Vol. 399 No. 4
8 Mr. McCartan asked the Minister for Justice the steps, if any, he intends to take to correct the deficiencies in our prison system highlighted in the Annual Report on Prisons and Places of Detention for 1988, published on 11 May 1990; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The Annual Report on Prisons and Places of Detention is a wide-ranging document which, as the Deputy will be aware, includes the views of the visiting committees to the various institutions on many aspects of prison life as set out in their annual reports for the year in question. While it would clearly not be practical for me to comment in detail on the contents of the report by way of replying to a parliamentary question I would, of course, be in a position to give a considered response to any question on a specific matter covered in the report which the Deputy cares to put down in the normal way. By way of general comment, it is important, I feel, to draw attention to the fact that here we are dealing with a report on prisons for the year 1988 and that many of the criticisms made no longer hold good. In some instances, the deficiencies adverted to have long since been rectified — in others, plans are well advanced to meet the criticisms made. By way of example, I might mention that the reference to life sentence reviews in the Portlaoise Visiting Committee Report has been met by the establishment towards the end of last year of the Sentence Review Group; the point made in relation to more compassionate parole also adverted to by that committee has also been met; the question of prison suicides mentioned by the Mountjoy Visiting Committee is the subject of specific examination by an expert group I established some months ago from whom I have sought an interim report; and a provision of £750,000 has been made to provide a new kitchen in Mountjoy. These are not the only matters which have been dealt with. It is not practical, as I have said, to comment in detail on a report of this nature by way of reply to a Dáil question.
Of course, I am not for one moment suggesting that all the criticisms made have by now been fully addressed and it would be misleading, in listing some matters already attended to, to pretend otherwise. Much remains to be done, for example, in relation to what is perhaps the main difficulty and that is the question of accommodation pressures — this difficulty is acknowledged incidentally not just by visiting commitees but in the introduction to the report itself. On this issue, also, a number of substantial developments have taken place since the period covered by the report. Perhaps the most significant was the bringing into operation of the new place of detention at Wheatfield which is at present accommodating about 240 offenders. The remaining 80 places will be brought into use before the end of the year. As the House will be aware, Wheatfield is the first purpose built institution of its kind since the foundation of the State and represents an enormous improvement in the stock of accommodation available to the Prison Service.
The accommodation at St. Patrick's Institution is to be refurbished completely as is the accommodation at the Women's Prison at Mountjoy which forms part of the same complex. A new unit is being provided in the grounds of Mountjoy to cater for offenders who have special medical needs, including offenders who have been identified as HIV positive. These major projects are in addition to ongoing maintenance and upgrading works at the various institutions. I believe that this programme, which gives priority to the needs of juvenile offenders, female offenders and offenders with medical problems and is costing £8 million in the current year, is a substantial and effective response to tackling major difficulties faced by the prison system. As I stated however in my reply to Private Notice Questions on 8 May, there is no doubt that more needs to be done and I shall do my best to ensure that what can reasonably be provided by way of resources for this work will in fact be provided.
A final point which I feel must be made concerning the annual reports made by visiting committees — and here I am not referring simply to the 1988 reports — is that interest tends to focus almost exclusively on any adverse comments which may be made.
It is, of course, in the nature of the work of visiting committees that they have from time to time to make critical comments about what they preceive to be deficiencies in the operation of the institutions. It is obviously part and parcel of their job to bring such concerns promply and clearly to the attention of the relevant authorities and they would be failing in their duties to do otherwise. I think it would be only fair to the visiting committees, however, to point out that a feature of their reports which does not tend to receive much public attention is that, by and large, they offer substantial praise for many positive aspects which they find and, in particular, pay handsome tribute to the efforts of prison management and staff together with the support services, in doing a difficult job on behalf of the community. It is neither fair to the staff concerned nor to the visiting committees themselves to ignore the fact that much of what they say is very positive and encouraging indeed — in this respect 1988 was, I am glad to say, no exception.
As the Minister has sought to rely to some extent on the delay in publication of the report in an effort to down play its recommendations and demands, can he give an undertaking to the House that whenever a report is presented to him in the future, it will be published without delay, that its publication will not be delayed for any reason by him or his Department?
This was a 1988 report. I have nothing to hide in regard to it.
How long did the Minister have it?
The incident referred to related to 1986. The reason for the delay was, as I outlined in this House before, that the Prison Officers' Association became aware of some of the contents of the report and were threatening legal action. I had no responsibility at the time for it. I had no difficulty in publishing it other than that particular problem which arose. I would like to assure the Deputy that it is and will continue to be my practice in the Department of Justice to be as open as possible and to publish documents which come to me at any time.
The Minister has indicated a difficulty in dealing with specifics but having regard to the general nature of the question tabled, would he not agree that the one major issue that screams out for attention in so far as at least four of the visiting committees are concerned, is the question of over crowding? Beyond the fact that the Minister has opened Wheatfield, has he any proposals to cut back in the level of the prison population as a means of addressing the accommodation problem which is so urgent and seems to impinge on so much of the other every day workings of the prison system such as welfare, education, parole, early release and other matters?
There has been an increasing and welcome move by the courts to impose community service and other orders, instead of remand sentences and to have regard to the question of general care and attention being available outside the prison system to those concerned. Because of the level of crime, there will continue to be a need for secure facilities. It is my responsibility and that of the Government to try to improve the accommodation standards. I cannot interfere with the independence of the Judiciary as to whether they decide to send somebody they find guilty of an offence to prison or to give them a community order. In many cases the people who are sent are not first offenders; they are people who have been repeatedly causing difficulties in society.
A brief question, Deputy McCartan, please. I want to dispose of the remaining question, No. 9.
May I ask the Minister if he would look at the view of the committee regarding Mountjoy, that prison management is a particular problem which needs to be addressed?
Every aspect of every committee report is examined.
