Simon Coveney
Question:49 Deputy Simon Coveney asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on electronic tagging for sex offenders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21566/09]
Other Questions.
Electronic Tagging.
The Deputy will be aware that I published a detailed discussion document on the management of convicted sex offenders last January. The document highlights, inter alia, the possibility of using GPS electronic monitoring technology to monitor higher-risk convicted sex offenders for the first six months after the completion of their prison sentences and their release back into the community. A range of supports and care is particularly useful for reintegration during this critical period for many offenders. When I published the comprehensive review of how we deal with higher-risk offenders, I also announced the establishment of a project board, led by the probation and welfare service, which will examine specific possibilities in the context of the implementation of electronic monitoring, more generally, in this jurisdiction. I expect to receive the recommendations of the board, which is working to the brief I have mentioned, in the coming months. The board’s report will inform decisions on the use that might be made of electronic monitoring technology in this jurisdiction. The Deputy will appreciate that this type of technology is another tool that can be used to support supervision regimes in the criminal justice system. It can help the probation and welfare service and the Garda Síochána, for example, to manage offenders in general, specifically sex offenders. In addition, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is examining whether legislation will be necessary to supplement the existing enabling provisions in the Criminal Justice Acts 2006 and 2007 if we introduce a pilot phase of electronic monitoring in this jurisdiction for a specific group or groups of convicted offenders, such as sex offenders.
In his reply, the Minister mentioned "the possibility" of introducing the electronic tagging of sex offenders. Does this mean that the Minister's stance on the matter is cooling? My understanding was that an announcement had been made to the effect that this would happen. Is it still the Minister's intention to proceed along the lines that had been suggested by him? Since the introduction of the Criminal Justice Act 2007, which allows for the electronic tagging of certain offenders, not one person in this jurisdiction has been subjected to such tagging. Will the Minister specify in detail changes to legislation that will be required, having regard to the fact that such an order is not made at sentencing stage? Will he comment on the manner in which these post-release orders and conditions might be implemented without having to revisit the issue in the courts?
It is my intention and I have not softened in that respect. This is quite a complex area. In France only 20 serious sex offenders are subject to electronic monitoring. If we proceed on this, which I hope we will do in the not too distant future, we will be the first in Europe to use a global positioning service, GPS. Tagging is used extensively in the US but not so extensively in other European countries and as far as I know none of them uses GPS. We want to use this because it is more efficient. Equally, however, it is more costly. To do it for sex offenders initially would be the way to proceed, even on a pilot basis, because their numbers are small and potentially more dangerous to society and we can extend it to the wider convicted population post-release. Legislative change may be required to expand it to sex offenders. The legislation allows it to be used for ordinary criminals.
Will the Minister confirm that a form of dedicated community framework support is needed having regard to the fact that the less that is known of the whereabouts of a sex offender the greater the community risk? Any programme of which the Minister speaks will involve community personnel and particularly the probation service. What role, if any, does he envisage for the probation service in such a regime?
That is why I have set up a project board referrable to the probation service in respect of the specific issue raised in this question, the electronic monitoring of sex offenders. We have issued a major discussion document on the overall management of sex offenders while in prison and post-release. We have the provision for post-release orders for supervision and monitoring. The probation service is fully engaged with this. That is its job.
Garda Equipment.
Joe McHugh
Question:50 Deputy Joe McHugh asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on whether PULSE is operating efficiently; if studies have been carried out comparing PULSE with similar systems in other jurisdictions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21607/09]
I have been assured by the Garda authorities that the Garda information system which includes PULSE is functioning very satisfactorily. The PULSE system is more widely available than ever before, with access by both Garda and civilian personnel to over 2,000 personal computers in 347 locations, including all divisional and district headquarters. Significant investment has been made over the years to improve availability and response times and I am advised that as a result, there has been virtually no unplanned downtime. From the start of 2007 PULSE was amalgamated with other systems including the fixed charge processing system to form a new combined IT system referred to as the Garda information system.
The system continues to be an invaluable tool used extensively by gardaí in the performance of their duties. Since the first phase of the system was developed in 1999, significant upgrades have been carried out to provide for, inter alia, new functionalities such as those arising from the introduction of new legislation, new business requirements and the automation of manual processes to improve efficiency and effectiveness. For example, the last release of the system in November 2008 included provision for the electronic transfer of summons details to the Courts Service and, in return, the Courts Service makes available court outcomes which are electronically updated onto the system thus removing the need for manual input. It is estimated that this alone has resulted in time savings that equate to at least 70 full-time gardaí. The next release of the system, which will be deployed next month, includes several enhancements in the areas of missing persons, the monitoring of sex offenders and firearms licensing.
The Garda Information Services Centre, GISC, which is based in Castlebar and staffed by civilian personnel, allows gardaí, who would otherwise have to return to their station to input or update incident data, to log the information over the telephone with the GISC, thus releasing Garda resources for visible, front line policing across our communities.
With regard to international comparisons, I am advised that when the concept of the system was being developed, an extensive analysis of systems in other jurisdictions was carried out to ensure that best practices were incorporated into the system. The design approach involved the development of a comprehensive data model which has ensured that the system can be extended as required without the need for extensive redesign and redevelopment. I am assured that the system will continue to be developed to meet the ongoing and future needs of the Garda Síochána.
I welcome the Minister's reply but only 319 divisional and district stations and 24 network locations have PULSE while 384 other stations do not have access to it. Gardaí must have state-of-the-art technology to protect our communities up and down the country. That cannot happen if they do not have access to PULSE.
PULSE is completely out of date and behind the times, and so inefficient that criminals are getting away with their activities. I will cite one example——
The Deputy should ask a question rather than give an example.
In Galway a judge had to apologise to the victim of a serious mugging as the culprit should have been in jail. Had he been there and reoffended within two years of release he would have been jailed but because that had not been put into the PULSE system he got away with his crimes on nine separate occasions. What contingency plans does the Minister have to ensure this does not happen again? What plans does he have to allow input of data into the PULSE system from a remote location?
I do not accept for one minute that the system is outdated. It is not. It is probably one of the most modern available because we have kept it in line with all the best international practice and we can add to it without redesigning the system. Approximately 85% of all incidents originate from the locations in which PULSE is available. More than 13,000 gardaí have direct access to PULSE from the currently networked locations. It was never envisaged that PULSE would be available in every single location. We now have a system feeding into the service centre in Castlebar whereby every garda on the beat has a specially configured mobile telephone through which he or she can directly input information from the beat to that service centre without the need to go back to the office. In the past 12 months that information service centre created 75% of incident reports recorded on PULSE, drawn directly from gardaí on the beat using the specially configured mobile telephones, while the remaining 25% were created at station level. Only one quarter of the information recorded on PULSE comes from stations, the rest comes from the beat. It is a very modern system.
Can the Minister tell us when the PULSE system will have total coverage? Does he have a figure for the cost of the system so far? Is it not the case that it is not possible to examine an input from a particular garda because several gardaí can use the same access code? This weakness has been highlighted. Have any measures been taken to correct it?
The annual running cost of PULSE is €18.5 million. The original cost of the deployment and development of PULSE was €61 million. It was never envisaged that it would be available at every location. It is better that it be available to gardaí on the beat so they can feed information into the system via Castlebar. As I stated, three quarters of all the information that goes onto the PULSE system, which then becomes available and is cross-referenced with the court system, is up to date.
Access to records is being considered by An Garda Síochána. The Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission recommended to the Garda Commissioner that supervisory ranks of An Garda Síochána should regularly monitor the use of PULSE to ensure members adhere to their legal and disciplinary obligations. That is done on an ongoing basis.
Crime Levels.
Jan O'Sullivan
Question:51 Deputy Jan O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the number of licensed handguns, the number of licensed handguns that were reported stolen, and the number of such stolen guns that were subsequently used in crimes in respect of each year from 2002 to date in 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21485/09]
I refer the Deputy to a tabular statement setting out the information sought by him on handguns stolen and licensed for the years 2004 to date when handguns began to be licensed again. The figures show 42 weapons classified as handguns have been stolen in the period in question. The current number of licensed handguns is approximately 1,800.
I am advised by the Garda authorities that stolen firearms are used in the course of the commission of other criminal offences. Since not all stolen firearms used in the commission of offences are recovered, obviously it is not possible to say precisely how many formerly legally held handguns have been used in the commission of criminal offences. However, common sense suggests they are stolen for a purpose that is likely to be either to trade in them or to use them in the commission of offences. As I said on Second Stage of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous) Provisions Bill last week, stolen handguns have, by definition, fallen into the hands of criminals, in the first instance at least the criminals who have stolen them.
I have consistently tried not to overstate the effect of a handgun ban on the activities of criminal gangs. That is why substantial resources, including those provided under Operation Anvil, have been devoted to trying to track down illegal guns. Approximately 2,400 illegally held weapons have been recovered as part of that operation. As I stated previously, we have increased the budget for the operation this year by €1 million. It would be folly to suppose that the issue of legally held handguns falling into the wrong hands can be ignored.
It has been made clear, including by me, that the reasons for a handgun ban are much broader that supposed. In particular, I have made it clear that I do not wish a handgun culture to take hold in Ireland. While I understand the representations that have been made to many Deputies, including me, arguing against my proposals, I note that the Chief Inspector of the Garda Síochána has endorsed my approach, drawing on her very considerable experience of policing in the United States. The Garda Commissioner has also done so on many occasions.
The tragic reality is that, in various parts of the world, even in recent times, there has been a series of mass killings involving legally held guns. This has forced other jurisdictions to review their laws on handguns. If such a dreadful event were to take place here, I have no doubt the debate on a handgun ban would be over. My approach is to adopt measures designed to prevent such a tragedy rather than respond belatedly in its aftermath.
|
2003-04 |
2004-05 |
2005-06 |
2006-07 |
2007-08 |
2008-09 |
|
1 |
370 |
948 |
1,368 |
1,895 |
1,803 |
|
2003-04 |
2004-05 |
2005-06 |
2006-07 |
2007-08 |
2008-09 |
|
3 |
7 |
10 |
7 |
7 |
8 |
1 The number of handguns, recorded on PULSE, for which a firearm certificate has been issued for the years 2004 to 2009 (to 1 April 2009).
2 Between 2004 and 2009, 42 handguns are recorded as stolen.
We all share the Minister's objective but the logic of it is that unless one bans all guns, one cannot be sure some deranged person will not be able to access a weapon that could inflict great harm at any time. Has the Minister any evidence that handguns leaked from legitimately licensed sports or gun clubs have been used in a fatal killing? I agree with him that there is a problem with the use of guns, especially by criminal gangs fighting for supremacy in order to avail of the profits from the drugs trade in particular. Is it not the case, however, that their weapons, in the main, seem to be sourced outside the jurisdiction where they source the drugs, and that the number of handguns leaked from properly supervised, licensed and vetted sports clubs is very small compared to the number of illegal handguns in the jurisdiction?
As I stated in my reply, I regard these two issues as separate. I do not regard what I am trying to do in respect of licensed handguns as the silver bullet or even part of the bullet to solve the issue of gangland crime and illegally held arms. Forty-two weapons that are regarded as handguns have been stolen since 2004. I do not have figures as to whether they have been used in the commission of offences but that is not the point. There are those who are trying to suggest that the Government is trying in some way to solve the problems of gangland crime and murder by the handgun ban. It is not; rather, it is trying to respond to the court decision that overturned the ban, which obtained for decades, on holding legally held handguns. Given the exponential increase in the number of legally held handguns as a result of a series of court cases, particularly the one in 2004, it is incumbent on the Oireachtas to decide by way of policy whether it wants, in households around the country, small weapons that are reasonably easy to obtain. I say this based on experience. We know the position on shotguns, for example. There are thousands of these available but, if one were to extend Deputy Rabbitte's logic, one would be banning ordinary household knives because they are potentially dangerous weapons. It depends on the circumstances in each case.
Having a licensed handgun in a house affords——
I want to allow Deputy Carey to ask a brief supplementary question.
——more opportunities for it to be used in circumstances that the holder might not envisage, such as a domestic dispute.
Is it not the same for a shotgun?
It is the same for a shotgun but we are where we are in respect of shotguns.
I call Deputy Carey.
I am not saying we should take shotguns out of the system. We are where we are——
Will Members please have regard to the Chair?
We should not allow the number of handguns to increase exponentially.
Will the Minister have regard to the Chair also? I am trying to allow Deputies to have an input. I call Deputy Carey.
I am sorry.
The problem clearly is not legally held handguns but illegally held handguns. What steps is the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform taking to rid this State of illegally held handguns, which represent the real problem?
I answered that in my reply. Operation Anvil, since its inception, has taken in thousands of extra handguns. While I have been criticised for budgetary reductions elsewhere this year because of the constrained financial circumstances, I have increased the money available for Operation Anvil. It is particularly earmarked for removing illegal weapons and other weapons from the system. Some 2,400 have been confiscated by the Garda as a result of the operation. I increased the budget from €20 million last year to €21 million this year.
Prison Building Programme.
Jim O'Keeffe
Question:52 Deputy Jim O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on whether the purchase of Thornton Hall, County Dublin, was ill advised and bad value; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21283/09]
I am satisfied the purchase of the site at Thornton Hall in north County Dublin will prove to be have been a prudent investment for the taxpayer over the lifetime of the prison project. The Thornton development is a major capital project for the Irish Prison Service that will meet the service's needs well into the future. It should be considered in that context. The Government was acquiring a site for the largest penal complex in the State, not an agricultural farm, and analogies with agricultural investments are not appropriate in this context.
The development of new prison facilities at Thornton Hall should be considered in the context of the substantial cost of refurbishing Mountjoy Prison, which, if completed, would not provide an adequate number of new prison spaces to meet current demand, nor would it future-proof the development in capacity terms. There were practical operational problems associated with a major refurbishment programme in an operational prison. Due to its location and limited site footprint of approximately 20 acres, it is extremely difficult to provide the type of security measures required to secure the Mountjoy complex against drugs and weapons being thrown into the prison yard or to provide the range of work training and other facilities required in a modern prison system.
The Government remains firmly committed to replacing Mountjoy Prison with modern prison accommodation at Thornton Hall. It is my intention to bring comprehensive new proposals to the Government in a matter of weeks setting out how we can proceed to build a new, modern, regime-oriented and cost-effective prison complex at Thornton Hall. Following consideration of these proposals by Government, I will make a public announcement on the matter.
I notice the Minister was careful in his choice of words when he said that this purchase "will prove to have been a prudent investment". Like me, the Minister has been a practising solicitor. The 150 acres at Thornton Hall comprised a farm. I referred to it at the time as the dearest farm in Europe. Surely the Minister is not standing over the purchase of farmland at €200,000 per acre. Of all the incidents of squander-mania that we had at the time, this was one of the largest excesses. I accept that the current Minister was not involved in the purchase, but would he now accept that this was crazy money for a place that was zoned as agricultural land and used as a farm?
With regard to the €30 million that was spent — the equivalent of €200,000 per acre — and a further €10 million that has been spent on providing access, if this project were not to proceed and if the Minister was doing an audit of State property, what value would he place on this property? What is the current value? Would he get €20,000 per acre for it today?
It is not for me to speculate about the current value. The cost of the site at the time of purchase was €29.9 million, which was largely offset by the sale of prison lands at Shanganagh Castle, County Dublin. Thus, it was legitimate use of the existing prison stock in order to buy new stock. Further sums totalling approximately €11.7 million were expended on the project, including professional fees of €6.8 million, as I explained in the answer to the private notice question last week. There were two High Court actions challenging the process, and site preparation and surveys were carried out at a cost of €2.7 million. Landscaping cost €400,000 while security cost €500,000. The access road, which had to be developed because of lobbying from the local community, cost €1.3 million.
With regard to the cost of the site, we are talking about a large area of 150 acres. Deputy Rabbitte said last time that it was a rural site. It is ten miles from O'Connell Street and is literally beside the airport. It is beside the confluence of a number of major motorways.
The Minister is valuing it now, when it suits him.
The 150-acre site cost approximately €199,000 per acre. It was more for agricultural land, but if it had been zoned as residential land it would have been valued at much more, perhaps €1 million per acre at that time. There was no other suitable site as close to Dublin city centre. The project team considered 30 different sites and this was regarded as the best value given its proximity to Dublin. I do not accept the Deputy's point. It will be an investment for the future, particularly——
There are a number of Deputies offering so I ask Members to keep their contributions brief.
——in view of the fact that the Government is adamant that it is proceeding with this project.
Why does the Minister keep trotting out the sale of Shanganagh as an excuse for allowing the taxpayer to be ripped off in the purchase of Thornton Hall? I do not understand how it is all right that we paid €200,000 an acre for farmland because Shanganagh was worth a lot of money. Does this mean it does not matter that we were ripped off in this fashion?
With regard to the work that was to go ahead on the site, is it the case that the Prison Service sought additional construction valued at €30 million and that the preferred bidder was prepared to bear this cost? Is it the case that the preferred bidder submitted slightly altered specifications that would allow the price to come in at €40 million less while maintaining the standard of the recent extension to Maghaberry Prison, but this was rejected?
Why is the Minister defending the purchase of this farm? Was this not, as I said the last day, the biggest claim jump since the Yukon? Why should we spend €200,000 per acre for farmland in a rural area? I saw the cattle grazing on the site when I went out to visit it. It is beside a small rural school with seven or eight houses around it in a typical rural setting. The people who did such things and spent the kind of money the Government spent over the last 15 years should themselves be candidates for incarceration. It is outrageous.
I do not accept that for one minute. As I said, this was the best site available with reasonable proximity to Dublin city. People such as the Deputies would complain if this prison were in the middle of nowhere, but it is not. It is contiguous with the confluence of a number of motorways, two miles from the M50 and ten miles from the city centre. It is an extremely good site.
I explained in my answer to the private notice question — this was accepted by the members of the Committee of Public Accounts who considered the issue — that the Prison Service was correct in not doing this deal in secrecy. It clearly indicated to the people it was dealing with——
That is not true. The Comptroller and Auditor General pointed out that a proper competition would have allowed the site to be acquired for much less.
Yes, but he suggested, as I remember, that it would have been purchased far more cheaply if it had contacted an auctioneer and allowed him or her to find a site.
He did indeed.
However, that would not have been transparent and it would have been unfair to the local people——
Since when did the Minister become so concerned about transparency?
——who would have woken up one morning to find that the State had purchased, out of the blue, a property on which it proposed to build a prison. No matter where the prison is put there will be people who will object.
They wake up a lot of mornings with no prison there.
However, the Prison Service did it in an open and transparent way.
Perhaps the Government should have sent out Deputy Woods. Then we would have had transparency.
Allow the Minister to continue.
Clearly, the type of information the Deputies have to hand is coming from some location. They seem prone to criticising people outside this House who are involved in consortiums and tender for projects.
When did I criticise them?
I do not know the type of figures the Deputies are referring to or the discussions involved. All I know, as I said on the private notice question, is that when we made a decision based on the final offer made by the consortium for the whole project, it would have cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions over the 25 years of repayments, and that the figure was 30% more than when the preferred bidder was taken on. We cannot get away from that.
The Minister has not dealt with the point about why money should be thrown away on a farm merely because money had become available from the disposal of State property.
I am not saying that.
It was part of the Minister's response that money became available from the sale of Shanganagh. It does not matter where the money came from. The cost of the site was four or five times the amounts being paid at the time. I investigated the issue carefully and found that alternative sites were available. A farm of bigger size, equally if not better suited to the purpose than Thornton Hall, went at auction for €5 million. Does he accept the reply given at the time by his predecessor, former Deputy Michael McDowell, who said he had no indication from the estate agents that the price could be regarded as exorbitant? They were getting fees from the deal. This raises issues as to whether these estate agents should have been engaged on behalf of the State.
The Prison Service was using the estate properly. Shanganagh was an outdated prison and did not have the type of prisoner capable of going into it. The sale was good value. More times than not agencies of the State come to the Department of Finance looking for resources but the Department was able to purchase this, not just because it got money from Shanganagh.
There was no need to blow the money.
They were able to roll over that money and purchase another site. Obviously, it had to negotiate the best price in the interests of the taxpayer.
That is a ridiculous defence.
That is what the Department did given the constraints it had, rather than going surreptitiously to buy a site, getting it perhaps for less, and then announcing to the public that it was going to be the site of a prison. It was open and upfront and, because of that, the people who owned the site knew exactly who was buying it.
The Deputy is right that I was not involved but the project team looked at this as one of 30 sites.
Will the owners be asked to buy it back?
The recommendation was this was the best value, given the proximity to Dublin.
The Minister would not get one tenth of the price paid.
The Minister should have sent Deputy Michael Woods down with Michael McDowell. There more would have been more transparency and value for money.
If the Department was a private entity, the whole project would be handed over to NAMA.
Deputy Rabbitte has a thing about Deputy Woods; he even referred to him at his 60th birthday party.
Deputy Rabbitte must allow the Minister to reply to the last question.
He is like one of those Japanese soldiers emerging from the jungle years after the end of the Second World War, waving his sword in the air.
The Minister should give the option to buy the land back at €10,000 an acre.
I thought he had a thing about me.
I like the Minister.
If the House continues to ignore the Chair, I will adjourn questions.
Prison Accommodation.
John Perry
Question:53 Deputy John Perry asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the action he has taken arising from reports that paramilitary prisoners are engaging in military display and training in Portlaoise Prison; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21624/09]
Billy Timmins
Question:62 Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on reports of special category status for paramilitary prisoners at Portlaoise Prison; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21632/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:108 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if his attention has been drawn to the claims made at the recent conference of an association (details supplied) that paramilitary prisoners in Portlaoise maximum security prison enjoy a relaxed regime in which they can hold military style parades, have murals on the wall, and order in food from outside; the reason these prisoners are treated differently from other prisoners in custody; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21472/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 53, 62 and 108 together.
The reports referred to are greatly exaggerated. The correct situation is that paramilitary prisoners are located in the maximum security Portlaoise Prison which, in addition to the usual perimeter security, has armed military presence. Subversive prisoners in Portlaoise Prison have a somewhat different regime from other prisoners due to historical and political reasons. Deputies are aware of many of these reasons and also the inherent danger and inevitable problems that would have ensued if subversive prisoners had been forced to mix with the general prisoner population. Some of the subversive groupings currently located in Portlaoise Prison have had a presence there since the height of the troubles and long before the Good Friday Agreement.
I have asked the Department to consult with the Director General of the Irish Prison Service regarding the appropriateness of the regime applicable to subversive prisoners in the light of developing circumstances.
There are 50 subversive prisoners in Portlaoise Prison. Each of these prisoners is subject to the prison rules and must comply with the instructions of the governor and his staff. For example, cell searches take place when ordered and prisoners on these landings have been disciplined for breaches of the prison rules. Any suggestion that these landings are being run by the prisoners as opposed to the management is not true and there is no "military training" taking place. There is a short ceremony which takes place each Easter, when the various groupings gather in the exercise yard and read out the Proclamation associated with the Easter Rising. The process is supervised by staff at all times. Each evening prior to lock up, the prisoners stand in front of their cells before all entering their cells at the same time. Again this is all done under the supervision of prison staff.
The facility to purchase goods over and above what is available in the tuck shop is not a new concession and has been available to subversive prisoners in Portlaoise Prison since 1973. Anything ordered into the prison is, of course, subject to the normal rules and regulations in place for good order and security such as searching and the items purchased are not paid for by the State. The murals on the walls of the landings have been in place since the late 1970s and 1980s.
When the Minister says reports of what is happening in the high security wing in Portlaoise Prison are an exaggeration, will he enlighten himself and intervene in this most unsatisfactory situation that is lowering the already low morale of those working in the prison? Where is the exaggeration in a senior republican having four cells to himself? Where is the exaggeration in republican prisoners enjoying what the Minister himself admitted was "a most relaxed prison regime"? There are military style parades on a regular basis and there are murals on the walls that have not been removed by the prison authorities.
Could the Minister confirm that flaps have been placed on closed circuit television cameras to ensure a regime that cannot be observed through the cameras? Will he confirm that visitors to the republican prisoners and convicted drug dealers in the high security wing do not have to undergo the same stringent search regime as those visiting ordinary prisoners using sniffer dogs?
Visitors to republican prisoners are subject to searches similar to other visitors.
No, they are not.
I am informed by the Prison Service that the same search regimes will be introduced to all prisons in the near future.
The newspaper reports that a particular prisoner in Portlaoise Prison has the use of four cells are a distortion of the facts. He has the same cell as all other prisoners. There are two unoccupied cells on the same landing that are used for craft and education. The reports are incorrect.
Despite comments in the media, much of the discontent in Portlaoise Prison is because of my recent decision to stop any chance of temporary release in the aftermath of the murders of the two British soldiers and the PSNI officer. As a result of that decision, there was a significant ramping up of agitation by prisoners in Portlaoise Prison to the extent that they went on a no wash protest for a number of weeks. That protest ended last week without any concessions.
Written answers follow Adjournment Debate.