Seán Barrett
Question:10 Mr. Barrett asked the Minister for Justice when the new set of aims, objectives and agreed priorities for the prison system, promised in the Programme for a Partnership Government 1993 to 1997, will be published.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Prison System Review.
As I have indicated already, I am carrying out a full review of all aspects of the prison system, including aims and objectives. The drafting is well advanced and I would hope to complete this task shortly.
Would the Minister agree that the Whitaker report of 1985 on penal reform set out precisely what needs to be done in reforming our prisons? Would she further agree that without the implementation of the recommendations of the Whitaker report the prisons are no more than factories recycling offenders, given the fact that in the juvenile area 50 per cent to 80 per cent of all offenders are recidivists?
The Whitaker report was published eight years ago and since then a subtantial change has taken place in the prison system. Those changes should not be ignored in any prison review or in any changes that we might contemplate. It was for that reason that I decided on a prison review which for the first time would be published by a Minister for Justice and would show the system as it is — the difficulties, the challenges and the problems. I am sure Deputy Mitchell would accept that there have been changes such as an increase in HIV prisoners, in the number of sex offenders and in the demand for extra custodial places, along with competing demand for non-custodial places and sentencing. It is important to take all those changes into account in any prison review.
It would be wrong for people to assume that nothing has happened since 1985. A number of substantial changes recommended by Whitaker have taken place. There has been an increase in alternatives to custodial sentencing and we have established a sentencing review group and appointed a director of the prison medical service. We also established and extended the intensive supervision scheme and, in so far as it is possible, we have improved the management/staff relations at the prisons. It is clear that a number of Whitaker recommendations have been put in place. It is wrong to say that we should not look at the changes I have outlined. These are serious items which must be taken into account.
Would the Minister agree that the prison system is not rehabilitative and that there is very good reason to suspect that some offenders are coming in contact with drugs for the first time in prison? Would the Minister agree that some people are forming new bad habits while in prison and that the prison system is not only a failure but a costly failure? The capital cost per cell is about £250,000 and the running cost per prisoner per year is up to £30,000. In considering this whole area is the Minister considering the appointment of an inspector of prisons and a prisons board?
In the course of the review I have looked at all proposals. That is why when the review is completed it should be published so that everyone can comment.
With regard to the point about the prison system not being rehabilitative, I am concerned about any allegation that we in the probation and welfare services are not endeavouring in so far as we can to support prisoners. We cannot force prisoners to use facilities available to them in prison, nor can we force them to attend various treatment or therapy sessions. In relation to sex offenders, about which I have particular concerns, there was a pilot scheme in Arbour Hill which was allowed to finish and nothing happened. However, the recommendations of the pilot scheme were evaluated and as a result I have put in place a comprehensive system of treatment for sex offenders in Arbour Hill.
That is the way we must go in relation to each of the sectors in the prison system. No prison system is ideal, but we want to ensure in so far as it is possible that prisoners do not re-offend when released. We cannot always ensure that, but I would not accept that the system is a failure. The cost per prisoner, as Deputy Mitchell said, is in the region of £30,000 per year. It is a costly system no matter what way we look at it, whether we are talking about providing extra custodial places, which we will have to provide, or imposing non-custodial sentences and the level of supervision that would be required in that case. It is very important that the review is published, warts and all, and that people have an opportunity to debate the penal system in an informed way. We have not had that opportunity before and this review will afford us that opportunity.
Arising from what the Minister has just said and harping back to the lighthearted banter between me and Deputy Mitchell last night, does it not make sense now to face up to the fact that we simply must have extra custodial places? Is it not sensible to make a decision in prinicple not to provide those extra places on the basis that when this bulge of young offenders becomes a thing of the past and things improve, the Minister will be in a position to retire redundant prisons built 150 years ago and have a better prison service at the end of the day? Would the Minister not consider in that context that, rather than wait for the review, she should put in hand the planning of extra custodial places now because it is money that will have to be spent some day and the Minister might as well get on with the job?
I have indicated often enough publicly that we will need more custodial places. Unfortunately, the Department of Finance tend to get very excited if I say that I have made a definite decision on these matters in advance of putting my proposal to Government. The Deputy can be assured that one of the recommendations which seems to be coming as a result of the review is that we need somewhere between 150 and 200 extra custodial places. I have already decided that within that number we need a specially constructed women's prison to take account of the different circumstances of women prisoners. We have to treat women prisoners differently.
It is important that we look at the whole prison system. I have taken the opportunity in the last ten months to visit every one of the prison facilities we have, with the exception of St. Patrick's Institution, which I hope to visit in the next week or so. I have learned a lot from those visits and that, as Deputy McDowell said, there are some very good examples of prisons here and some very bad ones. That is why it is important that we debate the changes in the prison system in an informal way.
Would the Minister accept that part of the problem with the prisons is that on the one hand people are being imprisoned for perhaps non-payment of a small fine while on the other hand people are being released early although they have been imprisoned for serious crime and should be kept locked up? In that situation would the Minister direct her mind in any overall plan towards further non-custodial punishments for minor offences?
Will she bear in mind that each year there are more than 200,000 convictions for non-indictable minor offences and that in virtually all cases the penalty imposed is a fine? The alternative to the payment of a fine invariably is a spell in prison. As the prison system is clogged up would the Minister consider adopting some other approach such as the collection of fines rather than the alternative of a spell in prison?
Before Deputy O'Keeffe came into the House Deputy Mitchell and I had a long discussion on this topic. I will not repeat what I said then. I am sure Deputy O'Keeffe is aware that I am considering various proposals, including an attachment to earnings and the making of payments by instalments. The claims made are not true and the number of people sent to prison for the non-payment of fines account at any one time for between 1 and 2 per cent of the prison population.
I call on Deputy Mitchell for a final supplementary as I would like to accommodate other Deputies who have tabled questions.
Is the Minister aware that there are mothers, like the person who came to see me recently, who would like to see their sons finish their sentence in a different prison because they are fearful they will pick up a drug habit in the prison in which they are being held? Second, can the Minister outline the current rate of recidivism? Third, on the question of AIDS, can the Minister assure the House that there is no complacency in dealing with this serious problem? Since the Minister has visited the prisons will she facilitate members of the Opposition who would like to see at first hand what is happening inside our prisons?
On the question of visits to prisons, since I became Minister for Justice, like my predecessors, I received many requests, particularly from journalists, both in the print and electronic media, to visit various prisons. I facilitated almost everybody for the reason that it is appropriate that the public should know what goes on within the prison system. If Deputy Mitchell wishes to visit any or all of our prisons I would be delighted to accommodate him.
The Minister should not keep him too long.
I was not looking for accommodation.
I was about to suggest that, perhaps, Deputy McDowell should be made responsible for minding the key of the cell in which Deputy Mitchell would be kept. On the question of AIDS, there is no complacency. Deputy Mitchell would find on a visit to Mountjoy Prison that the medical unit there is one of the finest medical facilities in the country. Every facility is provided for prisoners who are HIV positive. On the question of those who re-offend, if memory serves me correctly no statistics are available. I have taken this matter up with the prison authorities. A number of prisoners, having served their sentence, re-offend later but I do not have the statistics. The Deputy said he knows a mother who wants her son to finish his sentence in a different prison because she is fearful he will pick up a drug habit. I would be very concerned about this and I will raise the matter with the governors whom I meet regularly.