Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 7 Apr 2011

Vol. 729 No. 4

Criminal Justice (Community Service) (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2011: Second Stage

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter)

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

I am pleased to present this Bill to the House, which is designed to encourage the greater use of community service as an alternative sanction to imprisonment. The first Bill I ever published as a Deputy was the Community Service Bill 1982, the first legislation published in the State to facilitate the courts making community service orders. It is particularly appropriate that the first Bill I am introducing to the House as the Minister for Justice and Equality is legislation to amend our law on community service orders.

The 2011 Bill reflects the commitment set out in the national recovery plan to extend the use of community service orders by introducing a requirement on judges when considering the imposition of a sentence of 12 months or less to consider the alternative sanction of community service first. This is a commitment in the programme for Government as published. Imprisonment — the deprivation of a person's liberty — is the most serious sanction available to the State in punishing a person convicted of a criminal offence. It is rightly regarded as a sentence of last resort.

In the area of penal policy, non-custodial or alternative sanctions are an essential part of the sentencing options available to a court when imposing a sanction on a convicted offender. Many minor offences, while carrying potential sentences of imprisonment, may not warrant a sentence of custody. This is where non-custodial sentencing options form an essential part of the judicial discretion in sentencing. The most common non-custodial sanction used by the courts is the imposition of a fine. Other alternative sanctions include suspended sentences, application of the Probation of Offenders Act, the imposition of a restriction on movement order or the imposition of a community service order. Today we focus on community service orders and encourage their use as an alternative sanction to terms of imprisonment of up to one year.

It was last July when I, as Fine Gael justice spokesperson, first proposed that a greater obligation should be imposed on the courts to make provision for community service orders. In circumstances in which the courts were considering imposing a sentence of 12 months or less in respect of an offence, I suggested that legislation be introduced by the then Government to impose an obligation on the Judiciary to consider automatically community service as an alternative. Some weeks later, the then Minister for Justice and Law Reform, Mr. Dermot Ahern, indicated that the Government would introduce legislation, but it would confine the obligation on the Judiciary in circumstances where sentences of six months or less were being considered. The 2011 Bill is in line with the original proposal made last summer and in accordance with the programme for Government.

Before addressing the Bill in detail, I will set out some background to community service. As an alternative sanction to imprisonment, community service was first introduced under the Criminal Justice (Community Service) Act 1983, the provisions of which reflected those contained in the 1982 Bill. Under that Act, a court may make a community service order in respect of an offender who is over the age of 16 years and has been convicted of a criminal offence for which a sentence of imprisonment would be appropriate. A community service order requires an offender to perform unpaid work for between 40 and 240 hours.

A number of conditions must be met before making an order. A court may not apply a community service order unless satisfied, on the basis of an assessment report of a probation officer, that the offender is a suitable person for the purpose of such an order, appropriate work is available and the offender has consented to the order.

Increasing the use of the community service scheme was one of the main recommendations of the value for money and policy review of the scheme that was published in October 2009. As noted by the review, community service as an alternative sanction to custody achieves several goals benefiting the State, the community and the individual offender. Community service delivers significant financial savings, as it is a considerably cheaper sanction than imprisonment. An analysis of the costs involved indicate that the comparative cost of a community service order is unlikely to exceed 34% of the alternative cost of imprisonment and may be estimated to be as low as 11%-12%. Community service benefits the offenders by diverting them from prison, allowing them to maintain ties with family, friends and community, including continuing in education or employment as the case may be. Community service also offers reparation to the community, which benefits from the unpaid work of those serving these orders.

In this regard, it is worth remarking on some of the projects undertaken in communities throughout the country. In 2009, the community service graffiti removal project was piloted in south County Dublin. Using specialised equipment, it was successful in removing unsightly graffiti in local communities, delivering significant savings for communities and councils and providing a positive and visible benefit for the former. For the offenders, a sense of job satisfaction was developed, particularly given the appreciation shown by the communities for the work done. The positive impact on offenders manifested in consistent attendance, good performance and reductions in warnings. The project was further rolled out to the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council area and expanded in Cork throughout 2010.

Community service has also proven useful in reacting to events in local areas. In late 2009 following significant flooding in Athlone and Ballinasloe, community service assisted in the local response with flood relief and clean up work.

A significant number of community service projects involve environmental improvement programmes such as graffiti removal, picking up litter, gardening and so on. As well as working with local authorities, partnerships are formed with tidy towns groups and others. Since 2007, the probation service has worked in association with Monaghan Tidy Towns to utilise persons on community service. The work carried out under community service may vary from litter picking in housing estates in Carlow to the maintenance of a cemetery in Kilkenny or a cathedral and church yard in Enniscorthy.

Despite such projects, the value for money and policy review identified a significant shortfall in the capacity utilisation of the community service scheme. Nationwide, capacity utilisation was estimated at 33%. This figure is a reflection of the fact that a small number of courts were responsible for the majority of orders made. In 2006, 29 courts of 108 court venues accounted for 80% of the total number of community service orders, with just 12 courts accounting for 60% of the orders. From my inquiries, it clearly remains the case that a significant number of courts and judges only rarely involve themselves in making community service orders. Where community service orders might be more appropriate than short prison sentences, there is a far greater need for them to be applied to the benefit of the community generally in terms of works to be undertaken and persons convicted of offences making reparations to communities for wrongs done without incurring unnecessary expenditure to the public purse.

As a resource for local communities, the importance of community service should not be underestimated and every effort to extend its use should be encouraged. The probation service has been leading the drive to increase the number of persons who could potentially be placed on community service. A new model of delivery was piloted in the Dublin area in 2010 which incorporated new practices and modes of operation, new management systems and increased focus on overall governance and work place utilisation. During the operation of this new model, the number of orders imposed in the Dublin area was up by a third, and it is intended to roll out this model nationwide.

The success of such initiatives is evidenced by the increase in the number of community service orders over the last few years. In 2006, some 1,158 orders were made by the courts and this increased to 1,949 orders in 2010. I do not regard the achieved increase as close to the numbers of community service orders which could properly be made in the context of our criminal justice system.

There continues to be scope for greater use of community service and it is my strong view that community service should be considered where a sentence for a period of imprisonment for up to 12 months is being considered by a court. There has been a significant increase in sentences of up to this period. In 2009, for example, 9,216 persons were committed to sentences of up to one year, representing 85% of committals that year. As these sentences indicate, the offences involved are generally of a minor nature, with 40% for road traffic offences; these offenders should be considered for community service. To that end, the primary purpose of this Bill is to introduce a requirement on the courts to consider imposing a community service order as an alternative to custody in certain circumstances.

The proposed amendment provides that a court, before which a person is convicted and in circumstances where a sentence of up to 12 months would be appropriate, shall consider, as an alternative to that sentence, the imposition of a community service order. This is a specific obligation imposed on the court. The requirement to consider imposing a community service order in such cases will be the primary new feature of the community service process. However, the obligation introduced by this amendment is simply an obligation to consider making a community service order; whether the court proceeds to make an order is entirely a matter for the court. To impose any further obligation on the court would be an inappropriate interference with the judicial function. However, the obligation will ensure that some members of the Judiciary who up to now have failed to necessarily consider the imposition of community service orders in circumstances to which such orders may be more appropriate than the imposition of a short prison sentence may now do so. The decision to impose a community service order will also remain dependent on the satisfaction of the conditions for the imposition of such an order as set out in the 1983 Act and to which I earlier referred.

I will now outline the main provisions of the Bill. Section 2 amends the definitions section of the Criminal Justice (Community Service) Act 1983. The main change in this section is the amended definition of "relevant officer". Under the 1983 Act, a relevant officer is defined as "a probation and welfare officer discharging functions under this Act". This definition has been amended to read "a person who has been assigned by the director of the probation service to discharge functions under this Act and includes a probation officer discharging functions under this Act". In effect, under the new definition, a relevant officer may be a probation officer but may also, for example, be a community service supervisor or a member of the administrative staff of the probation service. The amended definition recognises that a number of functions of a relevant officer under the 1983 Act need not necessarily be carried out by a probation officer. This amendment to the definition of "relevant officer" will facilitate a reduction in any unnecessary administrative burden on probation officers.

I have already outlined the main provision of section 3 of the Bill, namely, to create an obligation on judges, in sentencing for an offence where imprisonment of up to 12 months may be appropriate, to consider imposing a community service order in place of imprisonment. This section introduces further new provisions into the 1983 Act, namely, placing a requirement on a court that considers a particular offender to be a person in respect of whom it may be appropriate to make a community service order, to request an assessment report from the probation and welfare service. This assessment report should be furnished to the court within 28 days. A provision to extend this period is included where there is good reason for doing so and it is in the interests of justice. These provisions essentially reflect existing practice.

Section 3(c) of the Bill proposes a new section 2A to be inserted into the 1983 Act. This new provision will confirm that the requirement under the Bill to consider community service does not affect the power to impose any other orders available to a court which provide for an alternative to sentence of imprisonment. In effect, the provisions of the Act will not preclude the imposition of any alternative sanction to imprisonment such as suspended sentence, application of the Probation Act or restriction on movement orders.

Section 4 of the Bill essentially restates the existing section 4(1) of the 1983 Act with reference to the assessment report under the new section 3(1B) inserted by this Bill. I have already referred to the conditions for the making of a community service order, which are that the court is satisfied that the offender is a suitable person to perform work under an order and arrangements to perform such work can be made. In reaching such a determination, the court will consider the offender's circumstances, the assessment report prepared by a probation officer, and, if necessary, hear evidence from such an officer. In addition, and importantly, the offender must consent to the making of an order.

Section 5 of the Bill restates section 6 of the 1983 Act but includes specific reference to the Circuit Court. While community service orders may be imposed by any court, excluding the Special Criminal Court, they have, until recently, normally been imposed in proceedings before the District Court. However, this form of sanction is increasingly being used by the Circuit Court and the amendments to the 1983 Act proposed by this Bill will further encourage the use of these orders by that court.

Section 6 of the 1983 Act requires an order to specify the district of residence in which an offender will or shall reside for the duration of the order. This has been amended to also include circuit of residence as would be appropriate where the order is made by the Circuit Court. A further amendment to this section requires a certified copy of the order to be sent to the director of the probation and welfare service, who shall ensure a copy of the order is given to the offender. Under the existing provision, this task was assigned to a relevant officer who was a probation officer. However, it is considered administratively expedient to centralise this function, allowing more accurate control of information on orders that have made as well as for the efficient onward transmission of those orders to offenders.

Section 6 of the Bill amends section 7 of the 1983 Act. These are minor amendments providing that the director of the probation and welfare service will direct an offender to report to a specified relevant officer. This section of the Bill also amends the provision in section 7 of the 1983 Act which allows for prosecutions for failure to comply with a community service order to be taken by a relevant officer. The words "relevant officer" have been replaced by "probation officer" and it is appropriate that such prosecutions would only be taken by a probation officer. Given that this Bill amends the definition of "relevant officer" to potentially include persons other than probation officers, this amendment provides the necessary clarification.

Section 7 of the Bill amends section 9 of the 1983 Act, which provides for the extension of time for the performance of work under an order. The Act provides that the hours of work under a community service order shall be completed within 12 months of the date of the order. However, this period may be extended under section 9 of the Act. The existing provision requires such applications to be made to the District Court. It is proposed to amend this by substituting the word "court" for "District Court". Where an order is made by the Circuit Court, it is appropriate that the court would amend the order where necessary and this section makes the required provision.

Section 8 amends section 10 of the 1983 Act, which allows for applications to the court for a change of residence of an offender. This follows on foot of the requirement in the Act that a community service order would state the district of residence or, on foot of this Bill, the circuit of residence of an offender. Section 10 of the Act is being amended to include references to the Circuit Court in addition to the District Court.

Section 9 amends section 11 of the 1983 Act, which provides for revocation of orders. Again, this section has been amended to make specific reference to the Circuit Court. In addition, applications for the revocation of an order could under the 1983 Act be made by the offender or by a relevant officer. The reference to "relevant officer" has now been amended to read "probation officer". As with the amendment introduced by section 6 of this Bill, applications for revocations are properly the function of a probation officer. Given the extended definition of "relevant officer" introduced by this Bill, the amendment provides the necessary clarification.

Section 10 of the Bill amends section 12 of the 1983 Act, relating to the jurisdiction of the courts. As I have outlined, a number of amendments introduced by this Bill have been done so to include specific reference to the Circuit Court. This section ensures the jurisdiction provisions of the 1983 Act apply equally to the Circuit Court as they do the District Court whether dealing with an application for extension of time for completion of community service, a change of residence by the offender or revocation of an order.

Section 11 again amends the 1983 Act so that the power to summon or, if necessary, order the arrest of an offender subject to a community service order is not limited to the District Court. Section 12 of the Bill clarifies that references in existing enactments to probation and welfare will be construed as references to probation. This provision reflects the Government decision of 19 May 2006 which included the re-branding of the probation and welfare service as the probation service. Given that the amendments introduced in this Bill refer to "Probation Service", "Director of Probation Service" and "probation officer", it is appropriate to take this opportunity to clarify references in existing legislation. This provision does that.

I will briefly address the impact of this Bill on prison capacity. The motivation to deliver the proposals contained in this Bill is not to deliver prison spaces, although in the short term, it may well provide some benefit in this regard. It is true that the number of committals for sentences of less than 12 months has increased in recent years. In 2009, 85% of the total number of sentenced persons committed to prison in that year received sentences of up to 12 months. However, according to monthly statistics, the proportion of people in custody on a daily basis who are serving short sentences is around 15%. The short nature of these sentences results in quick turn around of such prisoners with little or no accumulation effect on prisoner numbers for the following year.

Increasing community service will not significantly impact available prison space. This Bill is about diverting away from prison those persons receiving these relatively short sentences, and making them subject to a sanction which benefits them and their communities. Community service as an alternative sanction to imprisonment is not new. Today, we are merely seeking to increase the use that is made of this sentencing option.

In spite of its seemingly simple purpose, this is an important Bill. It is a response to the findings of the value for money and policy review of the community service scheme and is a further step in diverting persons from prison where it is appropriate to do so. The Fines Act 2010 provided a balanced and more humane approach to the determination and collection of fines. That Act also provides for alternatives to imprisonment, including community service, in the event of a failure to recover a fine or its value in seized goods. This Bill is a further step in the pursuit of measures to increase, where appropriate, the use of non-custodial sanctions and reduce the use of imprisonment. It delivers a key commitment of the Government programme and is a step in our delivering a sentencing society at a lower cost to the taxpayer.

I again emphasise that the positive impact of community service is far-reaching — it delivers at a national, community and individual level. Financial benefits will accrue to the Exchequer from the significantly lower costs associated with community service as compared to imprisonment. The community obtains a measure of reparation and the benefit from unpaid work. Community service allows offenders to remain in work or education, maintain links with family and community and deliver reparation for the offence for which they have been convicted. There are persons sentenced to short terms of imprisonment who could, and should, be subject to a community service order. This Bill seeks to focus attention on and encourage greater use of this non-custodial sentencing option.

I commend this Bill to the House.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive outline of the Bill, the publication of which I welcome. The Minister, of course, is aware this was part of two pieces of legislation planned by the previous Government, the other being the Fines Bill. The point was to get away from the ridiculous practice of putting people into prison for non-payment of fines. Many find it difficult to pay fines and, as I have pointed out many times, a €1,000 fine to a person on social welfare is very different to the same fine for a person on an income of €100,000 per year. There is an inherent inequality and one often finds that those who do not pay fines are those on lower incomes.

This Bill builds on the approach that prison should be a last resort. The idea that Irish society will somehow be made safer by putting more and more people in prison defies logic and goes against all that experience tells us. I am very disappointed that the previous Bill, in which discretion was left to the Judiciary, was used so little. There has been an increase in the numbers involved but only 28 court districts used the Act primarily. There seems to be a reluctance on the part of the Judiciary to use community service orders, which may be related to the fact that many judges who come from certain classes of society may not be looking behind the reasons so many people arrive in prison.

One of the frightening aspects of this is that our society is no safer than it was 20 years ago although in the past 14 years the prison population has doubled. I have constantly opposed the clamour every time there is an outrage, when people say the answer to every problem is to have longer and longer sentences. I do not believe that is true. I remember discussing this issue at length with prison governors in Britain when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister. They were very clearly of the view that the policy of longer sentences being followed by the British Government at that time was not reducing crime. Not only did it have the opposite effect, it overcrowded the prisons.

Today we must reflect on why we send people to prison. Is it revenge? Is it punishment? Is it a deterrent? Is it as a form of rehabilitation? Is it for public safety? The idea of prison for public safety makes eminent sense. If there is a person who is a significant danger to society keeping him or her in prison is eminently sensible. However, I am not big into the revenge stakes. This society seems very hung up on punishment and revenge; I shall speak on that shortly. I do not believe prison acts as a deterrent. I do not believe that people who break the law say, "I wonder how many months I'm going to get", or "Will I be sent to prison? Better not do it today". It is not an effective deterrent. Society norms are much more effective. In many cases, particularly for young people on short sentences, prisons are universities of crime. People go in for reasonably minor offences and come out affected by drugs and having learned the tricks of their trade from hardened people within prison.

Therefore, we need to look at our entire attitude towards law enforcement. The best law enforcement of all is the buying in by society in general to the laws of the land. There are many areas in this country where there is very little visible law enforcement by law enforcement officers yet where the law is largely complied with because people buy into it, feel they have a stake in society and believe compliance is the right thing because it is in the common interest. It is fair to say all the relevant academic research will show that prison sentences for short-term prisoners is a most ineffective policy tool in regard to the prevention of crime.

I believe all the evidence shows that where there is recurring crime there is social deprivation. If we spent more money dealing with social deprivation and less on locking up people, particularly young people from disadvantaged areas, we would make much more progress in reducing crime. Some years ago there was a statistic which showed that 50% of the prison population in Dublin came from six parishes in the city. I do not believe the people in those parishes were born inherently worse or different but they live in areas that are socially excluded, in segregated housing, in areas of high family breakdown and where there is intergenerational unemployment and difficulties.

I had responsibility for the RAPID programme which I hope the new Government will re-boot as it seems to have reduced its profile in recent months. It was a key programme in that it took an intellectual approach to tackling one of the major issues in the most socially deprived and disadvantaged areas in our country. One of the characteristics of such areas is the lack of buy-in by the population into the society in which it lives. In large measure, the people do not feel part of the mainstream of Irish society and believe they are always at a disadvantage. Even though the State pays an enormous amount of money in those areas, often the reality is that everything is decided for the population and the people have very little input into decisions such as the design of houses and estates and the provision of community facilities and services. The RAPID programme gave input to local people in decisions that affected them for the first time. We put in 42 playgrounds with the support of the local communities and only one of those was ever seriously vandalised because where the community put a facility in place, it had respect for it. If we are interested in reducing crime, we would be better engaged in looking at the social phenomena behind the crime rather than thinking that by locking people up we will achieve results. I hope that any money saved here would be put into the RAPID programme to deal with the underlying social problems faced by people in these areas.

It is interesting to look at the costs. Prison is incredibly expensive. The cost of a community service order is about 15% of the cost of a prison sentence; the average community service order costs €4,000 while a prison sentence costs €27,000. That shows the potential savings but if we really want value for money, we should take those savings and reinvest them to deal with the underlying social difficulties faced by people in these communities.

I do not see the point, unless there is an horrendous traffic offence, in putting people in prison for motoring offences. They could be banned from driving if they are dangerous behind the wheel of a car. I also see no point in imprisoning people for non-payment of fines or putting young people in prison for getting into what was euphemistically termed "trouble" when I was growing up. We should try to deal with the underlying issues, such as a lack of education, or recognise that sometimes people go off the rails and try to put them back on the right path by engaging with them on a community basis.

The FAI and other sporting organisations did a great deal to reduce crime by increasing access to sports in socially disadvantaged areas. When midnight soccer was organised, crime and anti-social behaviour fell in the areas where it took place. I wanted to increase access to those programmes because children in disadvantaged areas remain disadvantaged because many activities that are seen as extras for middle class children are unavailable to them. A child from an advantaged background is brought to sports, music and dancing. The child from a disadvantaged background or a dysfunctional family does not get the opportunity to do these things and is left hanging around the streets. If children are left hanging around the streets long enough with nothing to do, no motivation and no involvement in any organisation, it is obvious what will happen.

By putting in place those extra activities, which I saw as fundamental, we were doing more to deal with potential crime in the long term than many of the law enforcement and crime prevention programmes. I compliment the gardaí on the work they have done in youth liaison programmes. I remember a visit to Moyross in Limerick, a group had bought a set of motorbikes and showed children in a totally controlled environment how to ride them. I asked if the group had permission to use the rough bit of ground it was using and it said it did not bother looking for permission; it just got on with the job. That group was dead right because I can imagine 100 bureaucratic reasons that would be given to stop the children from being involved in an activity they loved in a controlled environment. I suggested to Bord na Móna that in cut away bogs children could undertake dangerous activities in a safe way. We could then deal with some of the problems related to joy-riding by allowing them to become involved in adventure sports in a safe, controlled and supervised environment.

Does prison work as a deterrent? It is self evident. We have longer prison sentences and more people in prison but we have not dealt with the crime problem. This idea that if we lock people up for longer and longer, it will frighten other people from committing crime does not work. Does punishment work? I am not a fan of the punishment argument — I am probably in a minority there — but we must look behind the social causes of crime. Rehabilitating people, to bring them back into the mainstream of society so they value the laws and understand why they exist for the good of everyone, is much more important than punishment.

I am lucky to live in an area of low crime and it is interesting to look at why it is that way. It is nothing to do with the law or fear of punishment, it is because people believe they have a stake in society and are part of it, that an orderly society is a good place to live and it is in no-one's interest to go around breaking the law.

We should examine the purpose of these measures and ask if we have organised a society that excludes and punishes people and then blames them for committing crime rather than asking why certain types of crime are predominant in certain areas. Are people that excluded? Yes they are. When I was Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, we mapped the areas of disadvantage around the country. All of the standard indicators of poverty were used but it was pointed out that there was one simple test that coincided with the maps 95% of the time: the number of Ticketmaster sales in every area. I said that was ridiculous, that people in the most isolated areas would not buy Ticketmaster products. If they go to matches, they do not buy tickets from Ticketmaster. I was told I was wrong, that if the RAPID areas of the country, the 51 most disadvantaged communities, were mapped and compared with a map of low Ticketmaster sales, there was 95% correspondence. That was done and I saw it was correct because it shows engagement in society, opportunity and activity. We even checked the offshore islands and more children from those islands were attending concerts, matches and other social events. They were more involved socially in the most isolated rural areas than people living in Cherry Orchard, Clondalkin, Darndale and Tallaght, who are much nearer to these major events. It is a simple test that demonstrates the disconnection and exclusion of those young people from what is considered by the vast majority of Irish society, urban and rural, as the norm for a young person growing up. Therefore, if we are serious about tackling crime we must take the long view; there is no quick fix. The only real fix to reduce crime is to tackle the issue of social exclusion, especially in urban areas, to move away from the model which holds that the answer for disadvantaged areas is to pick up the criminal and put him in prison. That model suggests harder and tougher laws will solve it all, but they will not. We know that if we got every drug baron in the country and put him in prison tomorrow, within two years there would be a new set of drug barons in the same disadvantaged areas doing the same business and one would have to lock all of them up as well. Therefore, we must tackle the underlying problem and this is a small first step along the way.

It is interesting to consider the international comparisons. There has been a great drive in Finland to make greater use of early release and alternatives to custody such as community service and it has seen the virtual abolition of imprisonment for non-payment of fines. There has been a continual reduction in the prison population in Finland since the Second World War as a result. Let us imagine the money we would have to deal with the underlying social problems if we reduced the prison population. Finland has reduced the level of the prisoners from 200 per 100,000 of population at the end of the Second World War to a European low rate of 60 prisoners per 100,000 of population. The figure in Ireland is relatively low, thank God, and there has not been a tradition of a large prison population, but it has been rising and it has doubled. We should aim for the rate of 50 or 60 prisoners per 100,000 of population. Paradoxically, were we to do so we could reduce crime by using the savings to prevent and divert people from crime. The Finnish situation is interesting because it has lower prison rates than comparable countries such as Norway and Sweden. However, it has a more or less identical crime rate.

This Bill is important; it is a step in the right direction and I trust the Minister will see it as one small step. The name of the Department of Justice and Equality translates in the Irish language to An Roinn Dlí agus Cirt agus Comhionannais, or the department of law and justice. Unfortunately, in the past it has been more the department of law than of justice and there has been a preoccupation with law and more law. As the Minister is aware, the Department has an efficient factory that has produced laws every day of the week for him.

What keeps most people on the straight and narrow is the law. In most cases those who keep the law are those who have a buy-in or a stake in society. Those who break the law believe the law is not for them because they do not belong to that society so there is no reason they should keep the law, even though it is made by the people. Until we tackle this fundamental issue we can forget about reducing crime levels and making society safe.

I exclude from what I have said, persons who for reasons of mental illness or other issues pose a continuous and serious risk to society. Naturally, for the safety of society such people should be kept in custody. In some cases the issue is more medical than anything else and the question of whether it should be prison or custody for the sake of safety in a more quasi-medical set-up should be examined. Perhaps this should be the place for people with psychiatric difficulties or who may be a continuous threat to society.

A well-known friend of mine said that with regard to crime, society often moves from the belief that punishment is the answer to the problem to the recognition that in certain cases the problems are, basically, underlying medical issues and that they may be better addressed by medicalising the problem. There has been a similar recognition in the treatment of alcohol problems in recent years. Now, we recognise alcoholism as an issue of dependency to be treated medically rather than punished. In cases where people are a serious risk to society we must consider whether there are medical issues that determine that there should not be a prison sentence or fixed sentencing and whether by being let out they would represent a high risk to society. The tragedy is that 15% of people are in our prisons for a short term. One of the most horrific crimes in my constituency in recent years was committed by someone who should have been in prison at the time the horrendous crime was committed, a crime which caused great emotional upset not only in this country but to the family living in a foreign country.

I welcome the Bill and I look forward to its enactment. I welcome the extension from six months to 12 months. It is an important change and the more we divert, the better we will be and the more money we will have to do other things for the good of society and to reduce crime.

Deputy Jonathan O’Brien

While the Bill before the House does not represent a wide-ranging departure from existing legislation it has the potential to kick-start a wider debate on our sentencing and prison policies. At a time when we face the reality of an already overcrowded prison system, when prison numbers continue to increase rather than decrease, when the operational procedures and conditions within prisons are suited more towards punishment rather than rehabilitation and when many people are of the opinion that we are not getting value for money, then it is important to debate the future of how we deal with crime in this State.

The recent decision by the Minister to review the future viability of Thornton Hall is to be welcomed and I congratulate him for initiating such a review. It would be prudent if this review formed part of a wider debate on the future direction of our sentencing and prison policy. As a society we require a complete re-orientation of the penal system away from the prison and towards restorative justice in the community. We must shift the prison from centre stage and devise more imaginative, humane, compassionate and effective ways to deal with the petty offenders who form the bulk of those sent to prison each year. This Bill, coupled with the review of Thornton Hall, presents the House with the ideal opportunity to draw a line in the sand on a sentencing policy which has frustrated and continues to frustrate many members of the public.

In my constituency of Cork North-Central many people struggle to have faith in a judicial system which on the one hand allows a convicted heroin dealer caught with drugs with a street value of almost €200,000 to get a six year suspended sentence, while on the other hand the same justice system sent an individual who failed to pay a fishing fine to Cork Prison for almost one week. This is only one example of how the inconsistencies within the sentencing policy currently being implemented leads to a lack of trust and faith in our Judiciary. It is for this reason I urge the Minister, in the context of the review in regard to Thornton Hall, the passage of this legislation and the introduction of all future justice legislation, to examine what works, what is in the best interests of society, of those working within the prison system, the offender and, most importantly, what will give the taxpayer the best value for money.

Unless proper drug and rehabilitative supports in prisons are resourced, alongside educational facilities, and other steps are taken to address recidivism, we will simply be ignoring what has been proven internationally to work. It is time that we all acknowledged that creating a few 100 extra cells is not a sufficient mechanism to tackle the growing prison crisis we face.

What is needed is a well thought out and adequately resourced strategy to deal with the increasing rates of imprisonment. The increase in prison numbers has led to a prison system bursting at the seams and has contributed to the creation of serious health and safety issues within the prisons, as well as increasing the dangers faced not only by prisoners but by staff working within our prisons. Therefore, it is imperative that all future justice policy needs to be very mindful of the causal factors, such as poverty, imbedded disadvantage, inequality and addiction, which are helping feed these increases. While the number of prisoners has grown through a variety of factors such as those I mentioned, we should also recognise that an increase in the use of custodial sentence alongside a complex asylum and immigration system and the enactment of criminal justice legislation since 2000 have been contributory factors.

The move towards the provision of mandatory minimum sentences for an expanding number of offences is a questionable policy. Mandatory sentences have been proven internationally to not only swell prison numbers but to have little or no impact on crime trends.

During the past decade we have seen a slow but progressive increase in the prison population while also experiencing a sharp increase in the daily average number of persons in custody. What this appears to indicate is a slow increase in the prison numbers, exacerbated by an increase in prison sentences for minor offences, which are being held back by overcrowding. It was reported that in April 2010 overcrowding in the Irish prison system had reached record highs and that, as a consequence, more than 800 inmates were freed on the early release programme as there was insufficient space to contain them. The vast majority of those were serving sentences of less then 12 months.

International research indicates that short prison sentences act neither as a deterrent nor as a means of rehabilitating the offender. This goes to the very heart of the debate. Do we as a State view prison sentences as a tool to punish or as an opportunity to rehabilitate offenders? There is no question that the relatively limited duration of many sentences handed down by our courts, especially those of 12 months and less, means that there is little or no scope to provide people with rehabilitation services.

The same question can be asked of the community service orders. Do we view them as a means to punish or rehabilitate? The answer is dictated by the model Ireland employs. The application of the community service order scheme differs from country to country and the outcomes depend on the type of model used. For example, some community service models focus on educating offenders about the impact their crime has on victims, the wider community and the offender. Some models focus on training offenders in useful skills while others involve more menial tasks. Ireland falls into the latter category.

The Probation Service in its 2009 annual report describes the work involved in the community service order scheme in use as including, "landscaping, painting, decoration, repairs and renovation, work support to community centres, sports clubs and schools among many other challenging schemes in local communities". The imposition of community service orders must be twofold. First, they must be about accountability and, second, they should be about rehabilitation.

Those who commit crime must be held accountable for their actions but as a society we have a responsibility to ensure that offenders get the opportunity to access proper training and education in order that they do not become repeat offenders. Some will question this approach. They will state that a person who commits a crime should do the time and that the State should not spend valuable resources on trying to rehabilitate him or her. While this may be a valid opinion it is not one I share. A judicial system which is geared only towards punishment and does not recognise the benefits of rehabilitation is counterproductive. Any legislation which moves our justice system further towards rehabilitation and accountability rather than just being focused on punishment is to be welcomed. This Bill does that.

The Bill sets out when a court shall or may consider a community service order where a prison sentence would otherwise have been enforced. It does not create any new sentence that does not already exist in Irish law. Community service orders are already a tool which is open to the Judiciary when dealing with convictions. That is an important fact to be highlighted.

At present the Judiciary is free to disregard community service orders as an option to imprisonment. This amending legislation proposes to change this situation by making it a requirement to consider community service orders as an alternative to imprisonment for minor offences. In recent years there has been an increase in imprisonment for minor offences, which has had far-reaching implications for society in terms of prison overcrowding, prison conditions and the ability to rehabilitate offenders, in addition to increasing public expenditure levels. All the data available to us on prison numbers appear to show that a large number of imprisonments are for minor offences, and that these numbers are on the increase.

A recent report by the Irish Prison Service shows that between 2004 and 2009, prison sentences of between six and 12 months increased by more than 50%, sentences between three and six months increased by almost 60%, while sentences of less than three months increased by a staggering 188%. In 2009, 10,865 prison sentences were imposed by the courts and of this number 9,216, or 85%, were for sentences of 12 months or less.

When speaking to people about this proposed amending legislation two questions repeatedly came up. The first was the type of crime those people serving sentences of less than 12 months had committed. To answer the question we can look to the Irish Prison Service which recently produced a snapshot of the type of offenders who were serving prison sentences of 12 months or less. This snapshot was conducted on 4 December 2009 and it revealed that on that day, 467 people were in prison serving sentences of less than 12 months, 40% were serving sentences for offences against property without violence, 17% were for road traffic offences, 58 people, or 12%, were serving sentences for offences against the person and 1% were serving sentences for offences against property with violence.

More recent data show that fine defaulters accounted for more than 3,300 committals to prison in the first ten months of 2010. This statistic is very troubling. It is particularly worrying to realise that people who fail to pay small fines, for whatever reason — people whose offending should not be serious enough to attract a custodial sentence in the first place — end up in prison. As they serve short periods in custody, fine defaulters account for only 1% or 2% of the prison population on any given day, therefore, leading to a distortion of the figures.

These statistics give rise to concerns among the public that offenders who have committed crimes of a certain nature could become the beneficiaries of this legislation. These concerns are genuine, particularly when one considers that those who committed crimes of assault with violence, drug-related crimes, crimes of a sexual nature or offences against property with violence comprised 23% of those serving 12 months or less when the snapshot was taken on 4 December. I am of the opinion that section 3(b) and section 4 deal adequately with the concerns to which I refer.

Section 3(b)(1B) provides that where a court is considering making a community service order in lieu of a prison sentence, it must give notice to the probation service. It should also be noted that the Bill seeks to improve existing legislative provision and make the procedure and system of making such probation reports more standardised by providing a time limit for efficiency and certainty within the process. This is reflected in section 3(b)(1C) which states that there will be a requirement on the probation service to act in a speedy manner when a judge indicates that he or she is considering a community service order in lieu of a prison sentence. In addition, section 3(b)(1D) states that the assessment report by a probation officer should be given within 28 days of court notice to the Probation Service. In exceptional circumstances this time period can be extended, where there is good reason for doing so and where it would be in the interests of justice so to do.

Section 4(a)(1) states that a court shall not make a community service order unless the following conditions have been complied with:

(a) the court is satisfied—

(i) having considered the offender's circumstances,

(ii) having considered the assessment report prepared by a probation officer pursuant to the request under section 3(1B), and;

(iii) where the court thinks it necessary, having heard evidence from such an officer,

that the offender is a suitable person to perform work under such an order and that arrangements can be made for him or her to perform such work:

(b) the offender has consented to the making of such an order.

Section 4(b), which inserts the new paragraph (c) into the principal Act, states that “under this Act the court may review the order on the application of either the offender or a relevant officer”. These proposed changes will be important additions for improving public confidence in our sentencing policy, particularly in respect of the use of community service orders.

The second question people continually put to me when discussing the Bill is whether it represents good value for money. This should come as no surprise in the current economic circumstances. People not only want better legislation, they want legislation that represents value for money. While the explanatory memorandum states that there will be no additional costs in implementing the Bill and that the existing resources of the probation service will meet the expected increase in community service orders, it is very important to recognise that the introduction and passing of this legislation will inevitably lead to greater demands being placed on an already over stretched probation service. That is despite efforts to address this issue in section 2.

The probation service must continue to be adequately resourced into the future so that this increased volume of community service orders can be administered in an effective manner. This will present a challenge in the current economic climate but it is one in respect of which the Government cannot afford to cut corners. Failure to adequately fund the probation service will undo everything this proposed legislation sets out to achieve.

An increased use of community service orders will undoubtedly lead to savings in the overall scheme of things. The value for money analysis of the community service order scheme, carried out by the then Department of Justice and Law Reform in 2009, demonstrated that the use of community service in lieu of prison sentences would produce significant savings. The cost per community service order is estimated at just over €4,200 per offender while the alternative costs of imprisonment are estimated to amount to just under €27,478 per offender. The State should not see these savings as a means to an end but rather as an opportunity to reinvest in crime prevention measures such as the juvenile diversion programme as well as increasing funding to the probation service to deal with the added number of reports to which the legislation will inevitably give rise.

Apart from the financial benefits the community service order scheme will bring, there are far more important factors to be considered. The debate on whether community service orders help reduce offending rates should be central to the Bill. The part of the probation service report of 2009 which examines the features and benefits associated with community services orders shows the social advantages of such a scheme. The relevant data was collected from 29 senior probation officers who were asked to identify the main benefits associated with the community service scheme. From their responses, it can be seen that the benefits of community service orders include offenders remaining in work or education and remaining part of their families and communities. In addition, the scheme can provide an opportunity to learn new skills as well as providing a means for offenders to make amends for their actions, which is an important point.

All of that to which I refer will have a positive effect on communities and offenders. However, there is additional room for improving the Bill and perhaps certain possible improvements could be considered in more detail as the legislation progresses through the House. For example, the presumption against imprisonment in section 3(a)(1)(a) should be strengthened by requiring the sentencing judge not only to consider imposing a community service order in lieu of imprisonment for a qualifying sentence but by obliging him or her to provide written reasons relating to a decision to imprison an individual before the courts rather than to impose a community service order.

When I was reading section 3, I identified one glaring omission. Consideration should be given to making the necessary inclusion to rectify the position. Every crime has a victim and the effect of a crime on the victim should be a central consideration when a judge leans towards the imposition of a community service order rather than a prison sentence. We must examine the possibility of including victim impact statements as part of the process relating to determining whether someone is suitable for a community service order.

The community service order scheme, particularly for minor offences, can have many advantages. For society it can be more cost-effective than prison, for offenders it may mean the difference between a life of crime and a wake-up call and for communities it provides a tangible benefit through works and services which might otherwise not be undertaken. Most importantly, it can benefit society through reducing recidivism rates among offenders. For all these reasons, I welcome the Bill but with the caveat that the suggestions I made earlier in respect of victim impact statements and that the possibility of redirecting any savings accrued by the implementation of this legislation into the area of crime prevention be investigated.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

Tá Sinn Féin i bhfabhar an Bhille seo. Tá slí níos fearr ann ná daoine a chur i bpriosún ar feadh téarma gearr mar seo.

Sinn Féin believes this Bill presents an important opportunity to eliminate inflated expenditure on unnecessary incarceration by ensuring that the courts will be obliged to consider the imposition of community service orders in certain circumstances. It is clear that merely locking increasing numbers of people up in prison cells does nothing to reduce crime. We must consider what works and ensure that justice policy is aimed at addressing the key causal factors of crime, namely, poverty, embedded disadvantage, entrenched inequality, lack of education and, in many cases, home life.

From a financial perspective, this Bill makes sense. The average cost of keeping an individual prisoner in custody for one year is just under €100,000 compared to an estimated cost of €4,295 for a community service order. These are stark figures. There is a high proportion of prisoners serving short prison sentences for offences that do not suggest they are a threat to society; clearly, therefore, there are questions to be asked about the cost effectiveness of the overuse of custodial sentences in the criminal justice system. Criminalising people more and more is unfair. Reducing expenditure on unnecessary incarceration would be more economically effective, as well as more socially effective.

When done properly, a community service order can prevent further reoffending by reintegrating the offender into the community through successful completion of positive and demanding unpaid work. The offender can give back to the community by doing something socially useful. We support the use of community service orders where appropriate, but they should not replace lower tariff sanctions and should remain as one of a diverse range of choices in alternative to custody. Judges should be required to consider their appropriateness against a custodial sentence. In the interest of fairness, guidelines must be introduced for the use of community service orders. An equivalency scale of hours of community service relative to time in custody, or fines imposed, should also be established. Education programmes could be part of this.

Sinn Féin strongly supports the introduction of community service orders as an alternate to custody for fine defaulters as we believe the use of custodial sentences for fine defaulters is inappropriate, ineffective, excessively resource intensive and should end. Fine levels do not take into account equality of impact. They have a negligible impact on high income offenders. I am reminded of a case that occurred a couple of years ago. A young girl from a working class area in Finglas spent two days in jail for non-payment of a fine imposed for not having a dog licence. That was absolutely scandalous. The judge in the case and the authorities lost the run of themselves.

We would like to take this opportunity to talk about the importance of the Government addressing the causes of crime in the first place. While the Bill is to be welcomed, it should really be a part of an overall strategy to get at the root causes of crime and address the glaring cracks in the system. In Dublin North West drug addiction is a huge issue. We welcomed the Government's commitment to support the principles of the national addiction strategy, particularly the commitment to expand rehabilitation services at local level, although we urge the Government to fund these services according to need rather than leaving them at the mercy of restricted budgets.

The Government needs to restore community confidence in the Garda. The community needs to feel it can report crimes. Incidents such as what happened in Rossport recently will not instill confidence in the Garda. What effect will this have on women who have reported sexual assaults, particularly in the Rossport area? How many women who have reported such crimes are now wondering if gardaí are joking about them? This matter must be addressed, as we do not want to see confidence in the Garda reduced.

There needs to be a connection between an effective police service and the community it is serving. Gardaí rarely live in the communities in which they work, particularly working class areas. A garda from a working class area who joins the force will usually move elsewhere. The same is true of judges who rarely come from working class areas. They tend to come from middle and upper class areas. A judge who comes from a working class area will usually move from it. This message must be reversed. Society is the poorer for the message that successful people cannot live in working class areas because they want to be with the big boys in Dublin 4 or some similar place. It is unfortunate that society has developed in this way, as it is not good.

We must support community projects. The Government must ensure the drugs task forces and community projects are properly funded. We have seen the massive effect of cutbacks in strong working class areas. There are several programmes for young people, many of whom are very vulnerable. The more we cut these programmes the more we are likely to have to deal with the young people concerned in the prison system. It is important, therefore, that the Government maintain investment in these projects, as any cutbacks will mean disaster for communities. We must follow up on the alcohol and drugs strategy and enshrine it in some way. The work done by the drugs task forces across the country has been huge. I hope, therefore, that the Government will examine this issue.

Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan

With the permission of the House, I will share time with Deputies Seamus Healy, Thomas Pringle, Mattie McGrath and Clare Daly.

I acknowledge the work of the Oireachtas Library and Research Service in compiling a digest and information on the Bill. In that digest, I read that it is estimated that a community service order costs just over €4,000 per offender, while an alternative prison sentence costs approximately €27,000. Statistics from abroad seem to confirm this. In the United Kingdom it has been established that a community service order costs 5% of the total cost of keeping someone in prison for one year. The figure for New Zealand is also 5%. Even allowing for some adjustment in these figures, there is a very strong economic argument in favour of supporting community service instead of a custodial sentence of 12 months or less. A further point from the research is that short prison sentences are not a deterrent and do not contribute to rehabilitating the offender. This is due to the limited length of stay in prison because the prisoner does not have sufficient access to the services that could have an effect on rehabilitation. However, that presupposes that there are adequate services available in prison to play a role in rehabilitating prisoners and preventing recidivism. Where savings are made with the Bill, I hope they will go towards enhancing services and resources for prisoners in order that those serving longer sentences will have a real chance to turn their lives around. A considerable proportion of those in Mountjoy Prison come from certain parts of the constituency of Dublin Central which I represent. We know very well what contributes to these men and women being there. No sooner are they out than they are back again. That revolving door must be stopped, even if only for economic reasons.

I like the fact that the Bill compels judges to consider community service as a sentence in cases in which a sentence of 12 months or less is an option. Where this is being considered, notice must be given to the Probation Service which will create an assessment report for the court. This report is to be quite detailed and include information on the family and lifestyle of the offender, if there are addiction issues, the attitude of the offender and whether there is an acknowledgement of what he or she has done. The report must be created within 28 days, although this period can be extended. I acknowledge the work of probation officers. However, they are part of the public service and subject to redundancy plans. We cannot reduce their number if this work is to be done properly.

It is also significant that the Irish Penal Reform Trust welcomes this move, while making the point that community service orders are only used where an individual would otherwise receive a custodial sentence. The trust has been consistently calling for greater use of community sanctions when dealing with less serious offences. A community sanction means an offender will continue to work or stay in education and still be with his or her family or community. However, through community service offenders are being given an opportunity to make reparation and perform a service for the community, which is a much more positive step than languishing in an overcrowded prison. More important, community sanctions are demonstrably more effective, with lower levels of reoffending. There is evidence that sentences of less than one year do not work and I know there is a call from the Prison Governors Association in the United Kingdom that they be abolished.

Is community service intended to punish or to rehabilitate? In some countries, the focus of community service has been on educating offenders about the impact of his or her crime on the victim, on the community and on the offender. Some focus has been on the training of offenders in useful skills but central to community service is giving the offender the space to see the harm caused and an opportunity to repair that harm. Community service cannot be a futile, meaningless task; it has to be meaningful, of real value and it must contribute to bringing about a change in behaviour.

I am disappointed to note the only review of community service in this country was carried out in 1999 and it was somewhat negative in saying it was not any more successful than prison in discouraging offenders from committing further crimes. However, more recent evidence from other countries is more positive. Community service seems most effective when the service enables the offender to gain new skills, where the work is of benefit and where there is significant contact between the offender and the community. It will be a challenge to find those services which will be most productive.

I regard community service as part of the system of restorative justice, something I would like to see being considered more. Restorative justice is a powerful tool when used to its optimum as it gives an opportunity for the victim, the offender and the community to meet, to discuss what has happened and the offender is expected to take steps to repair the harm. It is a positive development that the previous Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, approved both the expansion of the Tallaght-based restorative justice service to the Criminal Court and the expansion of the Nenagh community reparation project. Community service is also part of the system of case management used by the Garda Síochána, the diversionary projects and in community sanctions.

I welcome this Bill but if it is to work in bringing about a change in behaviour it has to allow for well organised and meaningful work. I note the examples given by the Minister in his contribution. The bigger picture of prison reform was addressed by Deputy Ó Cuív. Too many people from the same backgrounds and addresses make up the prison population and this is at significant financial cost to the State and also at a significant personal cost to prisoners and their families.

Deputy Seamus Healy

I welcome and support the Bill in particular because of the savings that will arise from the implementation of its provisions. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan has indicated some of the figures involved, with savings of between €4,000 and €27,000 and there is obviously a strong economic argument for the Bill.

I wish to focus on prevention as opposed to punishment. I regard social investment as being a very important factor in tackling crime. The prison population both in Ireland and world-wide is composed of an over-representation of some categories of people. It is noticeable that levels of education, health — in particular, mental health — poverty and substance addiction, are all factors. It is common that young offenders often come from a background in residential care. A number of issues need to be tackled if we are to deal with the question of crime. The saying that prevention is better than cure is true in this regard. Prevention is also significantly more cost effective. An American statistic which is probably also relevant to Ireland shows that every dollar provided for preschool care in the United States creates a saving of $12.90.

The education sector is crucial and the proper funding of preschools in this country in order to give young people an early good chance in life is crucial for their future and for that of society. I refer to the importance of homework clubs, after school activities and support for weaker students in the education system by means of resource teachers and special needs assistants. Unfortunately, this area of education is falling victim to cuts and significant numbers of special needs assistants have lost their jobs over the past 12 months. This is continuing. It is a counter-productive policy from the point of view of education and of future financial savings.

Many members of the prison population seem to suffer health problems and mental health problems in particular. An early and thorough implementation of community-based health services provided for in the Vision for Change document is required. Other community services such as community halls and sports facilities are very important and there are not enough of them. I refer also to a need for more community gardaí as this scheme has been very successful but it is coming under significant pressure. I note that currently 21 superintendent posts are vacant. There have been nine resignations and retirements in the Clonmel district in the recent past and none of those posts have been filled. It is crucial that these posts are filled, in particular, with regard to crime prevention and community policing. The cutbacks and the moratorium on recruitment should be suspended with regard to the community Garda service.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

Like other speakers I welcome the Bill. It is a welcome move forward. Any legislation that will reduce the number of committals to prison will have a positive impact in communities and on the levels of recidivism within the criminal justice system.

There has been an increase of more than 35% in committals to prison in 2009. The number of three-month committals has increased by 63% from 2008 to 2009. The significant increase in the number of people being committed to prison is a very worrying trend and in many cases for quite minor offences which could be dealt with in a more effective way within the community.

The Bill provides a presumption against imprisonment for offences with sentences under 12 months. It has been suggested by the Irish Penal Reform Trust that judges should be forced to give a written reason for the decision to imprison upon conviction rather than imposing a community order. This would be an important provision which would lead to an understanding of the reasons a judge chooses committal to prison rather community service.

International statistics show that measures such as those contained in this Bill will have a significant value-for-money impact. The imprisonment of an offender has a significant cost to the Exchequer. The cost of using probation services is significantly less than the cost of prison. We must focus not only on the economics and value for money aspects of the criminal justice system, but also on the need to rehabilitate offenders. The Bill must strengthen the probation and welfare service to ensure rehabilitative measures are more effective. That the number of probation orders will increase as a result of this legislation is to be welcomed but the Bill will not achieve the desired rehabilitative effect if the probation and welfare service is unable to deal with the volume of cases coming before it.

It is vital that community service orders are used to require offenders to engage with local communities. This approach helps reduce recidivism. Too often, community service is done out of view of and without contact with members of local communities. It is important that offenders engage with their communities in order that they fully understand the reasons they have been convicted and become aware of the impact of their crime on their community. This type of engagement will reduce the number of offenders who re-offend. The Bill would be strengthened, therefore, if it included measures to ensure the probation and welfare service is in a position to provide the type of community service that results in proper rehabilitation of offenders and enables local communities to see the positive effects of rehabilitation.

Much of the increase in the number of prison committals is due to the knee-jerk reactions of legislators and the courts to public demand for stronger sentencing and more effective action to reduce crime. Committing people to prison for three months or more is counterproductive as it places the offender in contact with lifetime criminals and creates a vicious cycle of repeat offending. I ask the Minister to ensure the probation and welfare service is able to meet the additional demands that will placed on it as a result of the enactment of this legislation.

While I do not have figures to hand, I understand many of the people in our prisons have been sentenced for non-payment of fines. It is counterproductive to put someone in jail for two, three or four weeks for failing to pay a fine. Surely the Bill could be amended or new legislation introduced to allow community service to be extended to those who, for whatever reason, fail to pay fines. They should work to the benefit of their local community in recognition of the fact that they have received a conviction and fine.

I welcome the Bill and hope it progresses through the House and is enacted quickly.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I welcome the Bill, which seeks to increase the use of community service orders in place of short-term custodial sentences, a move that has long been advocated by the Irish Penal Reform Trust. I was pleased the legislation was included in the programme for Government agreed between the two coalition parties. I also compliment the previous Minister for Justice and Law Reform, Mr. Dermot Ahern, and officials in his Department on the work they did on the Bill.

The legislation differs from the previous Criminal Justice (Community Service) (Amendment) Bill in respect of its definition of a short-term sentence. Extending the definition from six months to 12 months is an important change.

I compliment all those involved in the community service project in my adjoining constituency of Tipperary North, including the Department, community gardaí, the probation and welfare service and a number of community organisations which facilitate the project. The former Minister of State, Ms Máire Hoctor, was supportive, active and enthusiastic about the project which is located in her home town of Nenagh.

The Bill, if passed, will bring more offenders within the scope of community service orders as it requires courts to consider the imposition of such an order where it would otherwise be of the opinion that a custodial sentence of up to 12 months would be appropriate in respect of the relevant offence. The previous Bill required such consideration only in respect of circumstances otherwise leading to imprisonment for up to six months. This is a welcome change given the unfortunate and substantial increase in the prison population.

We must radically change the way people are incarcerated and the rehabilitation measures or lack thereof in the prison system. As previous speakers noted, prisons often serve as universities of crime because prisoners learn new tricks of the trade, to put it mildly.

It is unfortunate that individuals involved in business who have been unable to meet their tax liabilities or pay fines have received custodial sentences. Given the serious economic downturn, many businesses, especially sole traders, are finding conditions difficult and falling into arrears. Many of them receive letters from Revenue threatening custodial sentences. Such cases merit community service orders rather than custodial sentences. Most of those involved are not criminals but hardworking people who have fallen into arrears for various reasons. While I do not condone the non-payment of tax, this issue must be addressed to ensure ordinary, decent hardworking people are no longer frightened by threats of custodial sentences. We must not criminalise such people, stifle their initiative or deter them from returning to business.

Custodial sentences have also been imposed on people who have defaulted on bank loans. While I compliment gardaí on the sensitivity it has shown in handling such cases in my constituency, they do not have leeway in such circumstances and must enforce committal orders. I understand that in such cases the individuals in question must serve the full sentence. In contrast, those who are imprisoned for crimes against the person and various heinous offences may be given early release. To make matters worse, persons who have defaulted and are sentenced to custodial sentences may be taken to court by a financial institution on their release with the result that they may serve another custodial sentence. Those who have been incarcerated for other crimes pay the price and, other than having a criminal record, they are no longer punished after their release and do not face the prospect of further custodial sentences for the same offence. I am aware of cases in my constituency of young business people who were threatened with being brought before the courts again on their release from incarceration. I ask the Minister to address this matter because it is highly unfair.

I welcome the legislation as it will deliver cost savings. The cost of a prison place is substantial. While I do not condemn prison warders or the Prison Service as they do a hard job, the system is clearly not working and needs to be fixed. One of the positive aspect of community service is that it not necessary to interrupt an offender's education and employment while he or she is doing it. Many community organisations benefit from community service orders. They include tidy towns committees, therapeutical and creative groups and, in the case of my constituency, the Presentation Convent in Clonmel which operatives a successful and beneficial scheme. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Deputy Clare Daly

I welcome this Bill, which is a first step on the road that needs to be taken to radically overhaul sentencing policy. The only policy pursued in the past decade or more has been one of penal expansionism. In the past 15 years, we have seen the number of prison places increase by more than 1,900 and the largest prison building programme in the history of the State. Despite these measures, overcrowding continues. Have additional places and prison overcrowding made society a better place, protected victims of crime in any way or reduced reoffending among those who have been incarcerated? All of the evidence suggests it has not done those things. Not only has the policy that has been employed not worked but, as other Deputies have said, it has been pursued at an enormous cost to the State and the individuals who have interacted with the system. As a necessary and important first step, therefore, we should provide for an obligation to consider community service as an alternative to sentences of less than 12 months.

I have seen figures that show there has been an increase in committals of less than three months. In 2009, almost 6,000 people were given such sentences, which have been proven to be ineffective. In the same year, some 3,601 people — approximately one third of the prison population — were given such sentences or committals following road traffic accidents. It is obvious that this situation is ridiculous. This new policy will help to reduce some of those figures.

I want to make to a few points about the importance of this Bill for women. In general, women find themselves in prison as a result of poverty, drugs or abuse. As their crimes tend to be non-violent, they pose a lower risk to society. We need to consider the disruption and distress that is caused when women are removed from their families, including their children. That adds to the likelihood that certain problems will increase in the future. If one examines Irish sentencing history, one will learn that it used to be unusual for women to end up in prison. Until the 1980s, the usual number of women in prison in Ireland was just three or four. The number rarely reached double digits. That was more appropriate. Given the nature of the crimes for which most women are imprisoned, I suggest the imposition of custodial sentences should be an exception.

It is appalling that the women's prison in Limerick is proportionately the most overcrowded prison in this country. Although there are just ten places in the prison, I understand that 20 women regularly have to share the space. There have been many instances of 30 women having to live in that environment. The Dóchas Centre came to prominence last year when its governor, Kathleen McMahon, resigned. She said it was "impossible" for her to continue because of the overcrowding that existed at the prison. The Dóchas Centre was supposed to be a model of new thinking but instead is accommodating 140 women in a space that is supposed to accommodate 85.

I spent a month in the Dóchas Centre prior to the reports of overcrowding and before the introduction of the current practices of confining women to such small places, doubling-up and stopping some prisoners from making telephone calls to their families and children at home. Every parent is familiar with the difficulties that have to be dealt with as we try to do our best for them. We are storing up huge problems for the future by cutting people off from their children and not allowing them to make telephone calls to touch base. I do not think it is an appropriate approach. As the prison sentences given to women tend to be shorter, which is a reflection of the nature of the crimes for which they are imprisoned, it is likely that this Bill will disproportionately benefit women. It is positive, in that sense, and I hope that is what happens. However, it needs to be seen in the context of the need for a broader independent review of custodial sentencing policy, particularly with regard to women.

I would like to mention some important figures which are a little old. In 2005, the Central Mental Hospital reported that 60% of women in prison had mental health problems and 16% had seriously depressive conditions. We need to invest in services for such people in deprived communities, where many of those who end up in prison come from. Funding is needed to combat violence against women, abuse and all of the circumstances that lead to people being incarcerated. I emphasise that the economic policies being pursued by the Government are part of the problem. They will bring about more poverty and ultimately result in more people ending up in prison. We need a broader review.

I want to make two brief points about community service. It is important that people are given a chance to repay society and to understand the negative impact of the activities in which they have engaged. Community service can be an important addition to the community. We have to be careful to ensure it is not used to undermine real and proper jobs. It should be used to assist the voluntary sector. Those who are required to undertake community service can do important work. It has to be financed. The probation budget is minuscule by comparison with the overall budget in this area. Just €2.5 million of the overall budget of €50 million goes to community service. Everyone has expressed verbal support for this proposal, but if we are to give it the backing it needs, we need to provide the necessary funds to make it a reality. I would like the Minister to address some of the points I have made.

Deputy Tom Barry

I would like to share time with Deputies Doyle and McHugh.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Tom Barry

I congratulate the new Minister, Deputy Shatter, on the first Bill he has brought before the House since he was appointed. As this is my first time to address the Dáil, I would like to thank everyone who worked with me during the recent election for their hard work and their faith in my ability to represent them. I thank the electorate of Cork East for putting their trust in me. I will contribute as best I can to debates on all the issues and challenges we face, both locally and nationally. I particularly thank the residents of my home village of Killavullen, which is probably dear to the hearts of some Deputies as the birth place of Hennessy brandy.

This Bill makes minor amendments and is not a major legislative departure. Crucially, however, it encourages the Judiciary, where the conditions are right, to consider firstly the under-utilised and cost-effective option of community service, which has the potential to improve our society and reduce recidivism. The Irish Penal Reform Trust has established that in 2009, the cost of a staffed prison space was €77,222, or €1,485 a week. Based on 2008 figures, the average cost of giving a community service order to the same offender is €2,500. In 2009, a value for money and policy review found that community service supervisors are currently not operating at full capacity and could accommodate a threefold increase in the number of offenders. We have to address such inefficiencies.

Another potential significant benefit of this legislation is that it may lead to a reduction in the number of people in prison. In April 2010, overcrowding in our prisons reached such a level that more than 800 inmates were freed. There was insufficient space to contain them. The Irish Prison Service has reported that 40% of those in Irish prisons on 4 December 2009 had been committed for offences against poverty and without violence and 17% had been committed for road traffic offences. Potentially, therefore, over half of the prison population does not need to be behind bars. Between 2004 and 2009, the imposition of sentences of between six and 12 months increased by 52.6%, the imposition of sentences of between three and six months increased by almost 60% and the imposition of sentences of three months and under increased by an incredible 187%.

Just 28 courts in this State are responsible for 80% of the community service orders that are imposed. That is an indication of the extent to which this alternative is under-utilised. In other jurisdictions, such as New Zealand and Scotland, consideration must be given to community service, fines and compensation before imprisonment is contemplated. Imprisonment is currently the default sentence in Ireland and community service is a discretionary alternative. It is hoped that this Bill will help to change that mindset. In the first instance, it will save us money. We cannot continue to send people to prison for minor theft offences, non-payment of fines and other lesser, non-violent crimes. It is simply a waste of money and does little to reduce our overall crime rate figures. The Irish Penal Reform Trust in welcoming the Bill argues that community service allows offenders to remain in work or education, maintain family and community connections and provides a form of reparation and compensation for both victims and communities. If somebody steals from my business premises, am I better served if they serve an expensive prison sentence and become further alienated from society or if they actively improve our environment? In particular, the issue of imprisonment for non-payment of fines can be addressed through the implementation of the Bill.

Section 18 of the Fines Act 2010, amending the Act of 1982, provides that those who are unable to pay a court-sanctioned fine by due date could be considered for community service order. Now, under the terms of this legislation, these people must first be considered for a community service order before imprisonment can be considered. This is a vital step in the right direction for the citizens of this country, who are rightly angry at the imposition of prison sentences on their friends, family and neighbours, who are crippled financially through no fault of their own.

Finally, if community service is to be used more often, and extra people are to be channelled towards this route, it is imperative the work allocated to people is worthwhile, both to the individual and the State. Historical statistics of particular socio-economic groups being unable to pay fines may not tell the true story from now on, as financial hardship has hit virtually every family and small business in the State. The challenge now is to allocate as appropriately as possible the skills and interests of offenders to the community service work — we must match the skills to the task. Community service has the potential to highlight to many offenders the value of community and civic spirit, and it can address the problem of detachment from society.

I welcome what is a good Bill which moves with the times. I look forward to seeing it implemented in the spirit in which it has been introduced.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I congratulate Deputy Barry on his first address to the House. I call Deputy Joe McHugh.

Deputy Joe McHugh

I join my colleague in congratulating the Minister, Deputy Alan Shatter, who will be very proactive and hands-on, as is needed. We must realise the deep challenge posed to us by the public to have a more proactive and interactive Dáil and Deputy Shatter is a Minister who will take on board many points of view and observations from both sides of the House.

On the Bill, I am confident the community service orders that will be introduced by different judges will be creative and will add value to communities. We must be cognisant that many laws already introduced are not being implemented or taken on board by many judges. While many of these laws are discretionary, at the same time, we should consider a full appraisal of the existing laws. Having spoken to many gardaí, I find there is anecdotal evidence that a large number of offences involve repeat offenders and that the vast majority of those arrested are out on bail. We should have a full catalogue and itinerary to find out exactly where the problems arise. To take the incidence of burglary, one arrest of a repeat offender in a particular area can result in a vast reduction in the statistics with respect to burglary, so it is an issue on which we need to focus. We must also consider a tightened regime with regard to previous convictions.

With regard to the issue of the caution, following an arrest, a garda will explain to the arrested person that anything said by that person will be taken down in writing. Given the week that is in it, this is a good time to raise the issue of tape recording in custody. At present, there is the archaic situation whereby gardaí must write down everything said while the interview is simultaneously tape recorded. Much time is taken up with respect to the interview and this is not just one-way traffic as we must also consider the extended length of time the arrested person spends being interviewed because everything must be written down. While I am sure the Minister has considered the issue, we should look to the experience in the United Kingdom, where an administrator — a typist — listens to the tape after the interview and prepares a transcript. The current situation is contributing to a zero flow in the progress of interviews, which allows the arrested person to think of different ways to avoid the questions.

Too much Garda time is spent on administration. If we want to focus on prevention, we must consider visibility and the amount of Garda time spent in the community, in households, meeting the people and understanding the needs of the community. Gardaí will not achieve this by being stuck in Garda headquarters filling out forms, which is where they spend most time at present. I accept we live in a heavily administered era, and these are the challenges the Government and the Minister, Deputy Shatter, will tackle into the future.

My own background is in the area of youth work and as a secondary school teacher. In the area of prevention, we should examine our vast resources in terms of primary and secondary school buildings that are vacant after 3 p.m. or 4 p.m. Many community groups are fighting a battle to raise revenue to build, heat, furnish or equip their premises while we have warm primary and secondary school buildings which are vacant from mid-afternoon. We should consider a more synchronised and deeper collaboration between the formal and the informal sector, whereby we can get people engaged in, for example, constructive after-school homework or involvement in the community, and can employ the voluntary sector to the best of its ability in these settings. We should have a more robust debate with boards of management and the Department of Education and Skills in terms of preventative care.

Deputy Andrew Doyle

I congratulate the Leas-Cheann Comhairle on his appointment and I commend the Minister, Deputy Alan Shatter, for introducing this enabling Bill.

We inherited a Victorian criminal justice system which locked up debtors for non-payment of rent and deported them to Australia and other far-flung fields, although, gladly, we have moved on from that. A custodial sentence is meant to put in prison those who are a danger to society and those who need imprisonment to experience punishment for the crime they have committed and to be rehabilitated. What has been happening is that, due to overcrowding in the prison system, which has been acknowledged by other speakers, nothing functions properly and resources and staff are stretched. Those working in the Prison Service are not unwilling but unable to carry out the duties of proper rehabilitation and prison reform. To introduce a realistic community service provision to the system, and ensure judges in court have an obligation to consider this in the first instance before considering a custodial sentence, is welcome.

The New Zealand figures are interesting in that over 26,000 people there are at any time serving community service orders whereas some 7,500 are serving custodial sentences. As Deputy McHugh said, the default position should not be to imprison people.

The role of the probation and welfare service, in conjunction with community service providers including FÁS, local authorities and community groups, is important in matching offenders with a role that will benefit them by allowing them to make amends for their offence and to learn to appreciate its impact, with a view to ensuring they will not re-offend. At the same time it will ensure there is some benefit to society and to local communities.

While the cost benefit analysis indicates savings will certainly be made, all this means is that scarce resources can be more effectively allocated. Money saved by placing offenders on community service rather than in prison does not necessarily mean there will be money to spend in other areas of the public service; that money will be used in the Prison Service to improve services for prisoners. We must be cautious of having an expectation of cost savings at the end of the year — the reality is that the money will be required, and will be put to better use, elsewhere in the justice system. We must review the resources of the probation and welfare service with a view to reallocating some of them in order to enhance the broader services it provides.

Some 20% of people committed to prison end up there because they have not paid fines. Many of these people require assistance rather than rehabilitation and are mortified and humiliated to have received a prison sentence. For that cohort community service would be a much more appropriate penalty. Repeat perpetrators of other crimes are a different matter and are part of the revolving door phenomenon. A person who is sentenced to less than 12 months for a petty crime knows that because of overcrowding in the system they will serve no more than two or three weeks. In such cases a community service order that will apply for 12 months may be more of a deterrent than a very short prison sentence.

As well as being more cost effective community service may also be more successful in rehabilitating offenders. Such offenders are often unaware of the impact of their actions on others and confronting that reality may cause them to reconsider their activities and avoid re-offending. It is a win-win situation. The community benefits, offenders benefit, and prisoners and those who work with them also benefit because they will enjoy increased resources.

It is welcome that we have, in the first month of the new Government, at least one Bill that has broad acceptance across the Chamber. That is heartening. It is enabling legislation which may not be of major concern to many people but is nevertheless important. I wish those who will be involved in its implementation well and I wish the Minister well. As Deputy McHugh said, he is taking a hands-on approach and is getting stuck into the work. There is plenty to do. We have a Prison Service that is overwhelmed and archaic and this is an important step in addressing that.

Deputy John Browne

I propose to share time with Deputy Cowen.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy John Browne

I welcome the Bill and thank the Minister for introducing it. It is almost identical to a Bill published less than three months ago by Fianna Fáil. However, what is important is that the Minister has brought the legislation before the House so we can debate its provisions. It represents a commonsense approach to dealing with offenders in our prison system. The Bill makes it mandatory for judges to consider imposing community service on offenders who would otherwise face up to 12 months in prison. I welcome the extension from six to 12 months as it means more offences will be covered.

Community service orders apply to relatively minor crimes such as traffic offences, vandalism and non-payment of fines. Some people may be concerned that the Bill indicates we are going soft on crime, but that is not the case. Rather, it allows us to deal in a smarter way with crime and will not affect how the State deals with serious offenders. Fianna Fáil in government has already introduced the ground-breaking Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 to clamp down on serious and violent criminals.

The benefits of the legislation before us are manifold. Above all, it will encourage greater use of community service. A value for money and policy review of the community service scheme published in October 2009 recommended that offenders found guilty of minor offences are generally suitable for community service. At present fewer than 30 courts in the State are responsible for some 80% of community orders issued — perhaps the Minister will explain why that is so. The prevalence of such orders seems to vary from area to area. In Wexford, for example, judges have from time to time implemented community service orders and that has worked well for minor offences. The Bill encourages judges at least to consider the use of community service.

Another obvious benefit of this provision is that it will provide unpaid work by offenders to community groups. In many cases such work might not otherwise be carried out particularly in current circumstances where clubs and organisations are finding it difficult to get sponsorship and raise funding. Those who are ordered to do community service will engage in a broad range of tasks such as landscaping, painting, decorating, repairs and renovations. They may also provide support to sports clubs and schools in local communities. I was critical of the last Government when sports funding was largely withdrawn in recent years. If the Minister has any influence in this regard I ask that he urge it be included for consideration in the budget. Sports funding is of vital importance to community groups and sporting organisations throughout the State in providing facilities for young people. It is important that this support should continue. Most community centres and sports organisations could do with additional support at this time.

It makes sense for someone who is guilty of a minor offence to undertake work in the community rather than sitting in prison. That is the spirit of the legislation. I understand that in Edinburgh more than 1,450 hours of snow clearing were carried out by offenders on community service during the recent severe weather. We had the same problem in this country last winter and it is an area where community service could be very useful. There are several situations in which offenders on community service could provide an invaluable service.

We may need to spell out to judges the benefits of an increased imposition of community service orders. Although judges are independent of this House, there is an opportunity for them to adopt a commonsense attitude in this matter, particularly when dealing with young people. I have always held the view that the Judiciary is sometimes out of touch with reality, especially in the case of some of the fines its members have imposed. For instance, an unemployed person who has not paid his or her motor tax has no hope of paying a fine of £500 or €500. Garda time is taken up in calling out to the person's home, issuing warnings after second and third chances have been expended and ultimately placing the person in Mountjoy Prison, Shelton Abbey in Arklow or Portlaoise Prison. It has happened many times that two gardaí in a hired car have been obliged to collect such a person to be brought to prison at an enormous cost to the State. Thereafter, Mr. John Lonergan or whatever prison governor was in charge usually would have allowed the person concerned to return home within a couple of days. It made no sense whatever to place such a burden on taxpayers. That is the reason I welcome the Bill which will perform a useful function in this regard.

As many Members have noted, it is important to remember that running a prison is a costly business. It is also a source of concern that prison numbers appear to be increasing rapidly and the Minister is correct to try to deal with this issue. A community service order costs €4,000 per offender, while I am told the cost in respect of a prison charge is approximately €30,000. While I do not know whether these figures are precise, they frequently appear in the newspapers. Moreover, the value for money report provided interesting food for thought. It found that had 10% of those prisoners sentenced in 2009 been given community service orders instead, it would have saved the Exchequer between €15 million and €20 million. Perhaps the Minister might confirm whether this is the case.

The major discrepancy between the cost of sending someone to prison and issuing a community service order is supported by international evidence. In the United Kingdom it is estimated that the cost of a community service order is 5% of the total cost of keeping someone in prison for one year, while the comparable figure in New Zealand is just 2%. In the light of the recent adjustments to social welfare rates and other necessary budget cuts, it simply is not justifiable to pay €30,000 to keep behind bars those persons who have committed minor offences. In addition, all Members have evidence of cases in which young people who are committed to prison, even for short periods between one and six months, usually emerge as hardened criminals on their release. This is because they learn all the wrong lessons from hardened criminals in prison. This has been the source of considerable concern for some time and warrants examination. There is no point in committing young people to prison only to find that they will become a constant scourge on society on their release because of the wrong lessons they learn while in prison. For this reason, it is important to take the road outlined in the Bill which provides for young offenders, in particular, to perform community work.

While probation officers do an excellent job in so far as possible, there is always a scarcity of such officers. Where will the requisite increase in their number fit into the Bill or is that a matter for another Department? I seek the Minister's views in this regard. The probation officers who operate in the south east undoubtedly do an excellent job. They try to ensure offenders, particularly young offenders, are rehabilitated back into normal society. It is important to take this approach because it is not good for society to have people continually in and out of prison, engaging in robberies, crime or law-breaking on a regular basis. While it is not good for the family of the person in prison, it certainly is not good for the community in general. It will be important to marry the Bill and the manner in which the issue of probation officers is dealt with.

I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill so soon after his assumption of office. It will be welcomed by the community in general which has nothing to fear from it. It provides an opportunity for young people to perform community work instead of going to prison only to learn all of the things they should not. In addition, it gives communities an opportunity to avail of unpaid work by the young people concerned. I know of two recent instances in Wexford in which young people were given such a sentence and it worked very well. One of them was involved in the local GAA club where he carried out his 200 hours of community service. The club certainly gave a glowing account of him from the day he arrived until the day he finished. I understand he worked one day a week for three or four months and that he became deeply involved in the club thereafter. He is now one of the pillars of both the club and the community. This proves that such sentences work. I again welcome the introduction of the Bill in the House.

Deputy Barry Cowen

I thank my colleague, Deputy Browne, for sharing time with me. As he and many others speakers have noted, a very similar Bill was before the House in January. It obviously did not reach Second Stage because of the subsequent dissolution of the Dáil. This Bill is almost identical to it, the single exception being a change in the length of prison sentence in respect of which the Judiciary must consider community service from six months to 12. This means the courts will be obliged to consider community service as an option in the case of a greater number of offences.

Community service orders will obviously benefit both the offender and the community. Many speakers have referred to the benefits that can accrue to the community in the form of landscaping, painting and decorating, repairs and so forth. Deputy Browne has outlined the great benefits such an order can have for both the offender and the community or, in the example he mentioned, the local GAA club. This can be replicated throughout the community in various clubs, organisations, associations, initiatives and programmes. This can only be welcomed.

Although this does not necessarily interfere with judges' independence, the Bill requires them to consider the making of community service orders. I ask the Minister to consider adding to this requirement by specifying that, in the event that a judge does not acquiesce to the Bill's intent, he or she may offer in writing the reason in a particular instance an order was not put in place. This could be of help to the Minister and his departmental officials in the evaluation of the success or otherwise of this initiative in the coming years. It would also allow the Minister and his officials to make improvements, where necessary, where they become apparent by virtue of the various cases in which judges did not see fit to put community service orders in place.

As for costs and the much quoted value for money and policy review of the community service scheme of 2009, which I presume was carried out in preparation for this Bill, it is estimated that the cost of a community service order is approximately €4,300, as opposed to the cost of a prison sentence of more than €27,000. This constitutes a huge variation and difference. While this or any such legislation should not and cannot be based solely on cost, it must be a serious consideration, especially in the current climate. Moreover, based on the success experienced in other countries in this regard, the cost savings and value for money achieved for many years thereafter are even greater. This has been shown by many speakers in the comparisons of the successes experienced in other countries.

Earlier this week the Minister mentioned his great shock and the awe he felt in consideration of the cost of the new prison and so forth. Schemes such as this, as well as many more innovative measures that I am sure the Minister will bring to bear based on his experience in this sector, can bring about further savings and alternatives to what has become the historic norm. Having been an esteemed Member of the House and involved in this area for many years, the Minister can have the impact he seeks as the expertise he can bring to bear should bear fruit. I wish him well in this regard and I am sure he will have the support of other Members who have spoken about the thrust of the Bill.

As for the aforementioned costs, Deputy Browne noted the savings that could have been made in 2009 alone in respect of those sentenced to six months or less. Were there to be a similar correlation in the context of the provisions of this Bill, there would be further savings of between €14 million and €17 million.

The main benefits to offenders include the ability to remain in education, if applicable, the ability to remain part of their families and communities and the ability to make amends for their actions.

I will use this opportunity to ask the Minister a question about an issue I encountered while canvassing during the general election. A young lady who was studying nursing became involved in a minor altercation and received a suspended sentence for her part in it. Thereafter, she was not allowed to continue pursuing her lifelong ambition. It is unfortunate that there is no recourse to legislation in such instances. I am not a legal brain, but is it possible for a person to apply to the courts for a retrospective community service order to repay his or her debt to society in a case involving a misdemeanour? In the example I have given this would allow someone who was lucky enough to obtain a place to pursue a great vocation.

The Bill positively addresses a serious issue for society, namely, overcrowding in prisons. In preparing for this debate I read the comments of various interested parties. The former Governor of Mountjoy Prison, Mr. John Lonergan, stated overcrowding was the most pressing issue in the whole prison system. He went on to state: "As a first step in dealing with overcrowding, one of the first priorities must be to stop using prison for short-term sentences." This Bill, as instigated by the previous Government, is the first step along that road. Like Deputies on all sides of the House, I am glad the Minister has introduced it so quickly and wishes to make a positive impact on figures that are both depressing and a significant cost burden on our finances and society.

Other countries have taken the course of action proposed in the Bill and seen ample positive outcomes and much support for the positive impact on their societies. We wish to replicate their success in this jurisdiction. In England and Wales the move away from short sentences has been publicly supported by the Prison Governors Association. According to the reconviction figures, 15% fewer of those issued with community service orders reoffend compared with those who have received custodial sentences. This is a further reason for us to accept and commend the Bill. In 2007 a milestone was reached in Scotland when the number of community service orders exceeded the number of prison sentences handed down by the courts.

This Bill is what one might call a no-brainer. It has the ability to affect the offender, the community, the public purse and society positively. I congratulate the Minister on introducing it so quickly. Of 20 Bills, it is one of 17 that Fianna Fáil originally introduced in government. Apart from that political kick, I commend the Minister, the Bill and the increase in the length of sentence from six to 12 months. Will the Minister address the two issues I have raised via amendments to the Bill?

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

This legislation provides an important alternative to a custodial sentence. I congratulate the Minister and everyone associated with introducing it in the House.

As others have stated, we need to address a number of issues. In some quarters it is deemed that repeat offences bring nothing more than repeat sentences with no benefit to the individual or society. It is an expensive way of dealing with what we like to call minor offences. Unfortunately, growing contempt has been generated by the amount of coverage given to those who appear before the courts for serious and sometimes minor offences. Of course, that is the purpose of the exercise. While the instances of contempt are less common now than they used to be, a couple of years ago people charged with various offences believed it to be their prerogative when appearing before a court to give a sign of contempt to the waiting press and, via that medium, the general public and the Judiciary. Some means must be found to bring it to their attention that they cannot offend repeatedly and hope to get away with it.

Issues arise from anti-social behaviour, about which there have been numerous complaints across the country, albeit mostly in urban areas. However, nothing seems to have been able to combat it and those who have been censured have regarded it as a badge of honour.

In the context of this legislation, we need to bear a number of issues in mind. Careful consideration needs to be given to the type of individual referred for the making of community service orders. For example, it is important that people pay their obligatory television licence fee. However, in the current climate doing so is difficult for some households. How do we encourage compliance in this regard? Provision has been made for the making of instalment payments, etc., but there will always be the odd exception. I hope a person who is not a repeat offender and may, through no fault of his or her own, find himself or herself in a situation that warrants the handing down of a short sentence in lieu of a payment will not be unfairly treated under the proposals contained in the Bill or another system. In many cases, the individuals concerned are not repeat offenders. Will the Minister refer to this matter? A repeat offender is different from the individual who, for reasons beyond his or her control, must serve a jail sentence in the absence of a community service order.

Regard must be had for the nature of an offence, its cause and impact on the offended, be it the State, the community or an individual. Someone subject to a community service order for what could be deemed in some quarters as a personal offence might come into continual contact with the offended person. I understand the Bill covers such a situation. If I am wrong, I hope something will be done to address the matter. In the course of the current debate I hope we can have a general review of our plans for sentencing in combating minor crime, which can ultimately become more serious. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle is looking at me attentively and I suspect I will have to conclude.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is in full flow.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I am only revving my engine.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

As it is now 1.30 p.m. we must move to the next business.

Debate adjourned.