factors the worsening unemployment situation drove many people outside the bounds of the law and continues to do so. An out had to be found to take the heat off the Government, and presto, like the rabbit out of a magician's hat, some back-room public relations handler came up with a bright idea: "Let us turn Spike Island into a prison". The public relations boys got into full swing. This was to be the solution to the problem.

The Naval Service were told to move out and they were not too happy to do so. In went the repair men, but what did they work on? They did not work on fortifying Fort Mitchel to make it a secure detention centre. No, they worked on the dormitories, Kitchens, and central heating. They worked to make the place habitable and, of coures, that raised the question of what kind of conditions our Navy were living in prior to this. That question has not been answered but the country was shocked to hear that the Naval Service, our young men who are working on our behalf, were living in conditions that were not suitable for other people. This downright disgrace should have been brought to light before.

A number of families are living on the island, and despite their fears, no notice was taken of their protestations about the dangers that would lie in store for them. These are families of serving servicemen and they were treated shabbily. The speed with which the whole operation was carried out left these families with no alternative but to continue living on the island, and no protection whatsoever was afforded to them. They were left in total darkness about what was to happen and, up to the moment of the Naval Service moving out, they were not told what was happening on the island. This rash decision took them utterly by surprise and left them in great fear. They have been almost cut off from the mainland.

Previously a considerable number of crossings between the mainland and the island took place each day, but the number of crossings was reduced suddenly to four per day. Previous to the change in conditions a telephone was available to the servicemen and through them to their families. They could contact doctors and so on. That was taken out of their reach. Citizens whose husbands are servicemen were treated in a most despicable manner. The families complained and expressed their fears that a breakout might occur, but they were consoled by the Minister who stated that they were in as much danger from the prisoners as they would be from shipwrecked sailors. This derisory attitude or remark was most unbecoming to a Minister of this State, revealing him as most insensitive to families comprised mainly of young married people with young children. Of the 12 or 15 children of those families only one is of schoolgoing age. Therefore, the worry of those parents can be understood readily.

The fears of the inhabitants regarding the possibility of a breakout were confirmed at the end of April when three prisoners staged an ill-fated escape attempt which went unreported in the papers, but on 21 May an escape was made by six prisoners who got off the island successfully and, but for the vigilance of a member of the public who spotted them and informed the Garda, they would have got clear away. A number of other attempts have been reported since then but none of them has been successful. Still the families living on the island are worried about the possibility that at any time some prisoner, selected I presume because he was of good repute and would not attempt to escape, would make such an attempt. The selection process must have fallen down when many of these prisoners got away.

The prison staff, not of their own making, were too thin on the ground to control the prison effectively. This implies that the decision to open the island as a prison was a rushed decision taken rashly without proper planning, a decision designed to take the heat off the Government and to con the public into a false sense of security. It was a deliberate public relations splash to create the impression that everything in the law and order field was sound and under control. If the Government wish to make Spike Island a really worth-while prison it will cost up to £50 million. I wonder if the Minister has the guts or the willingness to go ahead with it. Extra gardaí have to take up duty each night to protect citizens living on the island and during the longer winter nights more gardaí will be required there. The cost will be greater than estimated. It can only be concluded that the whole episode relating to Spike Island was a shoddy affair, a downright disgrace. It was an insult to the inhabitants of the island and the surrounding mainland, as well as to the Naval Service.

Whilst there are 1,936 prisoners accommodated in prisons throughout the country there are some criminals abroad who should be behind bars. During the past year or so two elderly and defenceless neighbours of mine were brutally murdered in their homes. The perpetrators of these crimes are known and cases have been prepared against them but they are still walking the streets. If these cases are not quickly brought to court there is a danger that some of the main witnesses may be dead. The Minister must look seriously at this aspect. It is time that justice is served on the felons who killed these two defenceless old people. The Minister would be better employed in pursuing those cases than having his handlers arrange public relations exercises. He must ensure that the prisons are safe and capable of keeping prisoners under control.

Our motion calls on the Dáil to condemn the Government for their failure to provide adequate and secure prison accommodation to meet present needs. It is a factual statement of the situation on the ground. Anyone who has even the flimsiest knowledge of the conditions prevailing in our jails cannot but support the motion.

Mr. L. T. Cosgrave

I support the amendment moved last night by the Minister for Justice and reject the simplistic motion put forward by the main Opposition party. We are all aware of the serious crime situation and the accommodation difficulties which have grown up over a number of years. I would emphatically state that recent Government decisions will ensure that some of the people who have been part of the serious crime wave will be kept in custody. It was not necessarily deprivation which caused gangs of people to go around the west beating up and robbing old people. Neither is deprivation the cause of housebreaking or the driving of cars by young and not so young people on the wrong side of dual carriageways. We cannot accept the simplistic solution that all this is due to deprivation. We are all aware of our economic and social problems but we cannot accept that all the people who have committed these crimes have been deprived. Often very wealthy people are behind some of these crimes.

Progress has been made in relation to providing the necessary accommodation and taking off our streets people who have committed vicious crimes against the person and putting them behind bars where they belong. There may have been a perception in the past that because of lack of adequate accommodation there was a shedding policy and people who had been convicted were not serving their sentences. We can see clearly by the Minister's actions and Government decisions that great efforts are being made to provide adequate accommodation, using every square inch of ground to incarcerate people on Spike Island. The Opposition, if I remember correctly, were fully supportive of this decision. The building there will not be converted overnight but much work has been carried out. I visited it about a month ago and I can state categorically that it will not be a holiday camp full of video machines. Prisoners' rights should include certain basic educational facilities and I would hope that teachers who do so much good work will be given every facility which resources allow.

We all hope that the committee on prisons will report as quickly as possible. It is important that we do not make prisons into holiday camps. There has to be a certain toughness about prison. A prisoner loses his freedom and has to obey a code of discipline which will ensure that he will not readily want to go back. During recent months people have been serving their sentences and in cases of particularly bad crimes I hope they will serve every day of their sentences. We have seen lately very serious crimes against the person. I hope we will be totally consistent in our attitude to crime and will not just react to specific situations. Political rhetoric with one eye on the polls is too simplistic an approach from an Opposition who at all times proclaim their sense of responsibility and portray themselves as a possible alternative Government. They should not try to make political capital out of the provision of adequate prison accommodation. This is a problem which has not suddenly surfaced; it has been an ongoing problem.

I met quite a number of prison officers on my recent visit to Spike Island and I pay tribute to the great work they do in a tricky situation. I hope that their more vocal spokesmen will be responsible for the men under them who at times are at risk. It is too easy to make cheap political points. I hope that prison officers and their spokesmen will be responsible. They can readily gain access to the Department of Justice, the Minister and other public representatives if they have various grievances. They have a difficult job in relation to prisoners but it is better to have offenders behind bars rather than attacking the public and causing further mayhem by breaking into people's homes. If the courts find them guilty and sentence them they must serve the vast bulk of their sentences, especially those who have committed serious crimes.

It has been mentioned that there are delays and that some cases take an inordinate amount of time to be heard. There are various reasons for this and it can be partly due to the fact that a defendant can often delay proceedings. If Members know of individual cases which are taking a long time, the Minister will look into them.

I await with interest the committee's report. Prisons will always have to be provided for those who commit crimes against society. Perhaps the community service scheme will enable those who have not committed serious crimes to further their education and to repay their debt to society by some other means. The Opposition have not made any valid points apart from calling for hundreds of millions of pounds to be spent on prisons and facilities without saying where the money is to come from.

Mr. G. Collins

I welcome Deputy Cosgrave's comments and a comment from Deputy Mitchell on the personnel involved in running our prisons. I also welcome the fact that they paid tribute to them for doing an exceptionally difficult job. It shows that these Deputies are now trying to distance themselves from the official stance taken by the Minister a couple of months ago when he publicly described prison officers as drunkards, liars, untrustworthy and excitable. These are the same people about whom Deputy Liam Cosgrave and Deputy Gay Mitchell were talking earlier. I welcome the change of heart and I hope they will be able to convince the Minister that he should see these people in the same light.

I am satisfied — I say this more in sorrow than in anger — that there is absolutely no doubt that the Minister for Justice is sitting on a time bomb, mostly of his own making, as far as the prison system is concerned. It is with regret that I say it appears that the prison system is bursting at the seams, barely managing to operate. It looks as if there will be major upheavals within the system in a very short time. The Minister for Justice and his predecessor, Deputy Mitchell, failed to convince their colleagues that the prison expansion programme, which was most carefully planned during my time as Minister for Justice, should be financed and followed through.

The prison development plan was soundly based on the expert advice available to me from senior officials of the Department of Justice. There was positive proof available then of the urgency of providing additional prison accommodation and there was 100 per cent unanimity in the advice given to me by those most knowledgeable in this area.

In 1981, a total of 441 prisoners were released before their time because of a shortage of space. That clearly indicated that a serious problem was developing and that additional prison accommodation would have to be made available. That proved to be true because, in 1983, 1,298 prisoners were released before their time and I understand that, although the figures for 1984 are not yet available, something like 1,500 prisoners were released before their time in 1984.

The Government in which I served made moneys available for the development of the prison programme in an effort to head off the crisis which has now developed in the prison system and is threatening its continuity. Lands were purchased for this development within the system at different centres in Cork, Limerick and Clondalkin. Lands were partly available at Portlaoise at the time for the building of a maximum security prison which would cater for the more dangerous subversive prisoner. I said "partly available" and I will come back to that later.

The Cork development went ahead and new accommodation came on stream around June 1984. We now have well over 200 prisoners in Cork in dormitory style accommodation. The Minister has, on numerous occasions, gone out of his way, as have his handlers when briefing the newspapers behind the scene, to suggest that this development got under way since he came to office. Indeed, the tone of the Minister's amendment clearly indicates that they now believe their own propaganda. This suggestion is not true. It was under way in June 1982 before he was a Minister.

The Minister suggested that the additional accommodation in Mountjoy was his brainchild. Long before he was elected to this Parliament, I approved of the conversion of the old officers' quarters and mess into a small, maximum security unit within the complex to provide specifically for ordinary dangerous criminals who, up to then, had been held in military custody in the Curragh Army Camp, County Kildare.

When this special unit was completed, we were all happy to see the Curragh unit closed. It served its purpose in the early seventies when Mountjoy was wrecked and when we had nowhere else to send prisoners. I remember when members of the Minister's party vehemently opposed using the Curragh unit at the time for prisoners even though we had no prison accommodation available as a result of the emergency in Mountjoy. This was sheer hypocrisy and I am sorry that some of those who contributed to this debate did not have the courtesy to stay to listen to the facts. They might have learned something because the truth cannot be denied.

It became apparent in 1978 that Portlaoise prison could not accommodate those sent there for subversive crimes. The Garda were most successful at that time in their efforts against subversives and accommodation was at a premium. We knew, even then, that we could ill afford to specifically designate another one of our prisons for subversives because of the need for accommodation to house ordinary prisoners.

Eventually, Limerick prison had to be taken out of the ordinary prison system and used for subversive prisoners many of whom had been sentenced to long terms of imprisonment because of the type of crime for which they had been convicted. Even then we had a crisis on our hands which could only be dealt with by proper long term planning. It was my responsibility to convince the Government of the day that appropriate finances would have to be made available to pay for the prison expansion programme I got under way. There has to be, and people must understand this, a lapse of a reasonably long period of time from the planning of a prison to having it available for use by prisoners. We have made a valiant start on a programme that would now be on-stream if the Coalition Governments, the present one and the Coalition of 1982 which included Deputy Mitchell and Deputy Noonan as Ministers for Justice, had not backed away from financing it.

I can recall Deputy Mitchell, before he was appointed Minister, as a Fine Gael member for party and personal reasons giving an assurance in public to his constituents in the Clondalkin-Wheatfield area, that he would kill the prison plan for that area if and when there was a change of Government. I can recall the aggro that was stirred up in that area by members of the Minister's party for the purpose of gaining petty political advantage at that time. The Minister of State, Deputy Fennell, may also have been guilty of a certain amount of stirring with her pen in the newspaper for which she worked in an effort to cause embarrassment to our Government, to promote herself and her political chances which did not look too good at that time. Had I more time available I would produce in the House her statements at that time and I am sure she would not be proud of them, but then she is a differently motivated person tonight.

Fine Gael at every opportunity knocked the prison system we tried to get under way. I have videos of interviews given and programmes made, which I got from our national broadcasting station, at a time when senior members of Deputy Fennell's party were knocking what we were trying to do. The propaganda efforts of the Minister, Deputy Noonan, to cover up for his own lack of progress on the essential development of the new Portlaoise prison must surely be seen for what they are. If one reads a report in today's Irish Independent by Lorna Reid one will see that the Minister wants the public to learn from him that what happened by way of development in the Portlaoise prison complex has been a mistake. It has not been a mistake and should not be regarded by anybody as such. It should not be presented to the public by anybody on behalf of the Minister as a mistake.

The position in Portlaoise — this is the truth — is that the development of the maximum security prison on that complex could only take place by the removal of the old ramshackle prison officers' accommodation. Those houses had to be taken out of the way to make room for the new maximum security prison. That was part of the overall plan which went ahead but the Ministers, Deputy Mitchell and Deputy Noonan, knocked the development of the maximum prison unit which would have been coming on-stream now not alone to relieve the pressure on Limerick prison so that it could be used to accommodate ordinary prisoners but also to permit Portlaoise to accommodate ordinary prisoners. Up to 500 ordinary prisoners could be accommodated there.

It is wrong for the Minister, or anybody else, to say that the money spent on the development of the site at Portlaoise was not well spent. It was part of an overall plan. Last night the Minister said that development could not have been stopped when he took office because it had already started. What was he doing a few months before that? Was it Government policy then to totally abandon a project on which public money had been spent by way of planning and designing an essential requirement in the interest of the security of our State, a maximum security prison? That is what was at stake but short term bad planning and shortsightedness on the part of the Minister, Deputy Mitchell and Deputy Noonan, allowed it to go by default. I would welcome an opportunity at another time to hear the views of other members of the Coalition parties on this issue.

The Minister's approach to this has been totally dishonest. Having read his speech made in the House last night I am amazed at the degree of intolerance he shows. I am amazed at the arrogance he displayed, that anybody should dare question his decisions or his record. He may get away with that approach within the confines of the Fine Gael Party rooms, but he will not get away with it here.

The country is now paying a heavy price for the Government's grave neglect of the prison system since they came into office. Failure to provide adequate prison accommodation to help cope with a growing crime problem, vandalism and lawlessness has brought the whole system of law and order to the verge of breakdown. The decision to reduce the amount produced for the prison building programme by the Coalition, at a time when a serious problem had already been identified, was an act of gross irresponsibility. Not alone did the Minister for Justice fail to recruit the extra gardaí which Fianna Fáil had approved, but the allocation for prison building was drastically reduced in successive years. Fianna Fáil's allocation for prison building in 1983 was £17.6 million. This was cut to £10.7 million. Then in 1984 instead of the £11.8 million which the Fine Gael and Labour parties allocated only £5.8 million was spent. They suggested that we should give them credit for providing additional accommodation but that is a damned untruth that should be put around their necks until such time as they face the facts and tell the truth.

Is it any wonder, when spending on prison accommodation has been cut by 70 per cent over two years, that there is now a crisis of overcrowding, of discipline and of security in our prisons, a crisis that spills out into the streets as a result of escapes, early remissions, increased bail, and ineffective non-custodial sentencing in cases where custody is clearly required for the protection of the public?

The Minister a year ago in his speech to the annual conference of the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors on 3 April 1984 stated that what can reasonably be objected to is the early release of prisoners without preparation simply to make room for new committals. But the fact is that Fianna Fáil had set in motion a programme of building to deal with the problem. In the light of the prison cutbacks which were taking place at the time the Minister's statement was seriously misleading and a cover-up of a grave neglect of his responsibilities.

The early release from Arbour Hill and Shelton Abbey prison after only four years of a group of people convicted of the crime of rape in the Minister's own constituency, while the victim continues to suffer from mental illness, is an indictment of the Minister's administration of the prison system. There was, we thought, a general consensus two or three years ago that rape was one of the most serious offences and should carry a very heavy sentence. If the Minister himself were not sensitive to the matter, then surely the Minister for Women's Affairs, could have drawn his attention to the seriousness of what he was doing. Her lame duck excuse is totally unacceptable as far as I am concerned. The Minister of State is great at showing public concern but it backfired on her at Granard, County Longford. She got her photograph taken holding a little baby in her arms at St. Ita's Hospital. The Minister missed a great opportunity to stand up for those she defended when it suited her that is, before she came into this House — rape victims.

The Government and the Minister make a grave mistake in viewing the crime problem, like every other problem, as primarily a matter of public relations. If the survey shows that the heightened fears of the public have abated somewhat, then the Government think the problem is solved. This is the most deplorable way to run a vital Department of State.

Warnings about the state of the prisons should be heeded and the Minister should restore the funds taken from the prison building and modernisation programme before we find ourselves unable to cope effectively with the deteriorating law and order problem. The Minister should remember that, as good as his handlers are, he and those who support him should not be taken in by their own propaganda, because that is all it is, a propaganda exercise which has backfired. If the Minister of State, Deputy Fennell, does not recognise that crime is a major issue in the present elections, she is out of touch with reality.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.