Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 24 May 1994

Vol. 443 No. 1

Private Members' Business. - Criminal Justice System: Motion.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann, in view of

—the increasing number of armed robberies and other crimes in urban and rural areas;

—concerns repeatedly expressed by the Garda regarding crimes committed by persons on bail;

—the `revolving door' system that passes for a penal system;

—the ready availability of drugs, particularly in our inner cities but now manifesting itself in towns throughout the country and in prisons;

—the fears expressed by small shopkeepers who are living in a state of virtual siege, particularly in the greater Dublin area;

—the failure to effect a reform of the court system; and

—the increasing incidence of violent crime, especially against vulnerable members of the community,

calls on the Government to restore law and order so that law-abiding citizens can go about their lives without fear of attack from criminals who are increasingly immune from punishment or even the pretence of rehabilitation.

The breakdown in law and order has been callously disregarded. The Minister for Justice has been cavalier in dismissing warnings, often twisting what Deputies say to imply some wrongdoings by Deputies for even raising the matter. At the same time the Minister has been abusing powers in a selfish and self-serving way to her personal political advantage. When I sought an opportunity to raise this matter in the presence of the Minister she chose to remain mute. Instead, that night she went to the Seanad and, while admitting the action, claimed these were proper activities for her to be involved in. I ask the Minister to explain why she decided to override the judgment of the Garda Commissioner on an operational matter for which he has responsibility. The Garda Commissioner refused a request from the Minister to move Garda district headquarters from Oughterard to Salthill and the Minister involved powers under section 6 (1) of the Garda Síochána Act, 1924 to direct him to do so based on "her personal knowledge" of the constituency. The Minister is alleged to have quipped that she has seen the polling boxes in Oughterard and that this would not do her any political damage.

In addition, the Minister has not dealt with allegations that she is directly and personally involved in vetting all applications from prisoners from County Galway, for compassionate release, temporary release or transfer to a training unit or an open prison in a way which directly discriminates against prisoners from County Galway in a most objectionable, unethical and dissolute manner. Such interferences in the criminal justice system are obnoxious and offend those communities which are treated in a separate and different manner. The justice system is being used to perpetrate injustice in a way which is demoralising the Garda and the prison service. How can the Labour Party remain in a Government which permits such behaviour? The Minister must assure the House that those malpractices will be discontinued and, if not, the matter should be considered directly by the Government and by the House.

There are serious problems in every facet of the criminal justice system. No apparent action has been taken by the Minister for Justice to solve them other than passing them to committees, review groups or deciding by looking into her heart how Garda resources should be deployed or what Galway prisoners should be given early release or other remissions. That arrogance cannot be tolerated in a civilised democracy. I am glad we will have an opportunity to hear from the Minister in this Chamber, rather than to have to read her comments made in the other House.

The Garda Síochána does not have the manpower to deal with the level of crime. Given the added problems they have faced in recent days and the potential for terrorist activities, the resources available to the Garda Síochána are laughable compared to those available to the RUC. I accept it is not possible to provide absolute security. With the threat of terrorism breathing down our throats, the undermining of State institutions by the IRA and other criminal organisations, crime at an all time high level in the community and with people afraid to leave their homes, how can we justify Garda numbers of 500 less than a few years ago?

I hope the Minister will explain to the lady to whom I spoke in Rialto yesterday, who had eight stitches in her forehead, had been followed home, had her door kicked in and whose elderly mother had been mugged on two occasions, why Garda numbers have been allowed to decrease? The Minister's so-called crime package about which we have heard so much since last December will do little to tackle the problem. The last occasion such a package was introduced was during the period Deputy Collins was Minister for Justice. He announced a £100 million crime package, not a £66 million one over a number of years as promised by the Minister.

The budget for the Department of Justice and the criminal justice system is of the order of £550 million. An additional £66 million over the next five years only allows for inflation and is not a real increase. The former Minister for Justice, Deputy Collins, said we would have an airborne section in the Garda, but all we have had are airborne Ministers, civil servants and gardaí who travelled around the world to inspect such equipment. There has been no mention of an airborne garda unit except in the Estimates for the Department of Justice where, to the embarrasment of all, a token sum of £1,000 has been provided. It is time we called a halt to such PR exercises, photo opportunities and made a real and determined effort to provide the resources necessary to deal with lawlessness, vandalism and crime which has spiralled out of control.

People cannot recall so many violent murders in such a short period. Three people were shot dead in County Clare, a woman was shot dead, having left her home in the west of Ireland and a man was shot dead as he stood next to a bonfire in Dublin in October last. Regularly, people have their doors kicked in and shots fired at them. Many of the murders in Dublin are drug related. People have become prisoners behind locked doors, alarms, shops with shutters and must contend with roads with ramps. People in rural Ireland, who have felt safe in the past, are terrified to go out. Under the policing regulations which came into effect in the early 1990s, they are expected to report problems they encounter to a green box.

What has happened to policing policy? Why does the Government not have a policing policy? Why do we not have a proper plan to deal with crime which includes a policing policy? I do not know if the recruitment figures promised will do much more than cover Garda natural retirement in that period. The 500 manpower shortage in the Garda should be dealt with by means of short term recruitment and, if necessary, recruiting retired staff for a short period while Garda recruits are undergoing training. We need innovation, gardaí on the beat and not green boxes. We need gardaí who know what is happening and are prepared to take action to deal with the problems faced by people in the community. We cannot continue to allow a situation where people cannot go about their daily lives without the fear of being raped or mugged, of having their handbags snatched or, may the Lord protect us, of being shot. There has been a progressive deterioration in our drugs problem to a stage where drugs are now sold openly on the streets of our cities and towns and are freely available in prisons. In the last ten days I spoke to two people in an inner city flats complex. One man told me that he had learned his drug habit in prison. He went into prison without a heroin problem and came out a heroin addict. This morning a man in an inner city flats complex told me his son went into prison and would never have had a drug problem had he not taken heroin there.

Whatever happened to law and order? This is central to the crime problem we face. People are mugging and beating and robbing, intimidating people and driving them out of their businesses, locking people in their homes and striking fear into the hearts of old and vulnerable people because they are out to get money at any cost to feed a drug habit. Drugs are sold openly on the street, not in Foxrock or certain parts of the city or the country, but their sale is tolerated in certain parts of our inner cities. That is wholly unacceptable and we should not tolerate or accept people going into prison, partly to be rehabilitated, picking up a drug habit there and coming out worse criminals than they went in.

Some commentators have blamed inter-divisional rivalry in the Garda Síochána for the failure of effectiveness in dealing with the dreadful events of recent weeks in Counties Clare and Galway. If these allegations are found to be true, that ineffectiveness must be tackled as a matter of urgency.

We must be thankful that the outrage in Pearse Street last weekend did not result in the mass murder of 300 or 400 people. However, questions must be asked about the ease with which the terrorists managed to reach the heart of Dublin with firearms and commercial explosives. With Garda strength at its present low level we have to wonder how confident people can feel that future outrages of this kind can be prevented. The RUC chief constable said on television some months ago — I heard him myself — that it was not a matter of if but when this sort of thing would happen. Let the Minister tell this House what steps were taken on receipt of those warnings? Were those warnings given privately at an earlier stage before they were given publicly? What steps were taken on receipt of those warnings to upgrade the security and defence of people in this city and country against terrorist attack, which took place with such ease last Saturday night?

The numbers in the Garda should be immediately increased in the manner I have outlined and the process of civilianisation within the Garda should be accelerated to free gardaí who are currently deskbound for duty on the streets of our cities and towns. The neighbourhood watch and community alert schemes should be given fresh impetus to help alleviate the fears of people, particularly old people living alone or in isolated places.

As to the law, the shackles that bind the Garda in tackling crime should be loosened so that they can be effective. I was criticial of parts of the criminal justice system when the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Bill went through this House recently. I criticised the Bill on two fronts, in that it did not contain sufficiently strong powers to deal with criminals and that it contained sections which interfered with the rights of non-criminals and which would make criminals laugh their heads off. To be fair to the Minister, she did accept a number of amendments, and the Bill when passed was better than when it first came before the House. However, the first prosecution under that Act was against a person handing out insulting literature. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the literature that was handed out is not the point. The point is that this public order Bill was supposed to give effect to powers to deal with the problems in the community.

Legislation which should have been passed to deal with such problems has not been passed by this House. I refer specifically to the opportunity which has been lost yet again, while the European elections and the by-elections are going on, to put a referendum on bail to the country. In a system where one is innocent until proven guilty, I do not believe everybody who is charged should be locked up. I do believe, however, that judges should have discretion. If they know that the person appearing before them is a known drug pusher or godfather, they should be allowed to take that into account in deciding whether that person should be allowed bail. There is a lack of understanding in this House of the problems people in local authority flats complexes face. This is serious because, first, people are taking the law into their own hands and, second, the problem itself is out of hand and results in the infliction of terrible injury on many people. At a flats complex that I called to recently, a woman I have known for a number of years and have had contact with in the past had buried her third child because of AIDS and had a fourth child who was developing full blown AIDS. Another woman and her husband both had HIV — the husband had developed AIDS but the poor man had not yet been told that, and the children do not know. That community has been inundated with drug pushing for many years and the forces of law and order have not come to their assistance.

I have concentrated on the lack of resources for the Garda; they should have the resources to deal with this problem. I have to say, however, that judges have been unrealistic in the evidence they seek before they will agree to evict a corporation tenant from a flats complex. I do not advocate hanging and flogging or the wholesale eviction of tenants. However, if one or two drug pushers turn a flats complex of 300 or 400 people into a haven for junkies who come in taxis from as far away as Dun Laoghaire or Malahide, they should be prosecuted if they do not obey the law. One of the regulations under the law is that they must, as tenants of the corporation, behave in accordance with their tenancy agreement. The corporation does not evict people easily and when they move to evict, having given several warnings, the District Court judge requires four witnesses which the local authority cannot provide because people are intimidated and will not give evidence. I want the law changed so that the evidence of the Garda superintendent or a member of higher rank who is aware of continuing complaints against the tenant in question will be accepted, not as compelling evidence but as evidence, when a judge is deciding whether that tenant should be evicted. I suggest that because at present witnesses cannot be obtained. People are terrified. They form their own committees. In some cases they go much further and form their own "kangaroo court" and march these people before them and order them to leave.

I do not support people taking the law into their own hands, but I understand the position these people find themselves in, most of them having nothing to do with terrorists or terrorist organisations or anything of that kind, when the forces of law and order, including the Judiciary, let them down. I want to see that provision included in the miscellaneous provisions Bill which the Minister promised to bring before the House.

I wish to refer to the prison system. As the Mountjoy Prison Visiting Committee, in its 1993 report, suggested, the prison system is "an appalling vista". This is not something new. The 1992 report regarded Mountjoy as a potential volcano, a prison running on crisis control. In the 1991 report the visiting committee reported:

Mountjoy Prison is greatly overcrowded. The prisoners find themselves in multiple cells. On occasions there are no cells available. The serious riots during the year were caused primarily by boredom and by frustration and by overcrowding.

This report refers only to Mountjoy; there are other prisons and further problems.

Since publication of the Whitaker report in 1985 some improvements in the penal system have been carried out, but much remains to be done. If we are serious about dealing with the current crime problem we must ensure that the prison system works efficiently, effectively and economically. More than £550 million will be spent this year on the criminal justice system. If the prison system is a failure — and it is — much of this money is being wasted since prisons are in part institutes for recycling criminals. Recidivism, the rate at which prisoners re-offend, is probably between 50 and 80 per cent, although it is difficult accurately to gauge this figure at any given time since criminal justice statistics in general and prison statistics in particular are not produced in a way that is conducive to accurate measurement of the problem.

Whitaker outlined the purposes imprisonment may serve as follows: punishment of offenders for the offences committed by them; deterrence of offenders from committing the same or similar offences after release from prison and deterrence of other who may be inclined to commit the same or similar offences; reformation or rehabilitation of offenders so that on release they will have been persuaded and equipped to avoid criminality; and prevention of offenders from committing the same or similar offences during the periods for which they are imprisoned. It must be noted that people are not sent to prison to be punished; imprisonment is the punishment. The prison system as it currently operates is not an effective system of reformation, rehabilitation or prevention, although it is clear that nobody wishes to lose their liberty and for this reason prison is a limited deterrent.

It is Fine Gael philosophy in every area of policy that people should, where they are capable of doing so, ultimately take responsibility for their own actions. This is not an imposition on individuals; rather it is a recognition of the worth and dignity of each individual. "Every person counts" is the message which is central to Fine Gael philosophy. This applies equally to the victim and the perpetrator of crime. The "hang 'em and flog 'em" brigade, while making what are often popular noises, do not effectively contribute to easing the problem of the victim. This should be done by confronting the perpetrator with his or her crime and seeking to bring about a change in behaviour by rehabilitation.

About 6,000 people per annum go through the prison system. The population of prisoners at any one time is slightly more than one-third of this figure. Approximately 280 people per annum are imprisoned for non-payment of fines or debts to banks and financial institutions. In a reply to a parliamentary question in my name I was told that 14 per cent of all committals to prison are for non-payment of fines, although at any given stage only 1 to 2 per cent of the prison population is made up of such defaulters. It is essential that provision be made at time of sentencing for the collection of fines and/or deduction of money at source, or confiscation of assets if fines are not paid. Prison places should be reserved for those who need to be incarcerated. All prisoners are incarcerated at considerable cost to the State.

The Government proposes to build a new prison to include 200 new places. The Whitaker report pointed out that the capital cost of each cell was £150,000 in 1985 terms — in today's terms that is probably nearer to £250,000. It could cost up to £6 million per year in running costs in addition to the capital cost. Before expanding the prison system we must ensure that the system is reformed and that it works. To build additional prison spaces without reforming the system would be to expand the existing recycling institute model. This means there will be an increasing base of recidivists. The prison system, far from being part of the solution, is part of the problem. Until we reform the prisons, that part of the problem will continue to grow, thereby unleashing criminals on the community.

In a recent ten-year period in the United States the prison population trebled but, despite this, crime continued to grow to record levels. Whitaker identified the following range of non-custodial penalties which should be used by the courts to dispose at their discretion of lesser offences: probation, fines, confiscation of income or assets in certain cases, restitution to society generally or to the victim directly, conditionally suspended prison sentences, community service orders, disqualifications and withdrawal of licences, requirement of attendance at a treatment centre for alcohol or drug abuse as an alternative to imprisonment, and other restraints on liberty operable within the community, for example, compulsory residence in approved hostels, compulsory participation on training programmes and reporting at intervals to the authorities. To this list might be added the application of individual curfew, the use of self-placed advertisements with photographs of the offender in newspapers which circulate in the neighbourhood of the offender, with a confession of the offence. Such a system has had effect for certain serious traffic offences, for example, in the United States.

I also advocate the holding of parents responsible in part for the actions of their juvenile children who are constant offenders — I emphasise the words "juvenile" and "constant". If one of my children was a juvenile offender on a constant basis I would expect to be brought before the courts and asked where I was when the child was offending. If a curfew was placed on my child — in some cases the court orders that children be at home at certain times — I would fully expect, as a parent, to be told to be at home with the child. It is time parents took responsibility for the actions of their children.

Six hundred and ninety-five persons in places of detention — approximately 31 per cent of the population of persons in detention — are juveniles between the ages of 14 and 17 years, and the maintenance cost is approximately £26 million per annum. Meanwhile resources cannot be found for adequate remedial education and 9.9 per cent of the juvenile school population in Dublin on any one day are mitching. According to the McBride report, it costs about £5,000 to incarcerate a youth for three months for the theft of £500.

Those who seek reform of the system are often dismissed as bleeding hearts or do-gooders. Before dismissing the argument for reform we must ask ourselves if any other system has been efficient, effective or economical. Most prisoners come from deprived backgrounds and neighbourhoods. Fine Gael believes in equality of opportunity; every person counts. We do not believe that people can be made equal since each individual has his or her own talents. Equal opportunity, however, is a different matter. For most prisoners, and whole sections of the community, access to third level education is not even a consideration. It is not on the agenda and their opportunities, therefore, are limited.

The housing conditions for many of those who go on to form the prison population are among the poorest in the country. That is not to stigmatise those who come from poor housing conditions as criminal but if there are 10,000 local authority flats, for example, situated between the canals in Dublin, in need of major refurbishment, it is inevitable that that poor housing environment will produce a proportionately greater number of people who are alienated from the system and who do not consider themselves part of a normal or fair society.

If we are to give people equality of opportunity we must put the refurbishment of housing stock at the top of the agenda and open third level education to all as a realistic objective. This is not to excuse prisoners for their behaviour, they must take responsibility for what they have done. If the system is to be effective, however, it must address the causes of crime and ensure that the cure is a real one and not a costly cosmetic exercise which pulls the wool over the eyes of the public. At present, the prison system is contributing to the problem rather than contributing to the solution.

As part of a prison reform policy and philosophy, Fine Gael believes that prison staff and management should work closely in co-operation. Good industrial relations are essential and for this reason staff should be properly trained and constantly retrained and should be involved in regular consultations on how the system is made to work.

The objective of the Fine Gael discussion document on prison reform issued some weeks ago is to put the reform of the prisons centre stage and to initiate a public debate on an informed basis so that this central ingredient in the criminal justice system is made to work and is seen to work. We have made a number of recommendations and I ask the Minister to accept them. This discussion document is not perfect, it was put together jointly by the Fine Gael Front Bench and Young Fine Gael in an exercise aimed at putting this question centre stage. We would welcome constructive comments and criticisms of it but if most of what is contained in it is implemented, it will go a long way towards bringing about a reform of the prison system and contributing to a downturn in crime.

I wish to refer to the need for the reform of the court's system, another vital ingredient in the reform of the criminal justice system to enable it to deal with the problems of the 1990s. A rationalisation of the District Court system is long overdue. We have heard nothing of the promise in the Programme for Government to establish a judicial commission, comprising the presidents of the courts and the Attorney General, to examine court management. Could it be that the Government partners have had a rethink about this promise?

I am opposed to this proposal because it states that judges should have a view on the management of the courts and the streamlining of court services. Judges are not the people to make such decisions. Their expertise is in the area of law, not in the area of administration. Why should the presidents of the courts be involved with the Attorney General in a matter for which they have no qualifications or competence? They should be asked for their views but a judicial commission should not be established. We should have an agency to administer the courts, similar to the practice in Northern Ireland and Britain. There should be no more commissions or reviews and we should certainly not have a judicial commission. I am appalled that, given the state of the court system, nothing has been done over the past 18 months to deal with the urgent problems that exist.

Some months ago I put before this House a ten point plan which was dismissed out of hand by the Government. The Government may have thought at that time that I would go away; I will not go away. I will continue to campaign for law and order, for efficiency and effectiveness in the system and for a fair system, not one which, when it is caught in a form of malpractice, the Government arrogantly and smartly tries to justify. It should have the good grace to admit that what was done was wrong and that the malpractice will cease.

The ten point plan I put forward included the need to measure the true level of crime. The crime statistics do not measure the true level of crime, only the level of reported crime. I have prepared a Bill to deal with that and I have put forward proposals in a detailed document — we were the only party in this House to do so — on how we should reform the prison system. I have argued also for the reform of the courts and the need for an agency to do so, not a commission of judges. I put forward an argument for greater co-operation and the creation of a drugs enforcement agency, the drug problem being the centre of all our crime.

I have argued for greater accountability for the DPP in given circumstances because I do not accept that cases which are not prosecuted, some involving loss of life, should be unexplained. I do not wish to interfere with the independence of the DPP but some method should be found to make him accountable. In Britain, the Attorney General is a Member of Parliament who must answer to Parliament and who can be questioned. There is no such person in this House and that represents a yawning gap in our system. Without interfering with his independence, the DPP should be accountable in certain circumstances. If one of our loved ones was killed in a car accident from which no prosecution ensued, nobody would explain to us the reason for this. There is no accountability and I find that wholly unacceptable.

We must have value for the £550 million which is spent annually on the criminal justice system. I recommended to this House that the Comptroller and Auditor General be asked to carry out an audit of the way fees are paid out to lawyers, barristers, solicitors and various consultants. The public see that for the scandal that it is. Why have we not conferred those powers on the Comptroller and Auditor General? He might well be asked to carry out a full value for money audit of the whole criminal justice system.

I want to see the confiscation of assets of criminals. The necessary legislation has been passed but when will it be implemented? When will the criminals feel the pain of having their assets confiscated? There should be more gardaí on the beat. The number should be brought up to what it was when we left office, with the possibility of an increase. I cannot and will not accept a situation where the Garda is undermanned by 500.

There must be parental accountability for regular juvenile offenders. I would fully expect to be asked to account for my whereabouts if my child was out on the street on a regular basis. I am not suggesting we should compel judges to adopt a particular course but parents should be involved in some way. There should also be restrictions, for instance, on the sale of hunting knives. Over the past 12 months in my constituency two young men have lost their lives in separate incidents involving the use of these knives.

I see a breakdown in law and order, a cavalier attitude to crime and a situation which is wholly unacceptable. With my party I will continue to raise this matter in the House until law and order is restored. The Minister will discover sooner or later that the public do not accept bland assurances; they want action and they are not getting it from the Government. I commend this motion to the House.

I move amendment No. 1:

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

"Dáil Éireann commends the measures taken by the Government to improve the effectiveness of the criminal justice system and

—notes, in particular, the details of the £66 million crime fighting package agreed by the Government which includes measures aimed at improving the effectiveness of the Garda Síochána and the provision of two new prisons;

—welcomes the Government's unprecedented achievements in the rate of criminal law reform, especially in the areas of the rights of victims, public order and the confiscation of the assets of drug traffickers and other serious criminals;

—looks forward to the introduction of further legislative proposals in areas such as juvenile justice, the law on fraud and changes in court procedures to reduce the amount of time which gardaí have to spend in court;

—acknowledges the commitment of the Government to act with all possible speed on the forthcoming Law Reform Commission report on bail;

—endorses the measures taken to ensure clear strategies for agencies involved in the operation of the criminal justice system, including the impending publication for the first time of a comprehensive prisons policy document and plan; and

—recognises the Government's commitment to continue to take whatever steps are open to it to ensure the protection of the community."

Before dealing with the motion I will respond to some of the allegations made by Deputy Mitchell. It is a pity he should have decided, in a display of opportunism which was breathtaking even coming from that quarter, to seek to use the context of understandable and genuine public concern at recent tragic events to launch a personal attack on the manner in which I discharge my responsibilities as Minister for Justice. He seems to be playing on public fears solely for electioneering purposes and the Sunday night sound bite.

I do not have the slightest objection to criticism of the manner in which I discharge those responsibilities. That is part and parcel of political life but I object to the Deputy coming in here, day in day out, abusing the Order of Business to cast smears and innuendoes which he is well aware the rules of the House do not allow me to respond to at that time.

The Deputy seems to regard the exercise of my statutory responsibilities as representing interference with the operation of the criminal justice system. Coming from someone who frequently asserts our rights as legislators he must have a most peculiar understanding of the role of the Executive when he regards the exercise by a Minister of the rights and duties conferred by the legislator as somehow representing unacceptable interference amounting to, in his words, "political corruption".

It is difficult to see how anyone, with the possible exception of the Deputy, could take such a proposition seriously. When the Deputy is preparing his next political quizbook he would be unwise, given his present lack of understanding, to attempt to include a section on constitutional or administrative law but a section on stunts and baseless allegations should be well within his competence. His most recent stunt, the chain letter writing exercise, is but the latest in a long line of such events.

I make no apologies to anyone for exercising my statutory functions whether in relation to prisons or the location of Garda administrative headquarters. Is it seriously suggested that I should in some way ignore my personal knowledge when I make decisions, as provided for in law, on issues affecting my constituency? As regards the location of the Garda district headquarters it is not true, as has been suggested, that I acted in defiance of Garda advice. In fact, a strong case was made to me by Garda management based on the crime statistics, population trends and general policing issues to the effect that it was a nonsense to have policing in Salthill and its hinterland directed from a less central location at a considerable remove from the main population centre in the Garda district. Is it suggested that no effort should be made to match policing needs with the availability of resources? Is the Deputy suggesting that policing in Crumlin and Drimnagh be directed from Naas, Dunboyne or Blessington? He seems to be saying that because I corrected a similar type anomaly I stepped outside my ministerial responsibility. If the Deputy wants to make a case to me to do something like this I am sure his constituents in Crumlin and Drimnagh will be appreciative.

As for my so called interference in the running of the prisons and my personal interest in prisoners from Galway, am I to detach myself from my personal knowledge or exorcise my mind of this information when decisions are being made about these prisoners? Of course I look at these and other cases. To do otherwise would be a dereliction of duty on my part.

So as to put the Deputy's mind fully at ease, my actions in this respect are not without precedent. If the Deputy is putting it about that this is a new departure on my part I suggest he consult beforehand with some of his colleagues not a million miles from home. They might put him right and save him some embarrassment.

The Deputy seems to think I should be accountable to the House for the manner in which I discharge my statutory responsibilities which, of course, I am but that it somehow represents interference when I see to discharge those responsibilities. The House will be aware of the dangers of power without responsibility but most Members would accept there would be equal difficulty with the Deputy's advocacy of the novel concept of responsibility without power.

There is a lot more I could say on the subject and if the Deputy wishes to pursue charges of interference it might be best to start a little closer to home. I will offer him one piece of advice: he should not be misled by recent media reports where particular views were attributed to so-called sources within my Department. It might be helpful if I mention in this context that I accept the Deputy is free to seek advice from whatever quarter he wishes but he should be wary of those who, under the entirely false pretext of having access to current information and a proper understanding of the operation of the criminal justice system, may in reality be rooted in the past, working through a personal and very worn agenda.

The motion before the House identifies a number of issues in the law and order field which I propose to address. Before I do so, it is necessary to address what I consider to be the central proposition in the motion, that is, that law and order in this State no longer exists. That is the only reasonable inference one can draw from the Deputy's call on the Government to "restore law and order".

Nobody that I know of would seriously try to pretend that the incidence of crime and the viciousness and callousness displayed in the course of particular criminal acts is not a problem. It is and has been a problem for quite some time now, particularly over the past ten to 15 years, but it is a problem in practically every country in the world and is far more serious in most western countries than here.

I do not say this with the aim of suggesting that because the situation is generally worse elsewhere we really have nothing to worry about on the crime front and, therefore, we can all simply relax our guard. That would be a bogus argument.

I have two principal reasons for making the comparison with other countries, the first being to remind ourselves that we are dealing with a world-wide phenomenon and that we need, therefore, to look a little more deeply at causes and possible solutions. We need to reflect on the fact that other countries, many far wealthier than ours, have poured massive resources into policing and prison systems but despite the commitment of such resources, there is constant pressure for more and more. This pressure is generated by criminals who are growing in viciousness and sophistication. We need to ask ourselves why this is happening and whether we have the appropriate strategies in place to deal with it.

I do not suggest that we should suddenly move away from what might be called the traditional approaches — firmer laws, adequate police and court resources and effective custodial and non-custodial disposals. It would be nonsensical to take that course and Deputies will be aware that I have placed considerable emphasis on these areas since I became Minister for Justice.

We must try other approaches also. Some of these were outlined in the Report of the Interdepartmental Group on Urban Crime and Disorder, the implementation of which is ongoing. That report made the point that, "a degree of experimentation with new approaches is not only warranted but is something the public, who ultimately meet the costs, are entitled to expect".

It is with this in mind that the Government has significantly upped the level of resources available for certain community based schemes such as GRAFT in Ronanstown and KEY in Killinarden in Dublin, the operation of which I shall outline later.

My second reason for making a comparison with other countries is to caution against overstatement of the problems we face. This is still, thankfully, a far safer country to visit and live in than most others and we should bear in mind that the consequences of suggesting that law and order has virtually disappeared are quite serious in terms of unwarranted risk to tourism, business opportunities and employment. Only yesterday I heard German visitors being interviewed on radio following a criminal incident in one of our towns in which a tourist was the victim and it was quite heartening to note that, despite the incident, they were still of the view that Ireland was an excellent place to visit and stay in and that they neither suffered any gloom nor dark forebodings about the present state or future of our law and order system. I am not for a moment suggesting that attacks on tourists and other offences of that kind are a matter of no consequence — far from it. My point is that we must not fall into the trap of overstatement.

It would, of course, be both stupid and insensitive in the extreme not to acknowledge that five killings in recent times, four in the west and one last Saturday night in Dublin, have cast a particularly dark shadow which forms the backdrop to today's debate. It is understandable in the immediate aftermath of these appalling events, that there would not only be great anguish but also the people would become more concerned about personal safety. It would be wrong, however, to conclude that these extremely serious events — each of which is being pursued by the gardaí with utmost vigour and commitment — signal the emergence in Irish life of a pattern of behaviour which we can all now expect as a sort of norm.

I trust Deputies will not seek to create undue anxiety or panic by attempting to hang an argument that law and order has broken down on the fact that these tragic events have recently been visited upon us. That would be an irresponsible course to take which is why I cautioned in this House earlier today in relation to Saturday night's attack in a licensed premises, which has the potential to cause particular anxiety, on the need for people generally to avoid panic but to exercise reasonable care and vigilance in going about their normal business.

Deputy Mitchell made the point that there are insufficient Garda resources to control the Border and prevent terrorist type attacks on premises in Dublin. This is patently not the case. The gardaí saw the vehicle which was involved in the incident last Saturday night. The resources were on the street in the form of uniformed and plain clothes gardaí.

They did their job. The problem is that technology let them down and it was not a question of lack of resources as the Deputy suggested.

As Minister for Justice my main areas of concern embrace elements of the criminal justice system. By that I mean the criminal law; questions of policing policy so far as the Garda Síochána is concerned; the control and administration of the prisons system and last, but not least, particular aspects of courts administration. The criminal justice system today is at the forefront of the protection of our society and the interplay between its various constituent elements and society itself is most complex.

At this time there is also great concern among the ordinary public about crime, particularly violent crime, in our society. This is a worldwide phenomenon that is not just confined to Ireland, and there are no magic solutions or quick fix strategies that will suddenly reverse crime trends. Public concern focuses particularly on offences perpetrated against the more vulnerable members of our society, the elderly living alone and women and children. I am acutely conscious of these concerns, first, in my role as a public representative where I come into contact on a regular basis with victims of crime and, second, as Minister for Justice where I have the particular role of being involved at the cutting edge of the response to crime.

It is certainly true that the causes of most of the crime with which we are concerned are complex. Unemployment and the associated twin evils of economic and financial deprivation are relevant in any intelligent discussion of why people are turning to crime in increasing numbers. Perhaps these factors, while not by themselves causing crime, play a part in making criminal activity more tempting to certain sections of society. However, it requires more than simply temptation for people to turn to crime; it also requires a lack of inhibition or, put another way, a lack of moral guidance. There has been a dramatic and marked diminution in the traditional authority sources — family, school and church — over recent generations. It is reasonable to question whether too much is being expected of the criminal justice system in the search for solutions. Is it being expected to fill a role for which it was not designed?

We also need to look in other directions if we are to find more complete answers. We need greater community involvement in our search for these answers. This can have dramatic effects on crime in particular areas. We know of the very positive results of increased awareness of crime prevention measures such as the Neighbourhood Watch and Community Alert schemes. The success of these schemes has led to parallel operations in the business area. I will refer more fully to the role of crime prevention later, but first I want to refer to other areas of direct concern to me.

The Government is committed to giving the Garda, the courts and the Prison Service the necessary resources to tackle crime in all its forms. As some Deputies may be aware, last December I announced details of a three year programme package of law and order measures to be implemented in the years 1994-97 at an overall cost of £66 million. That programme includes the taking on of extra gardaí in 1994 to keep the strength of the Force at 11,000. This involves bringing forward by one year the four year recruitment campaign originally begun in 1992 and due to end in 1995. This means that this year the number of gardaí recruited will be double what it would ordinarily have been — in all a total of 407 will be recruited.

During the period 1995-97 1,050 gardaí will be recruited to maintain the force at its current optimum level. That will mean an annual intake of 350 per year in each of those years. This recruitment process has already begun.

There is also a commitment to the ongoing process of civilianisation in the Garda Síochána. A further 200 civilians will be recruited for each of the years 1995-97 at the rate of 50 per year. This is the way forward to get gardaí away from desks and out onto the streets of our cities and towns for operational duties — the duties for which they were recruited and trained. While these jobs are clerical and administrative in nature, I also am in the process of beginning the recruitment of civilians to slot in at management level in the force to fill senior positions. Also, the adoption of an information technology plan for the force will mean the recruitment of additional highly qualified civilian personnel.

A modern effective police force needs to have the most up-to-date technological aids. My plan allows for the phased implementation of a comprehensive IT plan for the force in line with the Garda Commissioner's corporate strategy plan presented to me last year. In tandem with this work, the entire Garda communications network is to be upgraded. In this day and age, a modern police force has to be mobile and able to depend on its transport. The plan approaches the whole question of fleet management in a structured way and ensures that the gardaí will have the vehicles they need for all the varied aspects of their work.

Closed circuit television monitoring is becoming more prevalent in society today. We are all used to seeing the cameras in shops, filling stations and banks. We also see the benefits of this technology as an aid to policing in programmes such as the "Crimeline" television series. Closed circuit television is extremely successful in identifying criminals and it has a huge deterrent effect. My plan provides for the phased introduction of close circuit television technology in two areas of Dublin — the city centre and the Temple Bar area. When we have evaluated its effectiveness, we will consider the extension of this initiative to other areas.

I will also be implementing certain proposals of the Advisory Committee on Fraud in relation to staffing structures in the Garda Fraud Squad. The legal changes recommended by the committee are being worked on in my Department at present and I hope to publish a Bill updating our antiquated laws on dishonesty later this year.

I referred earlier to the importance of developing new approaches and strategies for tackling crime. My Department has been to the forefront in recent years in funding community based projects which have as their aim the diversion of young people away from anti-social behaviour and petty crime. This follows on from the conclusions in the 1992 report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Urban Crime and Disorder. My plans allows for the continuation of those initiatives channelled through the Garda to underscore the fact that gardaí are part of the communities in which they serve. These projects, which can be highly cost effective, have been running now for some years in the north Clondalkin area of Dublin, in Ronanstown and Killinarden for example. This year I approved of funding for community based schemes in Knocknaheeny-Hollyhill in Cork and Moyross in Limerick.

This package of measures is not the end of the road in so far as the fight against crime is concerned. I, more than most, know that the overall situation needs to be kept under constant review. It goes without saying that if we need further strategies or different responses I will be the first to pursue them. I will also take account of what is said in the present debate on the subject of crime. I do not have a closed mind about strategies that might be adopted. I have only one precondition and that is that any proposals must be workable and fit in with an overall strategy. I am not interested in proposals which have been raised before, considered and rejected, such as, for example, recruiting hundreds more gardaí or providing for an auxiliary police force.

I will listen with particular interest to any contributions in relation to the community policing scheme in rural areas which has been much in the news recently in connection with the tragic events in Clare and Galway. I have already said that any changes that are necessary in that scheme arising from Garda management's review of the scheme will be implemented. I do not want to let this opportunity go by without nailing the lie that community policing is not working because of the closure of Garda stations. The fact is that in the past 20 years not one Garda station has been closed. The scheme is certainly different from what rural policing used to be about. No longer do we have Garda stations open for 12 hours a day with no personal callers, with one garda sitting at a desk shuffling paperwork and answering the occasional telephone call. Instead, stations open at particular times to transact such administrative business as is necessary and the gardaí who would otherwise be tied to desks are engaged in active and operational duties in the community, moving around in that community and getting to know all the people they serve. The scheme was evaluated in 1992 and again in 1993 by the Garda Commissioner and it will be looked at again this year.

Another matter that comes up from time to time in discussions of this nature is Garda numbers. It might help matters if I made a few things clear in that regard. Before the new training procedures came into force in 1989, it was the practice to include all garda trainees in the overall numbers of Garda strength. That made sense because the formal training period was quite short — it only lasted six months. However, following the Conroy report on Garda probationer training, a two year training programme was introduced after 1989. To include garda trainees in overall Garda strength would have been misleading, so the practice now is to include only those trainees who have been attested as full gardaí. On this basis, the present strength of the force is 10,884 gardaí in service, with 431 trainees of probationers in the pre-attesting phases. The highest ever strength of the force was in December 1986 with 11,382 gardaí, including those in training. The actual number of trainees at that time was 144. To compare like with like, the total number now is 11,315. I should also say that the projected Garda strength for 1994 is 10,908 members with around 400 further non-attested members in training. So much for the missing hundreds. But perhaps the most important point is that the operational strength of the force has been increased by virtue of the release of desk-bound gardaí for operational duties as a direct consequence of civilianisation.

I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed about the drugs situation. We are all aware of the horrific effects of drug misuse and addiction not only on the drugs abuser but also on their unfortunate families and communities. For this reason, I have targeted the drugs problem as one of my top priorities.

I agree that quite an amount of crime affecting people in all areas is drug related, with addicts robbing and stealing to feed a habit. From my ongoing meetings with the Garda Commissioner and his senior officers, I know that the Garda authorities also treat the problem with the highest priority and that the gardaí are having regular successes in detecting and prosecuting drug offences. We read about these cases regularly in the media. It is the general international experience that law enforcement agencies succeed in detecting a small proportion of illegal drug imports only. The Customs and the gardaí have had some notable successes in the past year in detecting and seizing illegal supplies of cannabis and heroin. Some of these operations involved close inter-agency co-operation.

Clearly everything in our power should be done to counter the importation of illegal drugs. A report has been prepared in my Department which aims to introduce further measures to maximise co-operation between various State agencies which have a role in the fight against drug smuggling. I expect that the measures recommended in the report will be the subject of a memorandum for the Government. After the necessary consultations have taken place between the agencies concerned, I am aiming to have the main measures recommended in the report implemented during the summer.

A recurring criticism expressed in relation to the drugs problem is the level of resources and manpower to tackle the situation. Nothing could be further from the truth. A Garda National Drug Administration Office was established in 1990 with responsibility for co-ordination of national drug law enforcement and international liaison. This unit is based at Garda Headquarters. Drug squads are based at Dublin, Limerick, Cork and Galway while specialist units are also based at a number of other Garda district offices.

The main drug of abuse in this country is cannabis resin, which accounts for about 75 per cent of all seizures of drugs. That said, I am also aware of the level of heroin abuse, particularly in the inner city areas, and of the catastrophic effects it can have. It was for this reason that I recently availed of the opportunity to visit the south Dublin inner city area to view the situation at first hand. I am confident that the Garda authorities have the situation in hand. I wish to assure the House that there will be no shortfall in human and other resources needed in the all out campaign against this scourge.

The motion before the House refers in particular to the increase in the level of armed robberies and an increase in the use of violence in crime. As I have already mentioned, I am concerned at any incidence of crime but in particular acts of violence where armed force is used. The Garda Commissioner is also concerned about this. It was for this reason that he established a quick response unit in the Dublin metropolitan area last year to tackle the problem. This unit has been particularly successful in not only foiling many planned raids by armed criminals but also in capturing criminals caught in the act of armed robberies. Central to the unit's success has been the gathering and pooling of intelligence and its abilty to respond quickly and without regard to Garda district or divisional boundaries.

The Programme for Government includes a commitment to the finalisation and implementation of a new set of aims, objectives and agreed priorities for the prison system, including a programme of positive sentence management and a time table for the implementation of the Whitaker report on prison reform.

With regard to the so-called "revolving door" system and the penal system generally, I will be publishing a comprehensive five-year plan on the management of offenders within the next month. That document will deal with many of the issues that have been raised in other debates and, no doubt, will be raised in this debate also. In particular it will draw on the thrust of the Whitaker report; review the main recommendations of the Whitaker report and what we are doing about them; contain overall aims, priorities and objectives for the prison system; contain an action plan for the development of the system over the next five years, including the concept of positive sentence management; develop strategies for dealing with problem areas including drug abuse in prisons; and include new draft prison rules and a draft code of discipline for prison staff. I am satisfied that my proposals represent a modern, progressive approach to the prison system. I have started already to implement core elements of the policy document.

Arising from my special examination of needs in the area of prison accommodation the Government has approved the provision of 210 additional prison places. This new accommodation will include a purpose designed custodial facility to accommodate up to 60 female offenders. The new prison facility to accommodate 150 male offenders will be located at the site of St. Patrick's Hospital, Castlerea, County Roscommon. Since action speaks louder than words I am delighted to inform the House that the contract has been placed for the first phase of the construction project — the building of the perimeter wall to secure the prison site — and that construction will be commenced by the end of this week. Furthermore, I can assure the House that I will spare no effort to ensure that the next phase of the work is got under way as early as possible.

In addition, I am moving on the proposed new prison for women. We have here a unique opportunity to get a purpose designed prison suited to the particular needs of female offenders. I have appointed a special steering committee to advise me on the design of the new prison and the committee is proceeding in its work with all speed. As in the case of the new male prison, I will be getting on with construction as soon as possible.

Side by side with the provision of extra spaces, it is our policy to develop community based sanctions for suitable offenders. I am committed to finding a balance between the provision of custodial and community sanctions. With this in mind, I unveiled a strategy for the next four years which involves the recruitment of an additional 50 probation and welfare officers and support staff at a full-year's cost of £2.4 million a year; 25 of these probation staff will be assigned to closely supervising offenders on early release from custody. To back up this supervision, additional probation accommodation and day attendance facilities at a capital cost of £2.5 million are being provided. This will allow us to develop a system whereby planned and programmed early releases under the supervision of the Probation and Welfare Service can be resorted to. I have also obtained approval to fill 20 existing vacancies in the Probation Service this year; 13 of these staff will be assigned to the intensive supervision scheme. This is where young serious offenders are referred by the courts as an alternative to custody or from prison at an early stage of sentence. Offenders are intensively supervised and are challenged to confront their offending behaviour not just its causes but also its consequences on themselves, their families and their victims.

This is a core element of the broadly based programme which also addresses occupation and educational deficits. The response rate, measured by the numbers who remain crime-free since their last conviction and by the attendance and level of commitment to the programme, is approximately 75 per cent. I am satisfied this programme is doing an effective job for us in reducing the number of repeat offenders among serious offenders. Over 100 offenders are currently participating in the scheme and this will be increased to close to 200 when the extra 13 staff are recruited. The total of 70 extra staff will represent an increase of over 40 per cent in the strength of the service by 1997 and counters any suggestion that my Department is not providing enough resources for the development of the Probation and Welfare Service.

Temporary release of sentenced prisoners may be granted by the Minister for Justice and is subject in all cases to certain conditions. Before temporary release is granted regard is had to certain factors, including the nature of the offence, the length of sentence, the length of time served, behaviour while in custody and, above all, the safety of the public. Release will not be granted in any case where I consider, in the light of the advice available, that it would constitute a threat to the public.

Where temporary release is granted it is always subject to conditions. In all cases there is, not surprisingly, the condition that the person released must continue to be of good behaviour but various other conditions may also be applied in individual cases, for example, that the individual concerned would be subject to supervision by the Probation and Welfare Service, that he or she should report at regular intervals to a Garda station, reside at a particular location, etc. Temporary release automatically ends if any of these conditions is breached and the individual concerned can be immediately returned to custody without warrant or without any court proceedings. The system is a good one and an important part of my strategy for the future is to develop it as an element of positive sentence management.

One of the more commonly-advanced suggestions that I think worth commenting on here and now is that our prisons are chock-a-block with minor offenders who should not really be in prison at all. I have even heard it suggested that nobody convicted by the District Court should undergo a custodial sentence.

I am very much in favour of alternatives to custody, as will be evident from my forthcoming policy document. Of course, alternatives are already used to quite a significant extent but we need to bear in mind that all the alternatives have been tried time and time again with many offenders but with no apparent success. With some offenders, alternatives work, and work very well, but not with others.

We need to bear in mind also that the term "minor" offence does not signify that the occurrence which resulted in imprisonment was a trivial matter which was really of little or no consequence to anybody. All it means in practice is that a lengthy term of imprisonment was not deemed appropriate. However, we are not talking about people whose offence was that they pulled up the flowers in the village green. The actual convictions may include joyriding, larcency, assault and so on — in other words, offences which usually have left distraught or injured victims.

I asked my Department to make a random selection this morning of 20 offenders in Mountjoy currently serving sentences of six months or less. I believe the results are quite instructive. Fifteen of the 20 had served previous sentences. Of these six had served one previous sentence, one had two previous sentences, two had three previous sentences, five had four previous sentences, and one had five previous sentences. Of the five who have not served a previous sentence two are serving sentences for assault, one for possession of drugs, one for trespass, larceny and malicious damage and one is serving a month-and-a-half for driving without insurance. The offences in the cases of those who had previous sentences include extortion, possession of drugs and forging prescriptions, malicious damage, possession of dangerous weapons, assault, trespass and larceny, receiving and joyriding. I am not saying that custody alternatives have no part to play in the management of these offenders. My point is that, when prescribing appropriate remedies for so-called minor offenders, we should know exactly what kind offenders we are talking about.

Turning now to the concerns which the Deputy raised regarding the courts system, I am, of course, very concerned that the courts provide an effective, efficient and accessible service. There are a number of problems facing our courts today but they are being tackled.

Because of the lack of time available to me, I intend to conclude by saying that I know everything cannot be done at once. However, I believe that the measures taken already — about which I have spoken in detail — and other initiatives planned, represent a most comprehensive response to the problem of crime in our society. They address the various aspects of the problem referred to in the motion before the House. Accordingly, I cannot accept the critical import of that motion. Instead I would commend the amendment tabled in my name to the House.

I should like to share my time with Deputy Jim Mitchell.

I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.

The random sample of prisoners in Mountjoy to which the Minister referred really proves the point raised in the House this evening, which is that our prison system is an abject failure since all the people to whom she referred had had previous convictions, in other words, were recidivists. This is a key problem that must be tackled within the overall prison system.

While supporting the Fine Gael motion, which highlights the level of concern in the community, I take the Minister's point that if we look at relative figures for other western economies our crime rate is not so high. However, this is a small country and everybody hears of the latest crime against our neighbour. The perception that law and order has broken down is just as important as the figures to which the Minister refers. Rather than engage in redundant and almost routine condemnation of the Government and of the upsurge in crime and lawlessness, the Progressive Democrats would prefer to be constructive and to table a worthwhile agenda which the Minister could take on board in the context of the five year plan.

Our first proposal is the establishment of a modern and effective criminal code. Almost every other common law jurisdiction operates on the basis of a criminal code, in which all the ordinary criminal law is set out in one statute. There are many models and precedents for Ireland to choose from and to develop. All that is missing is a criminal law review committee to get on with the task. In this context, the valuable work done by the Law Reform Commission must be acknowledged but there is no reason to believe that the commission has the resources or the mandate to accomplish such a task. On the contrary, other tasks facing the commission suggest that codification of the criminal law, as the Whitaker report on the penal system suggested, should be entrusted to a specialist criminal law reform committee. It is wrong to criticise the gardaí and at the same time ignore the appallingly out dated laws which they are supposed to enforce. There has been a degree of unwarranted criticism of the excellent men and women in the Garda Síochána. Maintaining morale is critical if they are to continue to fight the perceived increase in crime, particularly violent crime, in the State.

It is noteworthy that the Law Reform Commission is currently conducting a review of the law on bail. It is not, apparently, engaged in preparing recommendations for a change. Short of a referendum, the Progressive Democrats believe that the widespread abuse of bail could be tackled by making a bailsman liable to forfeit bail if the accused commits any offence while on bail. At present he is only liable to forfeit bail if the accused absconds. By making bailsmen liable as sureties for the good behaviour of the accused, as well as failure to turn up for trial, the State could prevent an abuse of bail. The amount of bail in such circumstances could reflect the criminal propensities of the accused without prejudicing his right to a fair trial.

It is generally recognised that our present law on bail is too lax and the changes made in 1984 to require mandatory consecutive sentences for offences committed while on bail, while of some value, are clearly not enough. If the statutory changes proposed above to modify bail law are implemented, a referendum may still be necessary. The people are demanding that some significant changes be put in place and believe they are right. It is generally recognised among the legal profession that the bail laws need to be changed.

There is a need to speed up the criminal justice system to deal with the problems highlighted this evening. There is no need for the present scandalous delays in criminal procedures. Summary offences are commonly dealt with six to 12 months after the event because of court listing problems. Appeals for summary convictions frequently take another six months. This is the Minister's responsibility and I urge her to reform the courts system which needs to be updated urgently. Trials on indictment normally take place 12 to 18 months after the events charged. This delay is also the Minister's responsibility. People on remand are clogging up the system by being put into Mountjoy and causing those who have been convicted of serious crimes to be released. That revolving door, which has now become a sad cliché of the system, must be tackled. In that sense I should like to refer to the prison system.

Our prisons should be places not only of detention but of discipline and creative and productive work, which is part and parcel of rehabilitation. Like Deputy Mitchell I refer to the annual reports of the Mountjoy Visiting Committee for 1992 and 1993. The 1992 report identified Mountjoy as a potential volcano. The committee also recognised the limits to their own powers. All they can do is make recommendations and file a report. They feel that perhaps they are not being listened to. They make excellent recommendations, many of which are simple and could be easily implemented. For example, they recommend that there should be separate accommodation for remand prisoners rather than putting them in among hardened criminals. In both reports the visiting committee homed in on the fact that 80 per cent of our prison population do nothing all day. There is no incentive for them to partake in any of the activities which are available to prisoners. There is an excellent educational programme as well as various gym options but the reality is that 80 per cent take the easy option — inactivity. The report cites human setaside where prisoners are left to rot, to do nothing, to wait for their next fix and do not participate in any of the options geared towards rehabilitation and activity. It states:

Regrettably, the Easy Option (Inactivity) is the one which is not only Full Time, but that for which about 80% of the prisoners elect. There is incentive only for Full Time idle social intercourse where effort goes unrewarded. Prisoners require goals. For those who would participate the incentive is not offered. Despite the best intentions and often superhuman effort on the part of teachers, governors and prison staff most prisoners in Mountjoy are permitted to let time hang heavily on their hands.

It is impossible to quantify the extent to which the drugs and HIV problems in Mountjoy are being cultivated by daily aimless inactivity.

If the taxpayer is to foot the bill of £600 per week for each prisoner in Mountjoy we should expect them to work. Why should they work when there is no incentive to do so? Some prisoners opt for the gym because it means they get an extra shower per week while others opt for various activities, such as community work projects outside the prison on a supervised daily temporary release basis. Simple incentives work.

A comprehensive assessment is needed as well as an audit of our prison population. There should be a plan for each prisoner and, as Deputy Mitchell said, they all have their individual human rights as prisoners. A programme of work should be drawn up for each prisoner who should be made work. There should also be a disciplined atmosphere in a prison.

When I visited the women's prison at Mountjoy recently I was amazed that most of the women were between 18 and 24 years of age and 75 per cent IV drug abusers. They were hanging around with nothing to do, waiting for the next fix. Is it a good idea to put these women in jail given that it costs a fortune to keep them there? We intend to build a specialist wing to house 60 women prisoners despite the fact that there are only 38 to 40 women in prison at any one time, the vast majority of whom are wrecks in terms of motivation and victims in many other ways. They are in prison for petty offences, including shoplifting, to feed their drug habit.

We should think carefully before we spend millions of pounds of taxpayers' money building a state of the art women's prisons which will not meet the needs of inmates, particularly the specific needs of drug addicts. The Minister sent a delegation to another jurisdiction to see how they deal with women offenders who, in the main, are not in prison for violent or serious offences but for petty offences such as shoplifting. If a disciplined work programme was introduced in our prisons we would go along way towards tackling the inactivity which leads to a temptation to get involved in drugs, with the heightened danger of suicide.

The Criminal Procedure Act, 1967, needs to be reformed urgently to end the practice of taking the evidence of every witness down in handwriting under the deposition procedures when the accused so demands. This procedure is being abused by hardened criminals to delay and avoid criminal sentencing. It should be possible to circumvent the District Court procedure by allowing the prosecution to serve a book of evidence without the right, except in rare cases, to a written deposition.

Recent events in Clare have shown — I have already highlighted this legal loophole— that a person sent forward for trial in custody on one offence is immune from any power of interrogation or from any obligation to provide scientific samples in connection with different offences while in custody. This is of major significance and has been known for many years but nothing has been done.

I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that because of avoidable delays in serious appeals persons convicted on indictment of major offences cannot be confident of appealing the verdict to the Court of Criminal Appeal within 18 months. This is another scandal and the responsibility lies with the Minister.

I have expressed concern in the House about petitions for remission of sentences under section 23 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1951. My party believes that the Minister should be required, in every case where a sentence is remitted, to publish this fact in Iris Oifigiúil. Even if the identity of the person concerned should be kept secret in some cases the fact should be a matter of public record. The power of remission and parole should be exercised on the advice of a properly constituted paroles and remissions board. There is growing concern, particularly in the legal profession, that there is insufficient or no consultation with the judges who impose sentences. Sentences and fines are remitted in a secretive atmosphere and this is not in the public interest. Often sentences are remitted where the appeals procedure has not been completed. Many people believe that this undermines the justice system and constitutes an abuse of Executive power.

On the subject of temporary release to which the Minister referred, this device is being used to disguise the fact that offenders now serve between 25 per cent and 50 per cent of their sentence on average and sometimes much less. This abuse of temporary release by the State must be curtailed. Many serious crimes are committed by people on temporary release from prison. In future its use should be fully documented and supervised by a paroles and remissions board established under statute.

Extra prison space is urgently required. As things stand, the system only works by releasing convicted prisoners prematurely. If an accused is remanded in custody a convicted prisoner is released to make room for him. This is a crazy system and cause dismay among the general public. It means that the guilty are released to make room for those who are still presumed innocent. The new facilities at Wheatfield and Castlerea may be adequate to deal with the problem. Extra prisons cost money but if the cost was compared to that of crime the argument would be in favour of building adequate prison accommodation.

There is a drug problem in our major prisons, particularly in Mountjoy. Our jails are centres for drug abuse, recidivism and despair. I call on the Minister to deal with this issue. Drug addicts account for 30 per cent of the prison population and 75 per cent of female prisoners.

As far as the criminal procedure is concerned, my party believes that it should be possible for a court in relation to the unqualified right to silence to draw an adverse inference from the failure of an accused to answer questions put to him in fair and controlled circumstances.

In particular the formal questioning of persons detained on serious offences before district judges should be considered. If someone refused to answer questions in those circumstances the onus would be on that person to explain the silence to a court of trial. The present law which allows serious offenders to escape justice by "singing dumb" is no longer acceptable in a society where crime is prevalent and sophisticated.

The Progressive Democrats also believe that we should compensate the victims of crime. In a society dominated by over zealous litigants and by "compensationists" the Minister has a responsibility to provide modest compensation to the weakest section of the community — the victims of crime.

The Government referred to a juvenile justice Bill; we need that Bill now, not talk. There is a need for proper resources for the supervision and detention of juvenile offenders but, so far, we have been given promises and nothing else. As the Minister said, juveniles account for 31 per cent of the total prison population. With the increase in youth homelessness and drug addiction this figure is bound to increase. We need alternatives to detention for juvenile offenders.

We need modern laws; more judges; courts that deal with offenders promptly; prompt appeals; speedy trial procedures; fair and transparent parole and remissions; workable bail laws and action on the part of a complacent Government. The reason the Government is complacent on a range of issues is that it is never pushed to the wire by the threat of a vote. The Minister should outline her proposals for change in all these areas.

The Minister said that she will provide increased resources for the Probation and Welfare Service. I do not know who to believe because last week IMPACT, the union which represents workers in the Probation and Welfare Service, indicated that the service is "facing collapse". It highlighted the crisis in the service and stated that more careful use of custody could end prison overcrowding and the so-called revolving door syndrome. It called for expanded community service schemes, drug addiction programmes and intensive probation schemes which would take the pressure off the country's jam-packed prison system. There is discontent both in our Garda and among the probation service. The Minister is failing to tackle the quite but slowly festering industrial dispute in the Garda which has come to a head this week. It is regrettable that the Minister has not seen fit to intervene and appoint a mediator in that dispute.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share