Vol. 701 No. 2
6 Deputy Richard Bruton asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the number of prisoners who were given temporary release at Christmas 2009 who are still at large; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5698/10]
A total of 176 prisoners were granted varying periods of temporary release at Christmas 2009 under the Criminal Justice Act 1960, as amended by the Criminal Justice (Temporary Release of Prisoners) Act 2003. This figure represents approximately 4% of the prisoner population at that time.
The periods of release granted to these prisoners varied from a few hours up to seven nights. The overriding concern when considering the applications was the safety of the public. While the obvious additional factors taken into account when considering temporary release at Christmas are compassionate and humane considerations, before any determination on the granting of temporary release to a prisoner is made a number of factors have to be taken into account. These include the nature and gravity of the offence to which the sentence being served by the prisoner relate; the period of the sentence served by the prisoner and period left to serve; the potential threat to the safety and security of the public should the prisoner be released; the prisoner's previous criminal record; the risk of the prisoner failing to return to the prison at the expiration of the period of temporary release; any reports or recommendation made by the governor, the Garda Síochána, a probation officer, or any other person who may be of assistance in coming to a decision as to whether to grant temporary release; the risk that the prisoner might commit an offence during any period of temporary release; the risk of the prisoner failing to comply with the conditions of temporary release; and the likelihood that a period of temporary release might assist the prisoner's eventual full release and their reintegration into society or improve his or her prospects of obtaining employment.
As of 1 February 2010, four prisoners out of the 176 prisoners released at Christmas have failed to return to custody. Experience has shown that it is likely that these offenders will shortly be returned to custody by the Garda Síochána to complete their sentences.
The Prison Service utilises temporary release as part of its programme of sentence management. Temporary release is used to facilitate the rehabilitation and reintegration of prisoners into society. Rather than releasing prisoners straight into the community at the end of their sentence, it is in everyone's interest that prisoners who do not pose a high risk to the public are reintroduced into society in a planned and structured way. The generally accepted view is that the risk to the community would be reduced by planned re-integration of offenders compared to their return to the community on the completion of their full sentence.
I thank the Minister for his reply. The fact that four prisoners remain at large raises a serious public safety concern. Is the Minister concerned about this? Do these people pose a threat to the safety of the public? If this continues to be a problem, will the Minister give a commitment to the House that he will speak to the director of the Prison Service? Will he keep the matter under review?
It is a matter of concern that four people are still at large and when they are returned to prison there will be consequences for them because, to a certain extent, it puts into question the entire system of giving temporary release on compassionate grounds at Christmas, which is a time-honoured practice. I would hazard a guess on their particular circumstances that, when considering any conditions that they might seek in the future, the fact that they absconded would have to be borne in mind. By and large over recent decades practice has shown that the vast majority of prisoners return to continue to serve their sentences. It is an issue we keep under review.
The Minister provided the figures for Christmas. To what did the Christmas release bring the figures for December? The figures I have from the Prison Service suggest that 174 prisoners were on temporary release in January 2008. The latest date for which I have figures is July 2009 when it had increased to 614. That seems to suggest——
For Christmas?
No, July 2009.
The question is on Christmas release and the figure of 174 is for Christmas release only.
Yes, I appreciate that. My question is to what did that bring the figure for December. What was the total figure in December?
For temporary release?
Yes.
I do not have the figures for that but I can give comparisons.
Question No. 56 which I tabled asks for those figures but perhaps the Minister's advisers did not think we would reach it——
Despite the Leas-Cheann Comhairle quickening me up.
We cannot anticipate the questions.
——and therefore they did not bother their barney telling the Minister, or the Minister will not bother his barney telling me.
The point is that the Minister is using temporary release to deal with overcrowding.
That is the point.
No, it is not. In 2004, some 294 prisoners were released at Christmas, while in 2005, some 280 were released. The figure for 2006 was 230, while it was 138 for 2007. For 2008, it was 107 and for 2009 it was 174. The figures are reducing. Last Christmas, the number we released was just over half of what was released at Christmas 2004.
Is the Minister more compassionate in July than he is at Christmas? Perhaps we should move Christmas to July.
This has nothing to do with July.
In July, 614 people——
I am giving figures for Christmas and in 2004 we released 294 prisoners and in 2009 we released 174.
We understand that.
If the Minister could take himself out of the role of Santa Claus for a moment — I know he sees himself in that light——
I do not, actually.
Please.
How many people were on temporary release at the end of December 2009?
The Minister indicated he does not have that figure.
I cannot give the figure for 31 December 2009 but the overall figure for 2009 is approximately 12%, which I must say——
That it compares very favourably to when my party was last in Government.
I know the Deputy hates being reminded of it——
Now can we skip that paragraph? I have heard it every time.
——but it is going to come whether he likes it or not if I get the figures for when he was in office——
I would have thought the Minister had them handy in his file.
The figure for temporary release in 1994, when I think the Deputy was in government if he can remember back that far——
1994 was a particularly bad year.
——was 22% and I remind the Deputy that today it is 12%. In 1995, it was 20%, while in 1996 it was 17%——
We did not have any prisoners because we did not have crime like we do now.
In 1997 it was 19%. In every year Deputy Rabbitte was in office the figure was way higher than it is today.
I do not think the Deputy was in office in 1994.
I remember.
Do these figures include the two prisoners from Castlerea released the week before last to go to a funeral and who disappeared from a graveyard in Roscommon and have not been seen since?
I must disappoint the Deputy; they have been seen since as they are back in custody.
Thanks be to God; I thought they fell into the grave.
It is a bit like the promotions issue; the Deputy obviously does not read the newspapers.
I asked the Minister to name the people involved in promotions. His friends are putting it in the newspapers for the Minister.
7 Deputy Simon Coveney asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the drug rehabilitation programmes available in each of the prisons here, including St. Patrick’s Institution; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5709/10]
Over the past ten years, there has been a significant stepping up of prison drug rehabilitation programmes with the objective of seeking to reduce demand for drugs within the prison system through education, treatment and rehabilitation services for drug-related prisoners. Particular initiatives include the provision of detoxification, methadone maintenance, education programmes, addiction counselling and drug therapy programmes coupled with work, training and education access. Rehabilitation addresses needs beyond the physical management of addiction and also endeavours to equip individuals with life and vocational skills that may help them reintegrate into society on discharge.
Drug rehabilitation programmes for prisoners involve a significant multidimensional input by a diverse range of general and specialist services provided by the Prison Service and visiting statutory and non-statutory organisations. At present, any person entering prison giving a history of opiate use and testing positive for opioids is offered a medically-assisted symptomatic detoxification if clinically indicated. Patients can, as part of the assessment process, discuss with health care staff other treatment options. These may include stabilisation on methadone maintenance for persons who wish to continue on maintenance while in prison and when they return to the community on release. Prisoners who on committal are engaged in a methadone substitution programme in the community will in the main have their methadone substitution treatment continued while in custody.
Mountjoy, Dochas, Cloverhill, Wheatfield, Midlands and Portlaoise Prisons and St. Patrick's Institution offer methadone maintenance and detoxification treatment. Merchants Quay Ireland provides a full range of counselling services to these prisons. Loughan House, Shelton Abbey, Cork and Castlerea Prisons are also serviced by Merchants Quay Ireland who provide addiction counselling services which are in the main focused on alcohol and cannabis addictions and are abstinence driven. In Limerick Prison there are two models of counselling in operation — an abstinence based model and a harm reduction model. The counselling service is provided by Merchants Quay Ireland and ALJEFF Treatment Centre. Methadone substitution treatment is provided if clinically indicated. Merchants Quay Ireland and Coolmine provide a counselling service to the training unit.
It is the intention of the Prison Service, in line with its drugs policy and strategy entitled Keeping Drugs Out of Prisons, to continue the expansion and enhancement of drug treatment services across the prison system and to reduce the demand for drugs within the prison system through enhanced security measures as well as education, treatment and rehabilitation services for drug-addicted prisoners.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The drugs policy and strategy has witnessed the expansion of drug treatment programmes with the further recruitment of nurses, psychologists and addiction counsellors, as well as other staff including prison officers. The expansion of these services is being achieved in partnership with community based services and has brought a significant improvement in the range, quality and availability of drug treatment service in the prisons.
Specific developments to date include the awarding of a contract for the provision of addiction counsellor services to Merchants Quay Ireland. Addiction counselling services are available in all but one prison providing an average of 1,500 prisoner contacts per month. Other developments include the allocation of additional nurse officers and prison officers to dedicated drug treatment teams in a number of prisons with significant needs, improving service quality in prisons; the provision of specialist sessions in addiction psychiatry, significantly improving the quality, co-ordination and availability of drug treatment in prisons; and in Mountjoy Prison a programme has been initiated involving four dedicated addiction nurses, a drug treatment pharmacy service and a clinical addiction team with consultant oversight, which has resulted in a more streamlined service, better assessment and throughcare outcomes.
The reality is that our prisons are awash with drugs. In 2004, the former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Michael McDowell, famously promised to rid our jails of drugs within 18 months. That did not happen. People are entering our jails without drug problems and leaving addicted to hard drugs. The only way to break this cycle is through proper rehabilitation for young offenders such as the inmates of St. Patrick's institution.
Has the Deputy a question?
I was staggered to learn that only one wing of that institution is drug free. What plans has the Minister devised to improve the rehabilitation services available to young offenders?
Throughout the prison estate, 90 workshops deal with more than 800 prisoners daily.
I am asking about drugs.
These workshops provide employment training and education. It is a sad fact of Irish society that a large proportion of those who enter our prisons have drug problems. They have to be dealt with as humanely as possible while they are in prison. It is fair to say they get the same, if not better, rehabilitation treatment within the prison as they would get outside.
Serious efforts are also ongoing on the security side to ensure drug habits are not fed by people smuggling drugs into prisons. It is a constant battle, as Deputy Charles Flanagan would attest in respect of the prison in his own constituency. The latest technology and sometimes invasive security techniques are deployed at that prison to prevent the smuggling of drugs and mobile telephones.
We had an opportunity recently to visit Midlands Prison and it is fair to say we were very impressed by the testing procedures in place there for drugs and other contraband. However, am I not correct in stating that Midlands Prison is an exception and that similarly stringent security provisions are not deployed in other prisons? Serious problems have arisen in Dublin's prisons in regard to the smuggling of drugs and, sadly, we have to deal with circumstances whereby people who entered prison free of drugs are leaving as addicts.
My experience of the prisons I have visited is that stringent security arrangements are deployed to prevent drug smuggling. The body orifice security scanning chair and other scanning devices are extremely sensitive to drugs and mobile telephones. The Deputy probably visited the newer parts of Midlands Prison but significant investments have also been made on improving security in older wings. However, it is a constant battle because people are devising ever more ingenious methods for smuggling contraband into prisons. Despite what the Deputy may have read, most of recent disturbances in our prisons were caused by the more stringent regime that has been introduced.
In regard to sanctions on prisoners who continue to use drugs in prisons, will the Minister consider the concept of non-contact or screened visits?
I would leave such decisions to Irish Prison Service officials because they are the experts in this area. We endeavour to ensure that prisoners do not lose all contact with outside life and that visits are conducted in as humane a manner as possible. The latest arrangements in Midlands Prison have resulted in a sophisticated operation which prevents smuggling even while keeping visits relatively open for families.
8 Deputy Andrew Doyle asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the action he has taken following a recent incident whereby a Slovakian national entering the jurisdiction unwittingly carried explosives on a flight from Poprad-Tatry to Dublin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5717/10]
The circumstances surrounding the import of an explosive substance to Ireland from the Slovak Republic on 2 January 2010 are a matter of serious concern to me and to the Government.
The background to this incident is that the Dublin Airport authorities contacted the Garda Síochána on 5 January 2010 to inform it that they had received a communication purporting to be from the Slovak authorities apparently to the effect that, due to an error during an airport security test exercise on 2 January 2010 at Poprad-Tatry Airport, a sample package containing explosives was left in the luggage of a passenger who boarded a flight for Dublin.
Gardaí moved swiftly to retrieve the explosive substance and, with the assistance of an Army explosive ordnance disposal team, ensured that it did not pose any further danger to the public. It emerged that the passenger, who had resided in Ireland for a number of years, was completely unaware when he was travelling to Dublin that the sample had been placed in his luggage.
I spoke directly with the Slovak Minister of Interior, Mr. Kalinak, about the incident and he gave me an unequivocal apology. I conveyed to him in the clearest possible terms my deep concern about the situation which had arisen. It is utterly unacceptable that explosive material should have been placed on an unsuspecting passenger in this way. I had occasion to meet the official Slovak representative at the recent meeting of EU Justice and Interior Ministers and he conveyed to me the regret of the Slovak authorities and apologised for the incident. He also indicated that measures have been put in place in Slovakia to avoid a recurrence.
The Garda Commissioner has appointed a detective chief superintendent to inquire into all the circumstances surrounding the incident. That inquiry is ongoing and a report is awaited. Until the report is available, it is not possible to say for definite how the error occurred in Slovakia and what actions were taken by the authorities there when it was discovered. I have received an assurance from the Slovak Minister that his officials will fully co-operate with the Garda inquiry and when the report is completed I will consider what further action, if any, is required on my part.
The Minister will be aware of the serious nature of the matter. I am sure his attention has also been drawn to the fact that his Slovak counterpart narrowly survived a motion of no confidence in the Parliament.
The incident raises a number of serious questions for the Minister. I ask him to indicate to the House the timeline and terms of reference set out for the Garda investigation and report. I would have thought that it is at an advanced stage at this point and that we would be in a position to examine it in its entirety.
With regard to consultation between the Minister and the Minister for Transport on security matters, I note that the proposal to introduce full body scanners at airports has been given a positive reception. They will be aware, however, that body scanners operate on passengers who are departing rather than those who are arriving. If security measures in countries such as Slovakia are as lax as this incident would indicate, I suggest that we consider reviewing security at points of entry to the State. What steps have been taken by way of discussions with appropriate authorities since this incident on the matter of improving security at points of entry?
The internationally accepted and adopted approach to security is that passenger and baggage screening takes place on departure rather than on arrival. Every country relies on the security arrangements in the departing country. It is accepted that there are some states where security is not as it should be. That is something I raised at the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting in the context of the wider discussion of security, body scanners and other types of security measures that could be implemented.
What happened in Slovakia was a bit of an aberration. I understand it was a relatively small airport that has adequate security but a mistake was made due to human error. That is something about which we should all be conscious given the fact that groups such as al-Qaeda are using aeroplanes to carry out dastardly operations. It is something the international community could consider more closely. I understand the European Commission has asked the Slovakian authorities for a report. The remit of the detective garda is to investigate all of the circumstances surrounding this incident, both in terms of what happened in Slovakia and in this country. The Garda acted expeditiously and properly once it was notified on 5 January that this incident had taken place.
I am sure no blame at all attaches to the Garda Síochána in this matter. I do not understand why investigations into whatever aspect of this kind of matter take so long in this country. When matters arise that require to be investigated in the public interest, the public has long forgotten what the issue was by the time a report is made. That seems to be a deliberate tactic of the public administrative-political system.
Arising from his discussions with the Slovakian ambassador and any other exchanges that have taken place between the authorities of the two states, is the Minister satisfied that they appreciate the enormity of the negligence demonstrated? Do they appreciate the implications for the young man who might well have lost his life, or that the human error, as the Minister described it, might have blown an aeroplane out of the sky, and that this young man might have killed his neighbours in Dublin when he came back to reside in this country? Do the Slovakian authorities appreciate the gravity of what the Minister has described as a "human error"?
They very much do. As Deputy Flanagan outlined, there was significant political upheaval in Slovakia following the incident. It was one of the reasons the Minister for the Interior, who happens to be the Deputy Prime Minister of Slovakia was not able to attend the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting, and that the ambassador to Spain attended as his representative.
The Slovakian ambassador to Ireland immediately contacted my Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs to apologise profusely. I understand the gravity and the enormity of the situation. The Deputy is correct; if things had gone wrong at this end people might have been killed. The concept of the surreptitious planting of devices such as this on a person, even as an exercise, is not something that should be countenanced. I understand that in this instance the device of itself was not capable of exploding. I understand also that the Slovakian authorities have moved to ensure it does not happen ever again and that it is banned in their society. From my own knowledge, I know that it does not happen in this country.
9 Deputy Fergus O’Dowd asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the reason for the delay in appointing the Legal Services Ombudsman; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5748/10]
54 Deputy Brian O’Shea asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform when he will appoint a Legal Services Ombudsman; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5600/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 and 54 together.
As a preliminary to appointment by the Government of the Legal Services Ombudsman in accordance with section 5 of the Legal Services Ombudsman Act 2009, my Department is in dialogue with the Department of Finance on the details of the arrangements for the appointment of the ombudsman and the establishment of his or her office. My Department also continues to be in consultation with the Bar Council and the Law Society who will be responsible for funding of the office.
The Act of 2009 specifies certain policies and principles in regard to the levy to be paid by the Bar Council and the Law Society to cover the approved expenses of the ombudsman. My Department is considering the form the regulations should take for the purposes of the Act. Consultation between my Department and relevant interests on the making of such regulations is also a necessary feature of that process. It is important that the office be established on the most effective cost basis.
I hope to be in a position soon to announce the details of the arrangements for the appointment of the ombudsman and the establishment of the office, subject to securing early agreement with the parties mentioned above.
The Minister will be aware of the fact that it is some months now since the appropriate legislation passed through both Houses of the Oireachtas. It was my expectation and that of the members of the public who have an interest in the matter that the appointment would have taken place smartly. What is the reason for the delay? I cannot understand how it could take almost a year to conclude the matter. It should be a relatively straightforward endeavour having regard to the planning that was undertaken. It was my assumption that in accordance with the legislation significant planning was undertaken by the Department and that once the legislation was passed it would be implemented. The situation is all the more important given the high number of complaints against members of the legal profession that are being made on a regular basis, especially in regard to property transactions that might have unravelled in the context of the change in valuations of property and people wishing to disengage from property deals, the consequences of which are all too stark for themselves and their finances.
Go raibh maith agat.
This is an urgent matter. I ask the Minister to proceed with this appointment as quickly as possible.
I call an tAire.
There was an expectation——
The Deputy should please allow the Minister to reply.
——that an early appointment would be made.
I call an tAire.
The legislation was in the pipeline for many years.
Please, Deputy.
We were assured the commencement order would issue——
I wish to allow the Minister to answer the question.
——and that the ombudsman would be appointed.
To avoid asking a question, I agree with the sentiments expressed by Deputy Flanagan and I look forward to the Minister's reply.
Lest it would go out from this House that there is not a very sophisticated paraphernalia of legislation in place on the investigation of complaints against solicitors and barristers, there is, since the Solicitors Act 1954, and there have been many legislative changes, including in 2008 whereby complaints can be made against the legal profession.
This was to herald a new era.
We have the independent Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and cases can be referred to the High Court.
That is all well known.
It is apparent from the media in recent times that a significant number of such cases have been brought to court. A significant body of work is required to set up the Legal Services Ombudsman's office under the legislation. As the Deputy is aware, section 19 of the Act specifies that the costs do not accrue to the Exchequer, but come from both branches of the legal profession. At the same time we have to be sure that the running costs are reasonably efficient and cost effective. We also have to liaise with the Department of Finance on the type of arrangements vis-à-vis remuneration, but also in regard to the appointment. As far as I am concerned, and as I indicated to my office, under the legislation the appointment cannot be someone from either profession, which means that the appointment will be an open and transparent arrangement——
Not at all. The Minister is burning oil.
——whereby people can apply and ultimately the Government will have to make a decision on it.
Does Deputy Flanagan wish to ask a supplementary question?
In fairness, the Ceann Comhairle was very anxious to curtail the questioning on this issue.
No, I was not.
He tells me that he has no latitude——
The Deputy is allowed one minute for a supplementary question. I allowed him two and a half minutes. There are normally six minutes in total for a question. There is additional time for this and, therefore, there is plenty of time to ask supplementary questions. I will let the Deputy in again.
I hope we get to Question No. 10. Perhaps there will be injury time.
When will the appointment be made?
As soon as possible.
10 Deputy P. J. Sheehan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the changes he proposes in the matter of the operation of the Office of the Wards of Court; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5763/10]
The mental capacity Bill, which the Government's legislation programme indicates is due for publication in this session, represents the Government's policy in relation to reform of the wards of courts system. Details of the Bill were published in the form of heads in September 2008 and they may be accessed on my Department's website. The Office of Wards of Court will be replaced by the establishment of the office of the public guardian. It is intended that the Bill will provide a modern statutory framework governing decision-making on behalf of adult persons who lack capacity. The legislation will contain guiding principles to assist carers as well as the court in making decisions on behalf of the person. The statutory guiding principles will require that any act done or decision made on behalf of the person must be in that person's best interests.
The Bill will establish that there is a presumption of capacity and that no intervention in the person's decision-making will take place unless it is necessary having regard to the individual needs and circumstances of the person. A person shall not be treated as unable to make a decision unless all practicable steps to help them make a decision have been taken without success. The Bill further provides that any act done or decision made under it must be done or made in a way which is the least restrictive of a person's rights and freedoms. The Bill will create a new role of personal guardian. Where a person has been found to lack capacity, a personal guardian can be appointed by the court to make decisions concerning his or her personal welfare or property and affairs. The primary function of the office of public guardian will be to supervise and monitor the exercise of duties and responsibilities by court appointed personal guardians.
What steps does the Minister propose to take? Members of families of wards of court are expressing concern at the handling of investments made by the courts for the benefit of wards. There is a veil of secrecy and little interaction between those responsible for the maintenance of the investments and the operation of the office and family members who have an interest. It is causing grave disquiet and it needs to be addressed before the legislation is introduced.
Under the Courts Service Act 1998, the Courts Service is independent in the performance of its functions, including in regard to court funds, which are held for the benefit of the wards of court or private funds under its control. The general scheme of the mental capacity Bill provides for the appointment by the court of a person as a personal guardian with a range of functions, including control of the personal finances of an incapacitated person.
That is not the question I asked. Does the Minister accept there is public concern about this issue? What will he do about it?
I cannot share a view on this as this is an independent body, which administers the funds of court as well as can be expected. The proposed legislation provides for the establishment of a court funds office and will include an amendment to the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993 to allow him or her to act as auditor of all court funds, including those of wards of court.
This Minister would find a quango to blame for anything. I am looking forward to getting the job he has because it seems to be a handy number. It is always someone else's fault, not the Minister's.
Hope springs eternal. Fine Gael would never give up this Department to the Labour Party.
In respect of the question Deputy Charles Flanagan asked, that is also the aspect in which I am interested. Has the Minister been immune from the representations we have been getting from families of wards of court? They have relatives who are wards of court and who are in receipt of awards, which have been invested in accordance with whatever is the practice, but they are extremely concerned about the implications over the past year and a half of the serious diminution of the awards in some cases. They are coming to us asking for guidance and help in this regard. I cannot believe that the Minister has not been the subject of the same representations. Will he avoid giving us auld blarney about the 1998 Act? Has he made representations to the Courts Service? Are changes in prospect? Will there be help for these families who find themselves beleaguered in the circumstances I have described?
The Deputy may think an Act passed by the Oireachtas is auld blarney but I do not.
What the Minister has to say about this was auld blarney
It is an honour to serve in the House on behalf of the people passing legislation and I do not regard it as auld blarney nor should the Deputy. He comes in with his auld supercilious blather sometimes trying to, in some way, suggest that, particularly in my context——
I was referring to the Minister, not the legislation.
Answer the question.
I regard my job with seriousness.
The Minister's performance has been terrible today. He only comes into the House once every six weeks to answer questions.
While I run a constituency office, as a Minister I have to adopt a certain attitude regarding issues which I am independent of and that includes those relating to the DPP, the Judiciary and the Courts Service, which has a function in the investment of funds of wards of court under legislation. I have no function in this and, therefore, I can give no opinion on how the funds are administered because that is a matter for the Courts Service under the legislation, not the blarney we pass here.
I would be better off asking an usher.
The Deputy better do that.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
