Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 21 Nov 2002

Vol. 557 No. 6

Criminal Justice (Temporary Release of Prisoners) Bill, 2001: Second Stage.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O'Dea)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Criminal Justice Act, 1960, to provide a clearer legislative basis for the power of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to grant temporary release by setting down the principles which will apply to the exercise of this power.

The power to grant temporary release is currently provided for in section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1960, which provides that the Minister may make rules for the temporary release of prisoners subject to conditions which may be imposed in each case. Rules made under this section include provisions for the imposition of conditions applicable to temporary release and for procedural matters.

Section 2 is a general provision and does not contain any guidance for the exercise of this power. The desirability of setting out more clearly in legislation the criteria which should apply to the operation of the system of temporary release first became evident following the findings of the High Court in the Corish case, judgment in which was delivered early in 2000. The net point of the judgment in that case was that there was no power to refuse to consider temporary release for certain categories of offenders because the 1960 Act did not specify that such a power existed. This related to a situation where Ministers for Justice had over the years specified categories of prisoners who are not considered for temporary release, save in exceptional circumstances. These categories included sex offenders, drug offenders and others where a risk to the community was significant or where public revulsion at the nature of such offences was particularly strong. The operation of such broad exclusions ceased following the Corish judgment and since then each case has been considered on its individual merits, subject to the paramount concern for the safety of the public.

The Minister is not proposing in this Bill to reinstate power to exclude categories of offenders from temporary release. He is not doing so because of the sweeping nature of such broad exclusionary powers, particularly in a situation where the expansion of prison places provided by the previous Government and continued by this Government facilitates the operation of temporary release in a controlled and structured way. Instead, the current practice of dealing with all cases on an individual basis will continue, including the need to assess risk to the public in the circumstances of each individual case.

However, that is not to say that no action was required arising from the judgment in the Corish case. The case in fact was a convincing argument that the 1960 provision was short on specifics and certainly not up to the standards of transparency which we now rightly expect to apply to the exercise of ministerial powers. It was for that reason that the previous Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform sought and obtained Government approval for this Bill to more clearly set out the criteria which should govern the operation of the temporary release regime. Indeed, during the course of preparation of the Bill, the Supreme Court, in a non-binding comment in the case of the DPP v. Finn of 24 November 2000, suggested that it is desirable that the system of temporary release be placed on a clearer and more transparent basis. That is exactly the purpose of this Bill.

Before discussing the details of the Bill it is important to reflect on why temporary release exists and how it operates in this country. In that context it is important to understand that temporary release is in fact our system of parole which is an essential feature of prisons systems worldwide.

Systems of parole or temporary release exist because it is generally recognised that more is expected of a modern prison system than locking up its offenders until the entire sentence is served, by which time the person may be released back into society unchanged or changed for the worse. The prison system must take a more proactive role in seeking to ensure, in so far as is possible, that those released from prison will not re-offend both in terms of the longer-term safety of the community and in the interests of rehabilitating the individual prisoner. The temporary release system can therefore assist the purposes of preventing the commission of crime and safeguarding the community. It also operates on a humanitarian level in seeking to help offenders to take the important step away from crime and into more positive and law-abiding lives.

Temporary release may be granted for various reasons to prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment. Short-term releases may be granted for different periods of time ranging from a few hours to one or two days and for a variety of reasons, including compassionate reasons such as the illness or death of a near relative. Efforts are also made where possible to plan structured temporary releases for re-socialisation purposes and to plan for the reintegration of offenders into the community.

Pre-release preparation can include transfer to a less secure institution, or an open prison or a programme of short-term releases which might progress from supervised to unsupervised outings. The purpose of such programmes would be to reduce the effects of institutionalisation, by aiding, for example, familiarisation with the outside world or maintaining relationships with family or relatives. Pre-release preparation can include temporary release to attend work experience or training. For example, prisoners in the training unit who are deemed suitable may attend the workshops run by PACE – Prisoners Aid through Community Effort. PACE is a voluntary organisation for the care and education of offenders founded in 1969. The organisation runs a training workshop at Santry where various skills can be acquired which increase the possibility of finding work. The Santry workshop is attended both by serving prisoners on day release programmes and by some who have recently finished their sentences. Prisoners may also be granted weekly renewable temporary release after careful screening to take up employment or to continue education or vocational training courses. Of course, pre-release preparation often includes temporary release to attend residential treatment for alcohol or drug addiction.

Decisions on pre-release programmes are made by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform or senior officials of the Irish Prisons Service on his behalf. Review meetings are held regularly in each prison institution to facilitate the exchange of information and aid decision making in the management of offenders' sentences. Each meeting is chaired by the governor or deputy or assistant governor of the institution and attended by the governors, probation and welfare staff, chaplains, teachers, other prison staff and an official from Irish Prisons Service headquarters. Where an offender is engaging with other services in the prison such as the psychology, psychiatry or other medical services, the professional dealing with the specific offender will also be invited to attend when required.

Issues concerning risk to the community and preparation for re-integration are much more complex in relation to offenders serving long sentences. For this reason last year the previous Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform established an interim parole board to advise in relation to the administration of longer term prison sentences including the type of programmes which should be in place leading to release. The board replaced the Sentence Review Group which was set up in 1989 by the then Minister for Justice to review the cases of convicted persons who had served more than seven years of a determinate or indeterminate sentence. The interim parole board began its work in December 2001 having first received training from Irish Prisons Service, probation and welfare and psychiatric service sources. The board also received instruction from training personnel attached to the English parole board on their methods and sat in on hearings of the English parole board.

The board reviews cases of prisoners sentenced to determinate sentences of eight years or more but less than 14 years when the prisoner has served half of the sentence. In the cases of prisoners sentenced to 14 years or more, including life sentences, the board will review after seven years have been served of the sentence. To be eligible for review, a prisoner must have at least 12 months left to serve of his or her sentence at the time of the review. I stress that in making its recommendations to the Minister, the board already has regard to the type of criteria provided for in this Bill. Enactment of this Bill will provide a statutory base for such criteria which the Minister will have to have regard to in dealing with recommendations from the board. The board has been set up on an administrative basis initially and based on the experience gained in the operation of the board on this basis, legislative proposals to put it on a statutory basis may be drawn up at a later date.

It has been said before here, and I repeat it, that there is always an element of risk in the operation of any system of parole or temporary release. Careful examination must be given to often conflicting considerations such as rehabilitation of the offender and his or her re-integration into society, and any risk which a particular release might pose. The paramount concern must, of course, always be the safety of the public. Nevertheless any Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform must continually perform a difficult balancing act in operating a system of temporary release.

The Minister is now very much aided in achieving the right balance due to the Government's commitment to the programme of building and modernisation of prisons which has resulted in the provision of 1,200 additional prison places so far and has resulted in the welcome closing of the revolving door. Therefore, without the pressure to relieve overcrowding in the prison system the Minister is able to operate a system of temporary release in a planned and controlled way. Nevertheless, the balancing of possible risks against possible benefits will always remain a feature of any temporary release scheme.

It would, of course, be easy to play safe and eliminate any possibility of temporary release so that the Minister could never be accused of putting any citizen at risk from a released prisoner. However, the Minister believes that such an approach would have serious consequences in establishing an inhumane regime which would ultimately create greater risks for the public from prisoners whose only prospects for the future upon release may be to continue with a life of crime. No Member would advocate such a dark ages approach. Instead the legislature has accepted through the Criminal Justice Act, 1960, that there is a need for a system of temporary release and this Bill seeks to make more transparent the criteria which should apply to the exercise of this power and the considerations which must be taken into account in deciding on individual applications for temporary release.

I will now deal with the main provisions of the Bill. The Bill is a short one with only two sections, the first of which is a standard provision which contains the Short Title and commencement provision. The main provisions of the Bill are contained in section 2 which amends the Criminal Justice Act, 1960, by inserting a new section 2 into that Act. Subsection (i) of the new section 2 provides that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform can direct the temporary release of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment. Subsection (ii) makes it clear that imprisonment includes detention in St. Patrick's Institution and in detention centres provided for in the Prisons Act, 1970.

Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) sets out the purposes for which temporary release may be granted by the Minister. These are to assess the person's ability to reintegrate into society upon such release; to prepare a person for release upon expiration of his or her sentence or upon his or her being discharged from prison; and to enable a person to assist the Garda Síochána in the prevention, detection or investigation of offences, or the apprehension of a person guilty of, or suspected of having committed, an offence. Paragraph (b) further provides that a person may be temporarily released where circumstances exist to justify the person's release on health grounds or on other humanitarian grounds.

Paragraph (c) provides that a person may be temporarily released where, in the opinion of the Minister, the release is necessary or expedient to ensure good government of the prison concerned or to maintain good order and the humane and just management of the prison concerned. Paragraph (d) provides that a person may be temporarily released if the Minister is satisfied that the person has been rehabilitated and would be capable of reintegrating into society.

Subsection (2) sets out the considerations which the Minister must take into account in deciding whether to grant temporary release. This subsection is intended to give a statutory basis to the considerations that have hitherto been taken into account in practice in reaching decisions on whether to grant temporary release and reflect internationally accepted practice. The considerations are the nature and gravity of the offence to which the sentence being served by the person relates; the sentence concerned and any recommendations made by the court in relation to the sentence imposed; the period of the sentence served by the person; the potential threat to the safety and security of the public should the person be released; the person's previous criminal record; the risk of the person failing to return to prison at the expiration of the period of temporary release; the conduct of the person while in custody or while previously on temporary release; any report or recommendation made by the governor, the Garda Síochána, a probation and welfare officer or any other person whom the Minister considers may be of assistance in coming to a decision as to whether to grant temporary release; the risk that the person might commit an offence during any period of temporary release; the risk of the person failing to comply with any of the conditions of temporary release; and the likelihood that a period of temporary release might accelerate the person's re-integration into society or improve his or her prospects of obtaining employment.

Subsection (3) sets out the circumstances in which the Minister shall not give a direction for the temporary release of a person. The three circumstances are where it would not be appropriate to give such a direction for persons connected with any one or more of the considerations listed in subsection (2). This simply means that the Minister must not grant temporary release where he or she considers he or she should not do so on the basis of any or all of the criteria in subsection (2). So if considering any of the criteria the Minister is of the view that the person should not be granted temporary release then he or she cannot grant such release even if another of the criteria might suggest that temporary release would be beneficial. For example, if the potential threat to the safety or security of the public is so great that he or she feels the prisoner should not be released, the fact the release might improve the persons prospects of employment need not be considered. Second, paragraph (b) provides that temporary release may not be granted if it is prohibited by existing or future statutory prohibitions on temporary release. Such statutory prohibitions exist with a saver for grave reasons of a humanitarian nature in section 5 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1990 in relation to persons convicted of treason or of certain murders and attempted murders, for example, the murder of a member of the Garda Síochána. Similarly, section 27 of the Misuse of Drugs Act as amended by section 5 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1999 provides that temporary release cannot be granted to a person where the mandatory minimum penalty of ten years imprisonment for drug trafficking has been imposed under that section, except for grave reasons of a humanitarian nature. Third, paragraph (c) provides that temporary release may not be granted to prisoners serving sentence for one or more offences who are on remand for another offence or offences.

Subsections (4) and (5) provide for the governor to be informed and to give effect to the Minister's decision. Subsection (6) provides clarification that the granting of a period of temporary release does not create an entitlement to further periods of temporary release. Each and every release is a separate matter, having regard on each occasion to the criteria set down in this Bill.

Subsection (7) provides that the Minister may make rules for the purpose of enabling this section to have full effect and that such rules may contain such incidental, supplementary and consequential provisions as the Minister considers necessary or expedient. Subsection (8) provides that any rules made must be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Subsection (9) provides that nothing in the Bill shall affect the operation of the Criminal Justice (Release of Prisoners) Act, 1998. This subsection is precautionary to ensure that the arrangements applying to temporary release of qualifying prisoners under the terms of the Criminal Justice (Release of Prisoners) Act, 1998 cannot be adversely affected by anything in this Act.

I draw the attention of the House to an amendment which the Minister is considering proposing to the Bill on Committee Stage. The amendment would give effect to the provisions in Chapter 5 of the Schengen Convention relating to the transfer of the enforcement of criminal judgments and to the 1997 Additional Protocol to the Council of Europe's 1983 Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons. This would have the effect of amending the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Act, 1995 and deal with situations where a sentenced person has left the territory of the sentencing state. The new provisions will allow for the sentence to be carried out in the state to which the offender has absconded and in which he or she is considered to be a national. The consent of the sentenced person would not be required for these new provisions. As this amendment would extend the scope of the Bill it would also be necessary to bring forward an amendment changing the Long and Short Title of the Bill. It would be the Minister's intention to bring forward the appropriate amendments on Committee Stage to deal with these issues.

The Bill is in keeping with a view expressed by the Supreme Court in a case in 2000 – Director of Public Prosecutions v. Finn – that a clearer and more transparent basis for the system of temporary release is desirable. In the course of its judgment the Supreme Court went on to say that it is extremely desirable that remission and sentence review should be placed on a clear and transparent basis but that it is ultimately a matter for the Oireachtas to decide whether to retain the present system, put it on a clearer and more transparent basis, devolve it to a parole board or confer it on the courts. This Bill, together with the establishment of the parole board which will advise the Minister in relation to the sentence management of long-term prisoners pending the enactment of legislation to create a statutory parole board, will provide the clear and transparent basis which the Supreme Court has said is desirable, as well as the necessary safeguards required, for the operation of the system of temporary release.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Deasy

I am sorry the House did not receive longer notice of this interesting legislation. Perhaps in future the Minister may inform the House sooner when legislation such as this is presented.

The Minister of State has stated several reasons for the introduction of this Bill but he did not give the one which counts. I do not discount the reasons given by the Minister of State but he left out the most important one. By chance, I discovered this reason when I came across an article.

The first reason given by the Minister of State is that the former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, made it clear that it was the Supreme Court's view that a clearer and more transparent basis for temporary release was desirable. Is this the reason this Bill has been introduced? The Supreme Court makes many judgments.

The second reason given by the Minster of State is that the High Court decided in January 2000 that the Minister had exceeded his powers in deciding not to authorise temporary release for certain categories of prisoners, such as those convicted of drug dealing. The High Court decided that, under section 2(1) of the 1960 Act, the Minister could not be permitted to categorise prisoners for temporary release. I am still unconvinced that these are the reasons for the introduction of this legislation. I believe these are peripheral reasons.

The provisions of the Bill make good sense. The Bill sets out the purposes for which temporary release may be granted by the Minister. Temporary release prepares prisoners for release and enables them to assist in investigation, apprehension or prosecution of an offender. It allows the Minister to release prisoners on health or humanitarian grounds or ensure good order and management of prisoners. I will return to this latter point later.

The new section 2(2) sets out the considerations the Minister must take into account in deciding whether to grant temporary release, including the nature and gravity of the offence, the sentence and the period served, the safety and security of the community, the criminal record, the conduct of the prisoner, the risk of re-offending as well as the risk of failing to meet the conditions of temporary release or failing to return to prison. Reports from prison officers and the Garda must also be taken into account.

I have no problem with these things, but one must note the real reason behind the ministerial considerations, which was spelled out by the current Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, in 1994 in an article in The Irish Times. He pointed out the legislation governing temporary release was totally silent on the criteria for temporary release and the question of immunity from civil liability actions against the Minister for Justice. He expressed concern that strong grounds for civil liability actions could arise where members of the public were victims of crimes committed by prisoners on release.

Deputy McDowell went on to say that the Criminal Justice Act, 1960, gave the Minister power to suspend the currency of sentences and grant periods of release and that if it could be shown that prisoners had been released simply because of a shortage of prison accommodation and that there was a reasonable probability that they would re-offend, the Minister would certainly have an uphill battle in the courts. The silence of the legislation acts as an insurance policy for the Minister and his Department because when somebody who is temporarily released re-offends, compensation claims are made against the State. The insurance policy saves the Minister from such claims and the consequences of temporary release.

Since those statements were made in 1994, we have seen the prison population more than double to about 3,400 or 3,500 prisoners. The situation improved a little since 1994, but we are now losing control again. People are afraid that those being put on temporary release who are committing crimes in great numbers will lead to civil action against the Minister. That is why we are here.

One has to be honest about this issue, deal with it and let the House know why we are here. What I have alluded to is an indictment of the present situation and an admission that it is getting out of control.

It is a week since we learned that we will not get the 2,000 gardaí that were promised in An Agreed Programme for Government. That is not just disappointing, it is not right.

I have been spokesman for only five or six months and my party colleagues might not like me saying that I might not be the most suitable one because I tend to agree with much of what the Minister, Deputy McDowell, has done since he came to office. He has had good, innovative ideas and is good at public relations, which is important, but last week he failed absolutely because he lost the battle for the gardaí. He lost the battle internally at the Cabinet table for the resources and manpower, and that can change things on the streets. It is not easy for me to say he has failed, but I believe it.

There were some articles in the paper about the spats going on between the Ministers for Finance and Justice, Equality and Law Reform regarding the extra funding for the Garda. It was intimated that the battle had been waged by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, but it seems that is not the case.

With regard to temporary releases, we should turn to the example of juveniles in Dublin, whom I believe are in a state of perpetual release. When they come before the courts, they are not sentenced by judges in many cases because the spaces for them do not exist and have not for many years. This must change because it is an indictment of the present system.

Some things have improved. As the Minister of State spelled out, the Parole Board is an advantage. People sentenced to between eight and 14 years are eligible for review when half their sentences have been served. People who are sentenced to between 14 years and life are eligible for review after seven or eight years. The Parole Board can make three core recommendations regarding short-term releases, leading to full temporary release, transfers to other prisons, therapy education and work training programmes. I am not against these, but I hope the Minister does not have to accept these recommendations when put in front of him and that he takes a very stringent view of them.

I am not against temporary release in general. One cannot be against it completely, but I would like to see it near the end of people's sentences. Sometimes I feel we care more about the criminal in this country that we do about the victim. A life sentence in this country is not a life sentence, but means that one will get seven years or more. Any petty crook sentenced to a year understands that he will not be in jail for a year. In most circumstances, he will probably serve six or seven months and then be released. Sentences that are handed out by judges are not realistic, even to this day. They do not correspond with reality and that has weakened the criminal justice system.

On any given day there are probably 200 or 300 temporary releases. One provision that is not in this Bill, but which I would like to see and which victim support groups have asked for is that a victim should be notified as a common courtesy if he wishes so that he will know if somebody is out on temporary release. There was a case a couple of years ago where a young woman who had been raped was walking in a park with her mother, and who walked towards her only the person who had raped her? This must be addressed by way on an amendment on Committee Stage. It would not be a gesture but would be important for those people who have suffered greatly. If the perpetrators of crimes are granted temporary release, their victims should be notified.

The real reason we are here is that circumstances have worsened and the Government is afraid that claims will be taken against the State and the Minister. That should have been admitted and that is why this Bill is before the House.

Mr. Costello

Since becoming my party's spokesperson on justice I have yet to see the Minister in the House. The Minister of State lives in Limerick and has much further to travel than the Minister, who lives in Dublin 4. While I appreciate the traffic problems in the south of the city, the Minister should find time to attend the House to present legislation in his name. It is not good enough for him not to be present and to delegate this Bill to the Minister of State. The Minister is responsible for it and he is not treating the House with the respect it deserves. I hope the Minister of State will pass this message to him. We would like to see him here on occasion. He spoke on the debate on the Book of Estimates, which is not his remit, declaring that he was not a communist. We knew that, but it would be much better if he was here to explain why he has introduced this legislation.

Deputy Deasy correctly said the reasons for the legislation are not those which the Minister of State outlined. The Minister is afraid there will be civil and perhaps criminal actions taken against him and the Government because of the lack of a proper legislative basis for the release of prisoners. Prisoner releases have taken place on a revolving door basis in the absence of adequate criteria to create space in prisons. Temporary releases, made for no valid reason, often became permanent releases. The Minister of State did not mention this.

It is likely that because of the large scale of prisoner releases at that time, this will be the only legislation from this Department to be passed before Christmas. It is right and proper, on a humanitarian basis, that there should be releases then but previous legislation did not provide a basis for it. Without the underpinning of this legislation the Minister and the State may be liable. This why we are dealing with narrowly defined legislation that introduces no new concepts and that merely establishes criteria on the grounds on which the Minister might release prisoners. The Minister should have been clear about this and perhaps in his reply the Minister of State will acknowledge this is the real reason for the legislation. An enormous opportunity has been missed to introduce comprehensive legislation to deal with the temporary release of prisoners in the context of good prison management, reintegration and rehabilitation. However, this aspect is not built into prisoner sentences and the preparation of prisoners for release back into society.

The Book of Estimates makes clear that the Minister has lost the argument on the need for resources. Perhaps the reason he was so vocal in the debate on the Estimates last night was that he was annoyed that he will not be able to provide any of the 2,000 extra gardaí he promised. Worse, he is proposing to close Shanganagh Castle, the only open prison centre for juveniles between the ages of 16 and 21 years. He and his predecessor have run down the facilities at the centre. It has a capacity for 60 inmates, yet at present only 16 are being dealt with.

Of all the facilities used for the rehabilitation and reintegration of prisoners, Shanganagh Castle is the most important for juveniles. It is outrageous that a full quota of staff is servicing a facility that is only at one-third of capacity. It is clear that the Minister intends to close this, the only juvenile open institution in the country. There are adult open institutions, such as Shelton Abbey, Loughan House and, to a lesser degree, Castlerea Prison. However, because the Minister did not get his way in the allocation to his Department in the Book of Estimates he will sell Shanganagh Castle, including the surrounding 25 acres of prime development land. I understand local residents are satisfied with the location of the centre.

The closure of Shanganagh Castle will be a retrograde step in the treatment of juvenile offenders. It means they will be confined to St. Patrick's Institution, a dour place, with no hope of being prepared for release into society despite the overwhelming evidence that once young offenders become adults the chances of successfully rehabilitating them are remote. At the same time the Minister is building an institution as an adjunct to St. Patrick's Institution for those aged between 12 and 14 years at a cost of €9 million. It will hold six offenders. It would not cost the State to house them at Shanganagh Castle.

The Minister and his predecessor have refused access by Amnesty International to the prisons at a time when the Government is happy to quote its reports in the international arena. Only Turkey and Egypt have acted similarly along with countries headed by dictatorships. How can we stand by a system if we are not going to allow the most respected international human rights organisation access to the prisons? What has the Minister to hide? He should have been delighted to have been given the opportunity to allow Amnesty International to see what is being done in the prisons because much good work is being done. It is a disgrace to us as citizens that we are the only country in Europe that has acted in this way. I hope the Minister of State will tell the Minister that we do not take kindly to his refusal to honour our international obligations in this matter.

The purpose of the Bill is to give statutory underpinning to the criteria and the grounds on which people can be released in the future. It is regrettable that the Bill does not deal with other issues. For example, no consideration has been given to the report published by the National and Economic Social Forum, of which I was a member under the previous Administration, which considered the question of temporary release and the rehabilitation and reintegration of prisoners. That document was produced earlier this year and the Government accepted its recommendations and indicated that they would be implemented. It showed that at that time €1,000 per week was spent on each prisoner, a colossal amount to spend just on locking them up, and that at 70% we have one of the worst recidivist rates in Europe. At the same time there was an enormous prison building programme and the Garda Síochána announced that crime figures were diminishing yearly, but such statistics do not tell the whole story because other surveys revealed that many people do not report crime. We have a serious situation in which the prison population has virtually doubled in the last decade but the increase in prison places was not in tandem with a thought out approach, which is what this report contains.

It recommends that we put on a statutory basis a programme to deal with prisoners from the moment they are inducted into prison until they are released. Such an holistic approach is the only way to proceed. In this model the prisoner, as soon as he enters prison, would be seen and consulted by an intra-agency panel which would establish a positive management plan specifically aimed at him. At present, a prisoner is simply examined by a doctor on arrival but there is no consultation with him or any attempt to implement a programme of management to ensure he derives maximum benefit from his time in prison and to prepare him for release. Such a programme would incorporate a prisoner's skills, training and education or lack thereof to enable him to be re-integrated into society. This would be done in consultation with the prisoner and monitored throughout the sentence concluding in a preparation period prior to release.

The underlying aim would be to ensure that the prisoner did not re-offend. Prior to release, there would be a link up with the local authority to ensure that housing would be provided where it was needed and with the social welfare system to ensure that money would be in the prisoner's pocket on release without having to wait eight or nine weeks as at present. Part of sentence management, particularly in relation to training, would be temporary release so a prisoner could attend a course, for example. Projects embarked on in prison would as far as possible be continued in similar projects on the outside so that there would be a seamless transfer from the activities inside prison to those outside. This is clearly outlined in the report but there is no reference to it in the Bill. We should bear in mind a written submission from one of the prisoners to the report team:

The word "rehabilitation" comes from the Latin "to make able". This is your chance. Give us the incentive to change. Help make us able to survive in today's society and give us a chance to succeed in a normal life. The re-integration of prisoners into society would become easier. Ex-prisoners would have the skills to carve out their own nook and education to survive. Do not wait until we are near release or relapsed to try and change us. Start at the beginning. Make the change our own choice and it will become part of our psyche. Most of us do not want to be what we are and that is the point. Give us the sentence and watch the change.

The proposals recommended in the report are to increase the use of non-custodial options; increase emphasis on re-integration; introduce positive sentence management and involve all stakeholders; develop more planned and integrated after care for prisoners on release; end discrimination on the basis of a criminal record bar in exceptional circumstances, as is the situation in Britain; increase data gathering, monitoring and independent evaluation to better inform police policy and use planned temporary release to aid re-integration. None of that is here nor anything about a wider purpose for temporary release. It merely lays down specific criteria without a model when we need one that would include the agencies such as PACE, Pathways and Connect.

There is an excellent model in Cabra, in my constituency, where a project locates all people from the Dublin 7 area who are in State institutions so as to make contact with and visit them in prison. They offer facilities to assist and advise them on release in the locality. This is an example of a community reaching out to those who offended there or elsewhere so as to assist them to re-integrate into the community. If we have sentence management in prison linked to a community based scheme, such as in Cabra, then the local community can assist in rehabilitating released prisoners. This could work for 80% to 90% of the prison population and cost much less than the present approach.

This is not a long Bill as it has only two sections, but I do not understand some of the subsections, for example sections 2(2)(c)(i) and (ii) and 2(2)(d). It says that one of the criteria of release is to ensure the good government of the prison concerned. Why would a prisoner be released to ensure the good government of the prison concerned? That is a strange ground on which to release a prisoner. The prisoner is the problem yet he or she is to be released back into society because we have problems with the 1:1 ratio of prisoners to prison officers. That does not make any sense. If there was not adequate control in a particular prison, surely it would be sensible to transfer the prisoner to another prison, not release him or her. I do not know what the Minister is trying to do in relation to that but it appears to be turning logic on its head.

Subsection 2(2)(c) deals with maintaining good order. It states that the reason for releasing a prisoner is to maintain good order in, and humane and just management of, the prison concerned. I thought the whole purpose of sending people to prison was to maintain good order in society. Why do we send people to prison? There are more staff than prisoners in our prisons, yet they cannot maintain good order. I do not know where our new Minister is coming from on this aspect. We know he is not a communist but what he is proposing here leaves a lot to be desired.

Subsection 2(2)(d) states that the Minister will release a prisoner if he is satisfied that the person has been rehabilitated and would, upon being released, be capable of reintegrating into society. That is not good enough. One aspect of the reason for temporary release that is recognised in every jurisdiction in the world where any sort of humane system operates, is that it is part of the rehabilitation. A prisoner is given a period out of prison for good behaviour, with the opportunity of attending a drugs or alcohol abuse course or some sort of FÁS training. That has always been the practice but under this section the Minister must be satisfied that the prisoner has already been rehabilitated.

The Minister is making his position more difficult because if a released prisoner re-offends, and if the Minister is of the opinion that he or she has already been rehabilitated, surely there is a case for civil liability because the prisoner has not been rehabilitated. If the prisoner was rehabilitated, he or she would not have re-offended. In many ways the Minister is undermining the purpose of the Bill with this subsection and I would like to hear his response in that regard.

There is a contradictory position in section 2(2)(k) which states that one of the reasons for release is the likelihood that any period of temporary release might accelerate the person's reintegration into society or improve his or her prospects of obtaining employment. The Bill already states that the prisoner must first be rehabilitated and yet this section states that part and parcel of the ground for prisoner release on a temporary basis is rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

This is a short Bill comprising only two sections. I do not know who to blame for it – the parliamentary counsel's office or the Minister, although I presume the parliamentary counsel is working on the basis of the Minister's direction. In any event there are some flaws in the Bill which undermine its entire purpose, even though part of that purpose was not stated by the Minister of State.

The Minister of State introduced a new element towards the end of his address which has come out of the blue. He should have given some notice to the spokespersons of a substantial new matter that is not in the Bill and that was not flagged in any way. I refer to the section relating to the Schengen convention where the Minister is proposing to table an amendment on Committee Stage to allow for sentences to be carried out in the state to which the offender has absconded and of which he or she is considered to be a national. Can we get clarification on that? Is the Minister proposing that the person will serve the sentence in the country to which he or she has absconded only if he or she is a national of that country? If that is the case, what consideration do we give to the particular regime in that country? We have always made it a condition that we would not send people back to regimes where capital punishment may operate. The Schengen convention may not even apply in such cases and there are types of sentences which may be abhorrent to our jurisdiction. Will we send prisoners back willy-nilly? How will we ensure that they will serve the sentence they were due to serve in this jurisdiction? The Minister is silent on how that will work. I would have liked a note, prior to the taking of the Bill in the House, on what was intended under the Schengen convention proposals which we have only just seen.

Other countries have a statutory parole board to deal with these matters; Britain has had one for a long time. Indeed, Ireland used to have a parole board. The Minister has set up an interim parole board simply for long-term prisoners and he stated that in the future he may put it on a statutory basis. Currently the Minister has all statutory power in this matter but it is not right that a Minister should have the full authority in relation to whether somebody is released. Other jurisdictions have a statutory parole board on which appropriate people sit to carry on the business. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is a busy person. He is probably the busiest of all Ministers in the Government and it is very unlikely that he would have much opportunity of examining any individual case. We should establish the board on a broader basis to review not just long-term sentences but also the whole area of releases. We should broaden it further into examining the question of prison management.

Every prison should have a business plan in regard to the way it operates and a prisoner management plan geared towards managing the sentence of each prisoner with a view to maximising resources and time, which all prisoners have a great deal of when they are inside. They are locked up for 16 hours a day and that time should be maximised so that there is some possibility of them becoming better citizens when they are released and having a chance not to re-offend. We should work proactively in that direction.

I am disappointed with the Bill, which is very narrow. The opportunity existed to do a decent job but it was not grasped. There is no commitment from the Minister, who has promoted himself as a reforming Minister, to do anything substantial in this area.

Mr. Connolly

I wish to share time with Deputies Finian McGrath and Cuffe.

I have certain misgivings about this Bill. I recognise that it establishes an infinitely more transparent basis for the system of temporary release of prisoners. Many prisoners on temporary release feel they are in a strange form of limbo; they can play at being normal but they are not actually free. When is a prisoner not a prisoner? When he or she is on temporary release. Being allowed to walk unescorted through the prison gate after so long may feel both normal and strange.

As the governor of Mountjoy Prison, Mr. John Lonergan, has so often observed, prisoners who have their own agendas have a measure of control over the way their lives inside prison will develop. He also stressed the need for making their sentences as positive an experience as possible. His reasoning was that they would then see imprisonment as a means to an end.

A prisoner should be able to live in prison and not merely do time. The time then comes to think about living on the outside and this is the period of transition. Options should exist on the outside for undertaking supervised voluntary work. Places should be available in charity shops or with helping the less able members of society, such as the sick or the elderly. Organisations catering for people with special needs could provide another fertile ground for the involvement of temporary release prisoners. They could use some of the skills acquired in prison such as typing or IT and communications skills. Eventually real freedom or liberation beckons. A temporary release will be seen as merely an extension of the boundaries.

I recall once travelling by train to Reading from London. The train passed by Reading gaol and I reflected that there was no system of temporary release in operation when Oscar Wilde languished there. The UK has a system of release on temporary licence. Compassionate, facility or resettlement licences all have different qualifying criteria. Prisoners must pass a risk assessment before being approved for a period of release on temporary licence. In some cases victims are consulted and informed about the period of the licence. I share the concern expressed earlier by Deputy Deasy about victims meeting their attackers when they have not known of the release from prison. This should not be allowed to happen.

One of the most important forms of temporary release in the UK is the resettlement release. Its purpose is to maintain family ties and links with the community and to make suitable arrangements for accommodation, work and training on final release. The institution of a commission to advise the Minister regarding the release of prisoners under the auspices of the Good Friday Agreement is also a welcome development and will ensure that all those prisoners who qualify will secure their release.

In Northern Ireland a ten day allowance scheme exists for prisoners who have completed ten years in custody. This leave can be taken as a ten day block or in shorter blocks of at least two days and it may not be added to Christmas home leave.

We should not forget that prisoners can become institutionalised. It would be an injustice to the prisoner and to the public just to throw the prisoner out the prison door when his sentence is served. Much preparatory work before final release must be undertaken and temporary release programmes can play a part. Some people feel more secure inside prison and this must be addressed. People with psychiatric illnesses, for example, should be regarded as being misplaced in prison. A high level of counselling and rehabilitation services is needed in the prison system. We must try to prevent prisoners returning to prison and money spent in this regard would be very well spent. A stitch in time might save time in this instance.

Mr. F. McGrath

This is a very important debate and it is essential that there is a detailed analysis of the question of temporary release of prisoners. I wish to approach the subject from a different angle. I speak as one who has been a teacher in the inner city for over 20 years and as a former full-time worker with the Simon Community.

I wish to put a strong emphasis on dealing with prisoners and the causes of crime. Many people have made a lot of money researching this subject. The answer to the question of why people are in prison is very basic and straightforward; people are in prison because of massive poverty and massive disadvantage. Educational failure is also a factor as is the crisis situation in dysfunctional families where alcoholism and drug abuse is also present. A substantial minority of people with intellectual disabilities end up in prison. I strongly support prisoners' rights.

I have worked in the inner city for 20 years. One of the best projects with which I was involved was breaking the cycle, for which I congratulate the Department of Education and Science. The project was set up to help the 33 poorest schools in the country. It provided us with resources and back-up staff, and above all it was a means of early intervention with four year olds. That was one of the most radical and progressive projects ever introduced since the introduction of free education by Donogh O'Malley and it should be further developed.

I have seen children from crisis ridden and disadvantaged families participating in a choir which performed in the National Concert Hall. All the people in the flats went to the concert hall to see their children appear on stage and it gave the whole community a lift. It was a great occasion to see 1,000 children from the 33 poorest schools singing in the National Concert Hall. Officials from the Departments of Education and Science and from Finance were present to see how public money had been well spent. Over the five years of the programme the discipline and violence problems in many inner city schools were reduced. We used the extra €7,000 a year for art therapy—

Mr. Costello

The present Government would not continue it.

Mr. F. McGrath

I agree with the Deputy and I will speak about that in a moment. With a limited budget and limited resources we made a major effort to stop young people going to prison. We used our after school project fund of £3,000 for art therapy. We identified the five or six children most at risk who we thought were on their way "to the 'Joy", as they say themselves. We used the resources to help deal with the feelings of anger of those young people. That is the way forward in preventing people ending up in prison. The keynote of my speech is the importance of early intervention. There cannot be a situation where in certain parts of this city only 1% of the children go to university. I know a few of that 1%. In some schools in Dublin 10% or 15% of the children end up in Mountjoy.

I commend the work of John Lonergan, the governor of Mountjoy Prison. I commend the link he makes between education failure and literacy problems. He recommended that primary teachers should focus on these issues with the junior children. We all have responsibilities and I would be critical of my own profession sometimes because we must be aware of developing children's sense of self-esteem. The John Lonergan approach is the way forward. He treats prisoners as human beings with dignity, but he also ensures that they are given responsibility. That is the key in trying to make an effort with people who have been damaged by society. It is clear that 95% of the prisoners in this country come from economically disadvantaged areas. That is a reality we must face up to, and this is where the RAPID project comes in. We have got to ensure that this project is developing and evolving in every single priority area throughout the State.

I am not advocating that seriously violent prisoners are released willy-nilly. Achieving a balance with public safety is a major issue. Any Bill of this nature has to be based on trust and good behaviour. I emphasise again the need to reward the good behaviour of people. If prisoners are out on temporary release and they deliver in terms of their behaviour then they should be rewarded. When we introduced our code of discipline in many schools in the inner city, we put a strong emphasis not on punishment of children who came from disadvantaged or crisis families but upon rewarding them when they made an effort to get out of that situation. Good practice should always be rewarded and developed.

Section 2(1)(b) provides that a person may be temporarily released where, in the opinion of the Minister, circumstances exist to justify the release on health and other humanitarian grounds. We have got to ensure that people are released on humanitarian grounds. Section 2(1)(c) provides that a person may be temporarily released where, in the opinion of the Minister, the release is necessary. It is very important that we get involved in this.

In section 2(2) we then see the considerations that the Minister must have regard to. Section 2(6) does not create entitlement to periods of further temporary release. This goes back to the whole question of trust and community as well as the whole question of who should be let out of prison. There should be very strong sentences for people who are charged with very serious drug offences, particularly the drug barons, because of the damage they do to wider society and the community as a whole.

When we consider the question of prisoners and the temporary release of prisoners, the whole issue of prisoners' rights and treating people with equality and dignity is always very important. I have got myself into a bit of controversy in the past few days over the Colombia three, and I am going to Colombia as one of the observers to support the right to a fair trial and to ensure the men's safety. I challenge Deputies Power and O'Donnell. That is the agenda we are going on, we are going to ensure a fair trial—

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is wandering from the substance of the Bill.

Mr. F. McGrath

It is a disgraceful situation when one tries to preserve prisoners' rights, but I will carry on that Sean McBride tradition in this House. When prisoners are granted temporary release, the whole community should know and understand that these people have paid their price, but I like the idea of them giving something back to the community. This is an idea that should be used a lot, and there are many projects in England, Northern Ireland and here that provide examples of prisoners being made to get involved in community projects as a way of apologising to the community for the damage they have done. From talking to prisoners, I believe many of them would welcome this.

While prisoners are in jail, the whole area of the arts should be developed. The musical and creative skills of prisoners have often been neglected over the years. I would challenge the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on the quality of this Bill. It is not up to scratch, there are major flaws in it. The Bill is not strong enough, so I will be voting against this legislation.

Finally, I wish to talk about the number of adults with disabilities, particularly intellectual disabilities, who are locked up in our prisons. As someone with direct experience of working in this field for ten years, and also as a parent, I find it disgraceful and unacceptable that we have people with disabilities in our prisons. It is a crime. People with disabilities should be in respite, residential facilities with proper community involvement and proper safety structures. It is also a human rights issue that adults with disabilities are locked away in prisons.

This goes back to the whole question of early intervention. We have 18,000 young children with disabilities in our primary schools at the moment, and we can easily identify the ones at risk over a five or six year period. Prison is not part of the solution. I urge the Minister to think again about this Bill. I thank him for the opportunity of debating the Bill, but I shall be voting against it.

Mr. Cuffe

When the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, comes to right his memoirs, I wonder whether the Criminal Justice (Temporary Release of Prisoners) Bill, 2001, will figure highly as one of the crowning points of his ministerial career. This Bill is a cynical exercise in protecting the State from potential law suits. It does nothing to improve the conditions in our prisons or to improve the conditions of those who find themselves behind bars.

Like Deputy McGrath, I have experience of working in the inner city for the last ten years as a member of a city council. I can only concur with governor Lonergan of Mountjoy Prison. We know all to clearly from where his prison's past, present and future inmates will come. They come from very specific areas in this city, as they did five years ago and 20 years ago. If the Minister of State's current policies continue, they will still do so in 20 years' time. There is no serious attempt by the Minister of State to reform the Victorian institutions of the Irish Prisons Service. That is not to say that there are not some excellent individuals and some excellent programmes going on within the prison service, but there has not been any significant attempt to fundamentally reform the prison service.

I wish we could move slightly further on in the whole discussion about why we are imprisoning people and what we are doing with them when they are in jail. As I look at this Bill going through I see threats to some of the brighter lights within the prison system. I hear rumours that Shanganagh Prison in my own constituency may well face cutbacks—

Mr. Costello

The Minister is closing it.

Mr. Cuffe

I am seriously concerned about that because that is one of the institutions that is actually trying hard to cope with younger people and to provide an alternative to the revolving door system. The Minister of State is presiding over the criminalisation of poverty. He is presiding over the criminalisation of social injustice, and he is not doing anything to combat the divides in Irish society that have brought about the imprisonment of people from a particular class or neighbourhood. We know those neighbourhoods and we know their class. If one looks at the historical figures, there has not been much of a change in the demographic make-up of the 3,500 guests of the nation today from ten years ago.

There is a sickening level of assistance to those prisoners once they leave the custody of this State, and it is for that reason as much as anything else that people very often find themselves back inside again. It is perhaps analogous to the issue of homelessness in our society. It is not so much a roof over their head that people need but a whole process of reform that needs to be entered into. That process of reform is not entered into to any great extent by the prison service. If a fraction of the €7,000 that is spent on each prisoner every year was spent on investing in the neighbourhoods or families from which these people come, it would go a long way towards dealing with the root causes of criminality in society.

I am worried that the Minister of State's Department is not prepared to undergo this process of reform. I am worried that he is not dealing with the fundamental problems that have been identified within the prison service. When the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture visited our prisons three years ago, its members reported that there was compelling evidence of brutality to prisoners; that prisons were overcrowded; that the current building programme would not provide a lasting solution; that little or no action had been taken against prison officers who ill-treated prisoners; that few facilities or services were provided for those prisoners; that the medical services provided to prisoners were below standard; and conditions in the Central Mental Hospital were condemned, especially the use of padded cells and seclusion rooms. That does not show any significant progress towards reform of the prison service.

The Minister of State is running scared. He would not even allow Amnesty International, a highly regarded non-governmental organisation, to visit our prisons. Countries such as the United States allowed Amnesty International to inspect its prison service. Why has the Minister of State refused to allow a highly respect organisation such as this to visit our prison service? Does he have something to hide?

I worry about the boards that are set up to monitor, oversee and inspect our prisons. I worry that they have more to do with parochial politics and mileage allowances than with any serious attempt to address the problems of our society. If we are to see reform, we need a much better line up of people prepared to examine what goes on inside our prisons and to report on what they see there. I hope the Minister of State can bring about some changes in that regard.

We know the neighbourhoods from which many prisoners in the custody of the State come. Those neighbourhoods, which have been identified, need proper housing, sports facilities, parks and playgrounds. A serious attempt must be made to address the level of disadvantage that exists, has existed and will continue to exist in those neighbourhoods unless action is taken.

A serious attempt must also be made to address the level of drug use among prisoners. Scathing reports have been published on the degree of drug use among our prison population and reports have also been published on attempts to address it. Other countries have enlightened policies in this regard. Countries in Scandinavia and elsewhere in Europe seriously attempt to minimise such abuse engaged in by prisoners. They offer clean rooms for injecting and they deal with the serious reality of the problem. The previous Minister wanted to cover our prisons with fishing nets to prevent drugs being thrown into prisoners. They does not show any serious attempt to take an enlightened approach to the problem.

Statistics on drug use make harrowing reading. It appears that 83% of female inmates have taken illegal drugs. Some 72% of the male prison population have taken illegal drugs and 68% of female prisoners have smoked heroin. These statistics are a damning indictment of the prison service and of any serious attempt to address the health concerns of prisoners, or to come to grips with the reasons people find themselves behind bars. Until the Minister addresses that issue, the problems of the prison service and of our prisoners will continue to manifest themselves in years to come.

I do not see any serious attempt to come to grips with the level of disadvantage in the neighbourhoods from which our prisoners come. The position can be compared to the advertisement by Bernardos in that one can almost see the words "future prisoner" tattooed on the foreheads of five year olds in Dublin's inner city. I do not see the Minister of State making any serious attempt to combat this problem. Until such time as he addresses social disadvantage in particular communities in this city and elsewhere in the country, our prison population will continue to come from the same areas and will continue to be subjected to a revolving door system whereby there is no serious attempt at rehabilitation. The future of such children depends on the Minister of State making a serious attempt to reform our prison system rather than merely covering the State's liability in regard to prisoners who might be on early release.

Of what is the Minister of State afraid? Why does he not examine good examples from abroad and what is going on in the rest of Europe? Good actions can be taken within the prison service and we want such measures taken. We want the disastrous issue of the imprisonment of adults with mental disability for years on end without any attempt to address the difficulties they encounter dealt with. We have yet to see a serious attempt being made at rehabilitation. There are many prisoners who say they would much rather stay in prison due to the lack of facilities available to cope with being back in society. That is a damning indictment of the problems faced by the prison service.

This Bill is not an attempt to grapple with the wider issues surrounding prison reform, it is merely a cynical exercise in State protectionism. I wish to see those necessary changes made. We shall propose such changes, but until such time as we see the Minister of State attempting to deal with the wider issues, we will have to oppose the legislation.

Mr. O'Dowd

The issues raised during this debate are important and I welcome the opportunity to discuss them. The Long Title refers specifically to an Act to provide for the temporary release of persons serving sentences of imprisonment, or of detention in St. Patrick's Institution.

I wish to comment on an article in the Irish Independent last week, which read “Youth begs to be freed from jail drug culture”. Effectively, a young person who asked to be put into St. Patrick's Institution to be protected from another issue had to be go before the court to plead to be released from there because of the drugs culture that existed there, which was claimed in court to be all pervasive. The judge allowed the prisoner to be released from that institution. When he asked the boy if there were more drugs in the jail than out on the street, the boy said they are all around the place. The Minister of State has a duty, in the first instance, to protect all prisoners, particularly those under the age of 18 in St. Patrick's Institution, from the pervasive drug culture that is claimed to exist and which has not been denied. This is a critical issue.

I am pleased with the drugs programme generally and the commitment to increase the budgetary allocation of the Minister, Deputy Ó Cúiv, to tackle the drugs problem, but not enough is being done in the prison system to stop young people, in particular, from getting involved in the drug culture. The Minister of State must be held responsible and must take responsibility for what is going on in these institutions.

An offender who pleads guilty before the courts can, on conviction, opt to go before Mr. Justice Haughton who presides over the drugs court. I attended the court recently and observed it treats convicted prisoners in a most emphatic and positive way. I am talking about convicted offenders who have not committed any physical injury but who, for want of a better description, are persistent drug offenders and petty criminals. I saw the way such convicted offenders, who would otherwise be in prison, are dealt with fairly and firmly by Judge Haughton and his team of social workers, officers from the probation and welfare service, medical people and so on.

This drugs court only applies to Dublin inner city but its influence should be extended throughout Dublin city and the country as soon as possible. We need to find a new way to deal with persistent drug offenders. Rather than send them to jail and enact temporary release Bills, if we extended the drugs court to other areas, particularly to young categories of prisoners who are not hardened criminals, it would be an important and constructive intervention in their lives. They deserve a second chance. The way the drugs court operates gives people in these categories the opportunity to change their lives. If one attends the drugs court – I urge Members to do so – one will see people who have changed utterly because of the system within which they are placed. It is not a soft option or treating criminals lightly as it places them under a lot of pressure to meet deadlines, to become involved with social workers, to attend their doctor and to get urine samples taken. They must be drug free, in particular heroin free, at all times. There are approximately 14,000 heroin addicts in Dublin city of whom 6,000 are on methadone treatment. I do not know how many hundred of them are in jail. It is a serious issue which must be properly addressed. I urge the Minister of State to reflect on what his Department must do in regard to the drugs court, in particular.

Families of convicted criminals come to me as their public representative to make representations on behalf of family members looking for temporary release or to be moved from one prison to another for various reasons. When we write to the Minister – it is proper we should so – about these issues, it can sometimes be misconstrued that we are attempting to get a prisoner out of jail. The Minister is objective when he makes a decision whether to grant somebody temporary release and he acts in a proper or quasi-judicial way. A Member of the House has an obligation to make representations to the Minister but perhaps representations to get prisoners temporary release for what are assumed to be good and valid reasons could be made to another body instead. I am not saying there should be an ombudsman for prisoners, because that implies a wrong has been done, but there should be a body, perhaps the probation and welfare service, which does an excellent job, to which one could write and which would give the information through the proper channels to the Minister. This process should not be seen as political or something a politician does to get somebody out of jail or out on temporary release. There should be a body to which the family of a prisoner may make their case properly and in an above board manner. That is something which should be done as it would dispel the belief some people might have that there is political interference in these issues when, in fact, the politician is looking for a body which would make the representation to the person who makes the decision.

I visit the District Court occasionally, and have done so for some years as a teacher. One will see that members of families who were before the District Court ten years ago are again before the courts, whether brothers, sister, uncles, aunts or whoever. I agree with other speakers who said it is possible to say that most of the prisoners in Mountjoy Prison or St. Patrick's Institution come from six electoral divisions in Dublin. The same can be said of those in other institutions. We must intervene as early as possible, particularly in terms of education. A lot more resources should be put into the communities and I acknowledge the work done in towns like my own, Drogheda, where schools and voluntary organisations have come together in disadvantaged areas. There are homework clubs and places to which families can go. Children can get breakfast in the morning, go to school, return in the evening for a meal and remain for a study period. There is constructive and positive intervention in areas of social disadvantage and economic deprivation. This is a way in which we can constructively and positively intervene to help these families and keep them out of prison because when somebody goes into prison, the door is closed on their lives. Indeed, even on conviction in court, the door is often closed on their lives forever.

I am not talking about those who receive severe sentences, which have their place, as criminals who get such sentences deserve them. There are, however, people who end up with a conviction for a minor misdemeanour, such as aggravated horseplay or a minor public order offence. In later years when they grow up, have a family and want to go to somewhere like America, they find they cannot do so because the conviction is forever on their record. Again, I stress that I am not talking about serious criminals but about those who have received minor convictions who should, after a period of say seven years, be able to apply to the court in which they were first convicted to have their name taken off the register based on constructive and positive arguments, the most important of which should be that they have stayed out of trouble since their conviction. They should also have a reference from their local garda or community organisations. This would give people who have been convicted of minor offences a second chance. I understand other jurisdictions allow that and it could be done here.

The question of the temporary release of prisoners can be fraught and difficult. There are many instances in which it is proper. Interventions by the State can be constructive and the thinking in the probation and welfare service is better than many of us appreciate until we come in contact with it. I recently visited Mountjoy Prison and spoke to Governor Lonergan. I fully support the views expressed about his enlightened view on prisoners and jail. We need to reassess the system and to look again at the way we treat these offenders. This Criminal Justice (Temporary Release of Prisoners) Bill is important, although I know many people have pointed out faults in it. We must find a mechanism to deal with minor offenders in a more constructive way by taking a more long-term view of society. A conviction for a minor offence should not remain on someone's record ten years on.

When he took office the Minister, Deputy McDowell, spoke about increasing the number of convictions for drug offenders to 8,000 per annum. While I fully agree that the full force of the law should be used to go after people who sell drugs, we must look at the way his views will impact on the lives of the 14,000 people in this city who take heroin.

Whatever his views on it, the hand of justice should be tempered with some wisdom, in the case of the drugs court where there is another method found so that on conviction there is an alternative. I met a parent in the well of the drugs court whose third child was the first one to become heroin free. She spoke to everybody in the court about the wonderful difference the drugs court had made to her life.

Debate adjourned.