Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 23 Jan 1996

Vol. 460 No. 3

Written Answers. - Loughan House.

Rory O'Hanlon

Question:

399 Dr. O'Hanlon asked the Minister for Justice the plans, if any, she has to increase staff levels at Loughan House in view of the concern of residents in the area regarding security; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [1036/96]

Brendan Smith

Question:

455 Mr. B. Smith asked the Minister for Justice if she will give urgent consideration to the provision of a modern surveillance-monitoring system on the perimeter of the grounds of Loughan House, County Cavan in order to improve present security arrangements; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [1461/96]

Brendan Smith

Question:

456 Mr. B. Smith asked the Minister for Justice the additional security measures, if any, that will be implemented at Loughan House, County Cavan. [1463/96]

Minister for Justice (Mrs. Owen)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 399, 455 and 456 together.

I acknowledge fully the concerns of residents in the area of Loughan House. Senior officials from my Department will be meeting with them later this week in this respect. The long-standing extensive contact between the prison Governor and local residents on security issues will be maintained and indeed enhanced in the wake of this forthcoming meeting. I have also asked for a full review of security at Loughan House.

It is important, however, to keep those concerns in context. Loughan House is an open prison. This means, essentially, two things. One, there is a relatively low level of physical security and, two, the regimes in the prison are such as to encourage trust and responsibility. The two things are related.

As regards security, for example, there is no secure perimeter wall around the house, although it has been suggested by some commentators that a wall should be built there. A wall would undoubtedly secure the perimeter but it would not secure the building which was never intended to provide secure lockup facilities. If such secure measures were to be introduced, then Loughan House would no longer serve its purpose as an open prison.

The philosophy on which open prisons generally are based is that they provide a regime which encourages the building of trust between the authorities and the prisoner and also encourages the prisoner to accept normal personal responsibilities albeit in a controlled environment. A fundamental test of that trust and responsibility is whether the prisoner is prepared to voluntarily stay in an institution from which he could, if he was determined enough, abscond. The current regime in Loughan House is working well. Recently quite inaccurate figures have been bandied about in the media and at local meetings about abscondings from the house. For the record, in 1995 8 per cent absconded or, put another way, 92 per cent of the prisoners honoured the trust that was placed in them and discharged the responsibilities demanded of them, that is, of the 528 who spent time in Loughan House in 1995, 487 served out their time there. The average number of abscondments is 6 per cent-8 per cent over the years 1993, 1994, 1995.

On the specific issue of the staffing levels in Loughan House, they are high for an open prison regime. I have instructed my Department to look at the Loughan House security situation not only in the context of the concerns expressed by local people about abscondings but also in the context of its contribution to the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the prison system as a whole.