Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 19 Apr 2011

Vol. 730 No. 3

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

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I ask Members to clear the Chamber if they are not participating in the debate.

Normally I prefer not to clear the House. I propose to share the remaining part of my time with my colleague, Deputy Peter Fitzpatrick, giving him five or six minutes.

When speaking previously on this Bill I made reference to the kind of offences which should come within the scope of this legislation. I refer, in particular, to a concern of mine regarding the level of offences against the person, what would be regarded as minor offences but which include intimidation in residential areas often carried out by young people who seem to have nothing else to do and who intimidate both other young people and older people. An order is imposed upon them under the relevant previous Act dealing with anti-social behaviour but such an order becomes a badge of honour for any youngster. He is deemed a hero and worthy of comment and capable of doing greater and worse things. That legislation is not working; it is a waste of time and has been abused. The people who allegedly suffered under its provisions are the victims of such behaviour because it carries on indefinitely. I hope that in the determination of the category of persons likely to have a community service order imposed them that such persons will be suitable to have such an order imposed upon them, that they will derive benefit from it and that there will not be repeat offending. If repeat offenders are given community service orders, one must ask if this is a waste of time. Such a policy may ease the pressure on prison spaces but if it is not achieving the purpose for which it was intended — being a deterrent — this will be a problem. I hope the Minister, in determining the regulations applicable to the Bill, will specify the grounds on which the court may decide to impose a community service order and to determine the suitability of the person on whom the order is to be served in order to ensure society does not suffer further and that the individual achieves some benefit from it by way of rehabilitation.

I note that section 4 refers to the conditions which must be met before a community service order may be imposed and this relates to what I have been saying. As regards the appropriateness of a community service order for certain offenders, I note statistics relating to prison inmates showed that in 2009 a total of 40% were imprisoned for offences against property, 21% for other offences, 17% for road traffic offences, 12% for other offences against the person such as assault, 9% for drug offences and 1% for sexual offences. The suitability of the client for inclusion in a community service order has to be carefully considered, otherwise it could become an offence to the person against whom the original offence was committed. There could be situations in which such a person could abuse the community service order by, as it were, sneering once again at the person or persons who were offended in the first place. I hope this aspect will be dealt with in the regulations.

I do not wish to labour the subject other than to say the issue of anti-social behaviour is not restricted to any particular area, any particular section of society or to any particular type of offence. A certain group of individuals who are in some cases old enough to have more sense intimidate others to such an extent as to drive them over the top, so to speak. Countless situations have been reported to Members in the past number of years in which individuals are at their wits' end because of constant niggling anti-social behaviour which often results in the victim being driven out of the community to seek refuge elsewhere. This should not be the case. Society should be able to protect people from such behaviour. I hope the Bill will make it possible to identify such offenders and subject them to suitable retribution which does not cause further offence to the persons they have already offended.

It is a privilege to have the opportunity to speak in the House. I thank the people of County Louth and the Meath East constituency for their wonderful support in the general election. It is a great honour for me to be elected to this House and I promise that the interests of my constituents will always be my first priority.

I speak in support of the Bill which has been brought forward by my Fine Gael colleague, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, who has proved to be the best legislator in this House. In the past he introduced a number of important Bills from the Opposition benches which were accepted by the Government. The original Bill which made provision for community service orders was put through this House in 1983 by my colleague, Deputy Michael Noonan, now Minister for Finance. It is good that this legislation has been reviewed and that it will be amended for the better.

Before 1983 the courts were empowered to use either a fine or imprisonment as a penalty. The 1983 legislation provided for the first time a third option, the imposition of a community service order as a deterrent to offenders. This was a very progressive change at the time. A community service order has much to recommend it in that an offender is able to continue with his or her education or employment while fulfilling the terms of the order and he or she also repays the community for his or her criminal activity. The Bill proposes to widen the scope of a community service order. It proposes that when a judge is considering the imposition of a sentence of 12 months or less, he or she must consider the imposition of a community service order first. I wholeheartedly support this proposal. A court will be able to make a community service order if it is satisfied that the offender is a suitable person to perform work under such an order and arrangements to perform such work can be made. In reaching its decision the court will consider the offender's circumstances and the assessment report prepared by the probation officer. In addition, the offender must give his or her consent to the making of the order. As well as making a contribution to communities, these orders have the potential to make an important contribution to the cost of running the prison service. The cost of a custodial sentence is enormous by comparison with the cost of administering a community service order. This measure should reduce the necessity to release prisoners before the normal time owing to a lack of accommodation in prisons.

I wish to speak about ways of preventing criminal activity in communities in the first place. My favourite hobby is sport in general and Gaelic football, in particular. I have seen at first hand how involvement in sport can transform the lives of teenagers in communities. The teenage years are generally very difficult for boys as they strive to become young men and often clash with authority figures, teachers and parents. In the confusion of puberty they can easily be sidetracked into gangland activities and bad behaviour patterns. Involvement in team sport can be a great support at this time in their lives. It promotes a healthy mind and a healthy body. Team sports, in particular, develop discipline and co-operation, which are important lifelong attributes. If we are serious about looking after communities properly, we should ensure all young people are given opportunities to be involved in sport, especially team sport.

Too many youngsters are wandering aimlessly around the streets of towns. Their energy is often channelled into membership of gangs and other dubious activities. A truly caring community would make every effort to ensure its children are brought up in the best possible way from an early age. As Members of this House, it is clearly our responsibility to ensure communities have all the supports and facilities they need to ensure this happens. Every housing estate should have access to a good sports field; every community should be encouraged to get its children involved in team sports and every national school should have its own playing field. As someone who spent his childhood years playing Gaelic football and soccer, I am convinced that if every community had proper access to sports facilities, children would develop a much healthier lifestyle and we would see a substantial decrease in bad behaviour. This would inevitably lead to fewer community service orders and offenders in prison.

In line with a tradition of this House, I congratulate Deputy Peter Fitzpatrick on his maiden speech in Dáil Éireann.

I would like to share time with Deputy Mick Wallace.

I support this legislation in principle, as it makes good social and economic sense. However, I would like to hear what linkages are intended to provide valuable work to match the community service audit. What agency will supervise that work?

I understand there are 4,500 people in prison in the State. That figure has grown consistently since 1997 when there were 3,500 in prison. I do not think anyone would suggest Ireland has become a safer place since 1997 just because more people are locked up. The United States, which has less than 5% of the world's population, has one quarter of the world's prison population. Some 2.3 million people were behind bars in the United States in 2008, which clearly shows that prison is not the deterrent it is often made out to be.

It is fair to say society benefits from imprisoning those who are a danger to it. I support that approach. In 2009, however, there were 3,601 committals for road traffic offences, which represents 33% of the total, an increase of 59% on the 2008 figure. I do not think fair-minded people would see prison as an appropriate sanction in many of these cases. I doubt that the vast majority would see a need to spend €77,000 per annum in this way. Most of society does not want to see such persons in prison. If there has been a demand within society for custodial sentences for crimes in recent years, it has been for white collar crimes, particularly those that have affected ordinary families and caused young people to go into exile of emigration. The attack on the living standards of the people has largely been caused by white collar crimes. People want to see punitive measures in that context because of the impact such behaviour has had on their lives.

The estimated cost of keeping a prisoner locked up for one year used to be approximately €100,000. The decrease in that figure in recent years — it is now approximately €77,000 — is accounted for by the level of overcrowding — 20% — in prisons. I do not think it is something of which we should be particularly proud. Overcrowding poses risks to prisoners and the staff who work in prisons. Overcrowding, insanitary conditions and practices such as slopping out in Mountjoy Prison are bringing the country's human rights record into disrepute.

The average cost of a community service order is €4,295 which is a fraction of the cost of imprisoning a person. As I said, it makes good economic sense. The potential benefits in terms of the work undertaken are not factored in. There is a growing body of evidence from countries such as the United Kingdom and Spain that reoffending rates are substantially lower among those who have received community service orders compared to those who have received custodial sentences — even short sentences. Our penal system should be seen as a deterrent and also as a system of rehabilitation. It is clear that the use of community service orders as a sanction, particularly for minor offences, can make a contribution towards this aim.

When we consider reforms to public services, it is essential not only that we ensure we get value for money but also that we put systems in place to reflect the society we want to create. We should look at the long term to complete the picture. It will be possible to save considerable sums by replacing prison sentences with community service orders as long as they are appropriately used. I am concerned by the suggestion that it is intended that the measures proposed will be cost neutral. The Probation Service is already stretched. I am concerned that unless the service is allowed to expand to make this measure work, it will not produce the desired results. It may also affect other work done by the service. If we do not provide for proper supervision of the work that will be done in communities, the change we are making will quickly fall into disrepute.

Previous speakers referred to anti-social behaviour orders. When they were being introduced, we all made the point that they could end up being a badge of honour. We pointed out that a considerable amount of supervision would be required to impose properly the system that was intended. In this case, it will be up to the judge to ask the Probation Service to assess each convicted person to ensure he or she is suitable for such an order. The service will have to state whether work is available to be done. Obviously, there needs to be a link between the various services. What agency will provide the work and the supervision? Will FÁS, for example, be required to do so? If so, how will its current workload be affected? I am trying to think practically about the effects of the operation of this proposal. Will those seeking retraining be displaced? It is obvious that the age and perhaps the gender of the offender will be an issue, too. The probation officer will need to be able to rely on those supervising the work to ensure the number of hours of work specified in the order is completed. If the person who receives the community service order is unwilling to carry out the work, the probation officer will need to return to court for an alternative sanction. I think it will be determined at the same time, as that is how it currently works. If the person who receives the sentence is willing to do the work but there is inadequate work to be done, what will happen?

It concerns me that we are going about this in a fragmented way. The change is worthwhile, but we are not joining the necessary links. We are not specifying how the work will be done in practice. I am not sure that is a function of the legislation, but it would be useful to hear about the linkages that could meaningfully be made. There is also the lack of a linkage between the Garda, the Courts Service and other agencies. This fragmented approach is part of the problem.

In many cases, earlier intervention would cost the State much less than is currently the case and cause much less grief to communities. For example, the Youthreach programme is oversubscribed in some areas, which means young people who have been expelled from school are walking the streets. The level of investment required to address this problem is a tiny fraction of the cost of imposing a community service order. Youngsters who find themselves in these circumstances are at risk of going to prison. Early intervention makes a significant contribution towards keeping potential young offenders out of trouble. While the Garda juvenile liaison offices do good work, their workload is often much too large. Community service orders are a good sanction, but achieving real success would mean eliminating the need for sanctions through early intervention.

In 2009, 70% of committals were for six months or less. In some cases, the sentence was considerably less than six months. The Irish Penal Reform Trust has stated the following:

Ireland systematically overuses imprisonment as punishment. While the average prison population on any given day in Ireland is close to the European average, the rates of committal to prison on sentence — the ‘flow' of prisoners through the system — means that Ireland has one of the most punitive criminal justice systems in Europe.

Additionally, high numbers of people are sent to prison for short term sentences, often for less than 6 months. Significant numbers of those who are sent to prison are committed there for non-violent offences, for fine default or for relatively minor road traffic offences.

This is not a question of do-gooders complaining about particular sanctions. I would not make the case that sanctions should not be imposed for certain offences. However, in 2008 there were 2,254 committals related to road traffic offences, the majority of which were for non-payment of insurance. Under the law, for very good reason, one cannot drive unless one is insured. However, it may be open to the courts to impose instalment orders under which the cost of insurance would be deducted from a person's income, rather than locking up the individual in question at the taxpayer's expense.

While I support the Bill in principle, I reiterate my concerns about how it will work in practice. I am also concerned about its cost neutrality, an issue on which I would welcome a response from the Minister.

This legislation is good because the use of community service orders as an alternative to prison can only be positive. The Bill is, therefore, a step in the right direction. Of the people I know who have gone to prison, few emerged as better people. Unfortunately, the use of imprisonment has not had the desired effect on many of those sent to prison. While some are sent to prison to keep them out of harm's way or because they are a danger to society, many others are imprisoned in the hope they will come out of prison as better people. Sadly, this is seldom the case.

The prison system is seriously overcrowded. In January 4,500 people were in prison, double the number who were in prison 13 or 14 years ago. This is a frightening statistic and most of those with responsibility for the prisons agree that there is no chance of achieving positive outcomes in overcrowded prisons.

Other Deputies and I met representatives of the Irish Penal Reform Trust, IPRT, which has some interesting ideas on the prison system. According to it, it "has long argued that prisoners cannot be treated in isolation from the communities from which they come and to which they return, and that penal policy must be connected up to relevant policies in the health and social sphere". For this reason, it regards detention as a last resort than a first option.

It would do all of us good to spend some time doing community service as we would learn something and it could make us more healthy social animals. Obliging offenders to carry out community service gives them an opportunity to see and repair some of the harm and damage they have done to their community. This is a positive outcome.

The cost of a prison place for one year is frightening. Not only is imprisonment extremely expensive, but it results in poor outcomes. Every day Deputies argue in favour of having more money spent on certain areas. It is ironic, therefore, that we would do a better job in the criminal justice area if we were to decide to spend less money on it. We should require many offenders who would otherwise receive short prison sentences to do work in the community. A large proportion of the prison population consists of people serving short sentences. It is an investment in society to have offenders working in the community.

All states spend large sums tackling problems caused by poverty, crime, alcoholism, drug addiction and social exclusion. The State should focus on addressing the root causes of such problems rather than throwing money at them. I look forward to the day the Government shows a greater interest in tackling the root causes of problems such as inequality. It was interesting to hear a leading US economist state last week that inequality had played a part in the financial meltdown we experienced in recent years.

Looking at the bigger picture, if the Government were to decide to address the root causes, it would abandon measures to cut the numbers of resource teachers for Travellers and learning and language support teachers. These teaching staff are vital to ensuring we have a healthy society. We must invest in our young people to ensure they are less likely to fall by the wayside, become involved in crime or succumb to addiction. By investing properly and ensuring each child is given an opportunity to maximise his or her potential, we will minimise the number of problems in society. The decision to save €24 million by cutting the number of resource teachers for Travellers is about to create major problems for primary schools. I implore the Government to reconsider this proposal which will come into effect in September. It will not be good for society, particularly given the small amount of money involved. If we are serious about preventing crime rather than bashing those who commit it, we should not impose cuts in such areas.

I propose to share time with Deputy John Lyons.

This Bill, which I support, introduces a number of important and welcome changes to the regime for the implementation of community service orders. It increases the sentencing period in lieu of which a community service order can be made from six months to 12. Moreover, while sentences in excess of six months are rarely handed down in the District Court — it may in certain circumstances hand down 12 month sentences — the Bill explicitly provides that community service orders can now be made in the Circuit Court. This is a welcome amendment to the current regime. Most important, the Bill provides that judges will now have a duty to consider whether a community service order is appropriate.

Community service orders are appropriate in a great number of circumstances and for a number of reasons, those reasons being linked with the purposes and aims of sentencing in the criminal justice system, namely, retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence and incapacitation. With regard to retribution, the benefits of community service orders are clear in that a community or society — a crime is, in essence, a wrong against a community or society — has the opportunity to see those who have committed the wrong purge themselves of it and perform acts beneficial to society. With regard to rehabilitation, the benefits of such orders are equally obvious in that an offender at sentencing stage has the possibility to remain in his or her community and draw support from it, including from the family, as he or she seeks to deal with the wrong committed.

With regard to deterrence, as one who has worked in the criminal justice system, albeit briefly on the south western circuit before having the honour of being elected by the people of County Clare, it always struck me that for some offenders, particularly minor offenders, the possibility of receiving a very short prison sentence did not act as a deterrent. Anybody who has sat in the criminal courts, particularly in our largest cities, could only have been struck by the bravado of young and even older offenders as they awaited sentencing for relatively minor offences. Regrettably, in certain communities which in certain instances have suffered neglect since the foundation of the State a minor sentence is almost a badge of honour and, for certain individuals, going to prison is almost welcomed.

While in many cases these individuals are habitual offenders, every habitual offender begins with a first, second and third offence. A prison sentence of more than six months seems to at least concentrate the minds of offenders from certain areas of the State which are effectively under the influence of crime gangs. I make this point having spoken to young offenders who were serving more than six months for the first time and were appealing the sentence. That is the context in which I managed to speak to them; therefore, I know they feared being drawn further under the influence of criminal gangs. From this perspective, it is welcome that the Bill increases the sentence period in lieu of which a community service order can be granted to up to 12 months.

With regard to incapacitation, if an offence is of such gravity that it requires incapacitation to meet the sentence, obviously, community service orders do not apply. I must voice a reservation on one point, namely, that the consent of an offender is required in order for a judge to consider a community service order. While I am mindful of the State's obligations in the protocols to the European Convention on Human Rights, these obligations being that nobody shall be required to effectively engage in slave labour, I submit to the House that a criminal sanction could not be considered to amount to slave labour. Mindful of what I said about minor sentences for relatively minor offences such as anti-social behaviour being a badge of honour, in the circumstances I strongly suggest the consent of an offender ought not be required in order to allow a judge to make a community service order. It is almost anathema to the criminal justice system that an offender can choose the type of sentence to be imposed upon him or her, whether it is a custodial sentence, a fine or a community service order.

I am concerned that the Bill does not appear to require judges to state the time period the community service order is in lieu of. If it is for a very short time period, given the revolving door syndrome which in itself is not as negative as it is portrayed to be, those who are sentenced to a very short period may find it attractive to serve the sentence, knowing it will be greatly reduced and, effectively, that their period of incarceration will be very brief. This might be more attractive than going into the community which they have offended by their behaviour and carrying out a community service order in view of that community, even though such an order could be greatly beneficial to the offenders in question, as they will inevitably carry out some duty which is useful and beneficial to the community. Moreover, there is a greater chance of rehabilitation in these circumstances than there would be by serving a short custodial sentence in certain instances where offenders have an opportunity to consort with persons with whom they would have consorted in the past in prison, or with groups carrying out criminal activities outside prison.

Notwithstanding my reservations, I commend the Bill to the House. I take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister on his appointment in the relatively recent past as we approach the first recess of the 31st Dáil.

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Bill, which I welcome principally because it is a practical and appropriate response to a growing problem. We have problems with the prisons, principally relating to the space available, their quality and cost. Given the financial constraints, it is clear we cannot embark on a programme of prison building to accommodate all offenders where imprisonment must be considered. With this set of problems, we have to consider alternatives that deliver an appropriate punishment for criminal behaviour but also provide more benefits for the wider community.

Essentially, it is about striking the right balance. In recent years we have seen a considerable rise in the number of sentences of 12 months or less, which is putting the prison system under ever greater strain. We know that prison is not always the best option in the case of certain sentences. This can be because it may not prevent reoffending or it may, in certain circumstances, make a situation considerably worse. However, if a prison sentence is appropriate, we must ensure the person sentenced serves the appropriate time and is not released for reasons such as lack of space. This is crucial to allow the public to have faith in the justice system.

The Bill provides for greater use of community service orders where the court would otherwise be of the opinion that a custodial sentence of anything up to 12 months is appropriate. This is a welcome development, as I would prefer a person who has been convicted of a crime and is not a danger to the public to be given a chance to work voluntarily in the community as a form of reparation. I know from my constituency of Dublin North-West that there is an amount of work that could be done at local level which would make a real difference to communities. This may include general work which requires an extra pair of hands or, in some cases, more specialised work with which the offender may be able to assist.

I attended a meeting in a youth centre in Ballymun recently at which I was informed about a programme called Easy Street which utilised the experience of reformed persons to run a community outreach programme aimed at tackling incidences of low-level crime. This is important because most crime or anti-social behaviour is low level but can nevertheless have a devastating effect on communities. Those involved in the programme are making a positive contribution in their community. Avenues such as this should be explored in the context of the provisions of this Bill.

With this, as with all legislation, we must consider the issue of costs. The measures proposed in the Bill will only be effective if the Probation Service and the community groups likely to receive these individuals are adequately funded. If cost savings come from the reduced number of prison inmates, arising from an increased use of community service orders, a portion of the savings should be allocated to the Probation Service.

A community service order should not be seen as a soft sentence and rehabilitation programmes should be built into the order. Rehabilitation is not a panacea for all crime, but it should be incorporated into community service in order that the offender will not walk away, at the expiration of an order, without being rehabilitated in any way. Another benefit of community service orders is that they afford the person charged with a crime the chance to maintain family links and remain in employment, education or training. This is an important issue because where such links are broken through a custodial sentence, it may be difficult for offenders to restart their life, thereby hampering their rehabilitation.

Where perpetrators of a crime warranting a sentence of less than one year are imprisoned, the community derives almost no benefit from their punishment. I support the measures in the Bill which provide a basis for the Judiciary to consider a practical alternative which may be more beneficial both to communities and offenders.

I congratulate the Minister, Deputy Shatter, on the Bill he has brought before us and wish him well in his new role. As this is the first time I have addressed the House since my election, I take the opportunity to thank my family, friends and supporters who assisted me in the general election campaign. Most importantly, I thank the people of south Kildare who put their trust in me and placed a huge responsibility on my shoulders. I am honoured, humbled and excited by that responsibility and will endeavour to represent the people of south Kildare to the very best of my ability.

The Bill offers benefits for communities, the State and, most importantly, society in general. Within communities, a first-time offender could be ordered, for example, to assist in the removal of graffiti or become involved in a tidy towns committee. I have engaged with various voluntary organisations for many years and I am always amazed by the calibre of people who get involved. They do so not for personal gain but because of their pride in the area in which they live. Such persons give up their free time in order to make their locality a better place in which to live. They are ambassadors for the country and role models for society.

If a first-time offender who is from a socially deprived background and has been charged, for instance, with a non-violent theft is sent to prison, he or she will meet more hardened criminals with vast experience of the system and how to commit crime. The prison system functions like a breeding ground in such instances where the first-time offender is taught better means of engaging in crime without getting caught. There is no benefit to society in imprisoning such offenders. By comparison, imposing community service in such cases will put offenders in touch with passionate ambassadors within community and voluntary organisations who will open their eyes to a different view of their community. It is a no-brainer. The benefit to the State from the reduced burden on the Irish Prison Service is significant. The service has reported that between 2008 and 2009 the number of committals increased by 35%. Our prisons are bursting at the seams. This is not because the country is more lawless than others. However, Irish society will gain more than most from the proposed change in the legislation because it will ensure greater fairness in how we operate.

Among all the people I met during the canvass one of the greatest concerns was the perceived lack of fairness in how people had been treated both before the recession and since. We must introduce fairness to how we deal with people. A person who fails to pay a television licence fee and the subsequent fines may well end up in Mountjoy Prison. Compare this with the treatment of some of the bankers who worked in financial services in this country and who by their actions and inaction contributed to the burden of billions of euro placed on the State and its taxpayers. It seems the people concerned are still playing golf and going on sun holidays. We must initiate a change in our society to ensure wrongdoing on such a scale is dealt with swiftly and firmly. It seems that in some cases our prisons are filled with the wrong people.

We will only get the country back on track by bringing the people with us and we will only be able to do this when there is greater equality within society. We must have a society that deals effectively with first-time offenders with a clear goal of seeking to avoid repeat offences. Prison is not the place for someone who has committed a minor road offence. In my own county community service orders are not widely implemented in the courts as a means of sentencing. That is to the detriment of the administration of justice. I hope the provisions in the Bill will ensure community service is considered more often as a better way to deal with those convicted of minor offences.

I take the opportunity, on behalf of Fianna Fáil, to wish Deputies Martin Heydon and John Fitzpatrick, on the occasion of their maiden speeches, every success. This is the first occasion on which I have formally addressed the House as spokesperson on justice issues. I look forward to working with the Minister, Deputy Alan Shatter, in the life of the Dáil in the preparation of Bills such as this and on other issues. However, perhaps we will not again schedule defence and justice business together on the same afternoon for some time.

I compliment the Minister's predecessor, Dermot Ahern, who did much of the groundwork in introducing this Bill. I understand it is essentially the same as the legislation that was before the last Dáil in advance of the general election. Everybody agrees that the rate of imposition of community service orders is not sufficient, with very few judges availing of the option. Only 28 courts have issued such orders. It is important that legislative provisions in this area are utilised more often by judges in order that people can see justice being done within their localities. The Bill does not interfere with the independence of judges and it is important that we maintain that balance between the Oireachtas and the Judiciary. It is a matter for this House to make laws and for others to implement them. We must ensure victims of crime are afforded the greatest possible protection and prospect of seeing perpetrators pay for their crimes.

Other speakers referred to the cost of prisons. The figures released today for the numbers of offences carried out while the perpetrators were on bail present another challenge in the context of this legislation. We all recognise that the Irish Prison Service is under huge pressure. Ireland has one of the highest prisoner populations per capita in Europe. On his retirement the former Governor of Mountjoy Prison, Mr. John Lonergan, observed that one of the key challenges in the Irish Prison Service was overcrowding and that one of the first priorities for reform should be to stop imposing prison sentences on those whose crimes warranted only a short sentence. The Bill offers a solution by focusing on community orders and the administration of justice in a visible way within communities.

We all agree that there is great demand for community service orders, but I agree with Deputy Catherine Murphy that it is important to clarify the management structure of this resource. Will it be done through FÁS, the rural social scheme or the Tús work placement scheme, for example? What training will be given to the persons managing these schemes to allow them to deal with the offenders who participate in them?

It is important, if offenders are allowed to participate in existing schemes, that a distinction be drawn between offenders and those who are participating in an existing scheme as a social welfare entitlement or to use up their 20 hours per week. When placing community service order offenders in a community setting, it will be important to avoid bringing down the entire community work system by so doing and prevent everyone from being branded in the same way. It also will be important that those chosen for community service are safe to work in the community. The worst possible outcome would be for a participant in the community service scheme to commit a more serious crime while participating in that service. This would ruin the entire scheme and those who decry community service orders as a soft approach or soft justice would queue up to have the scheme destroyed.

The Bill allows us to be smarter and more clever in the manner we deal with crime and offences. It responds to a need to open up and free space within prisons for those who are more serious offenders. It responds to a need that has been demonstrated today to be more harsh on those on bail and provide far greater prison accommodation for them, particularly those accused of serious offences. We can do so by adopting this approach without major recourse to increased costs or the existing prison service.

I refer to what has happened in Scotland where the Scottish courts have recently moved to a system similar to that under discussion in the Chamber today. In 2007 there was a concerted effort on the part of the government there to increase the use of community service as an alternative to prison and in that year the number of community service orders exceeded that of prison sentences for the first time. The programme of reform culminated in the introduction of a legislative scheme through the Scottish Parliament to end completely the use of short sentences and this legislation has just come into effect. All Members should consider it as a relative point of comparison as Ireland heads down that road.

Community service orders are very important in enabling communities to see justice in respect of those who commit a crime within their own communities. Prison is something that is distant. Many of us have never seen the inside of one and cannot imagine what it would be like. However, those who commit minor offences in communities should be seen to pay for such offences within those communities. In so doing through community service orders, this can be achieved in a manner where everyone gets the benefit of the labour and the service, as well as the benefit of visible justice within their community. Many speakers have referred to how ASBOs and other court orders are perceived as badges of honour within communities. Were someone physically working or performing community service in the full view of his or her friends, neighbours and family, that badge of honour element would be diminished. People would be judged for what they were because they would be doing their sentence in front of their peers, community and families. I agree with the need for the Probation Service to be centrally involved in this regard and acknowledge it is true that the justice system is perceived as something that makes one cool and gives one a standing within one's community. However, with imagination regarding the work on offer and the tasks set under community service orders, we can begin to tackle the badge of honour issue through a community-led approach. It is essential to start at this point.

In the course of Committee Stage Fianna Fáil will seek clarification on the management programme for community service orders. Were we to emulate, for example, the Scottish experience in which more such orders are handed down than short-term prison sentences, it would require an entirely new reimagination as to how we should roll out this service. If one considers that a community service order costs approximately €4,000 per offender, it certainly constitutes value for money. However, we do not have a valuation on what potentially could be returned to communities through community effort and labour.

Deputy Martin Heydon and others have referred to the fantastic community spirit in Ireland and I imagine nearly all Members have participated in some organisation or other in being elected to this House. This measure offers the potential to use an entirely new skill set. It does not pertain necessarily to the most hardened of criminals but to those who, for whatever reason, have committed a once in a lifetime action. Consequently, a new skill set will be available, be it in sport, community development or fund raising, to be brought into the community and voluntary sectors. This offers a chance to strengthen the community and voluntary sectors and the services they provide nationwide by so doing. It will be important to ensure the proper infrastructure is put in place to manage this programme and match the skills and talents of those who may participate in the community service scheme with those organisations which need them. I emphasise again that the first time something goes wrong on the scheme, those who criticise it as being the easy option will queue up to have a go at it. If one wishes to see it work, one must ensure an appropriate infrastructure is in place to manage it and ensure offenders are seen to pay.

One challenge faced by the scheme is that many will view it with scepticism and fear. In particular, the placing of offenders, including more serious offenders, to work in community or perhaps sports organisations will give rise to the understandable fear that an offender is being brought into the community or into a setting in which some may not wish him or her to be. In some cases, as Deputy Martin Heydon mentioned, they may be asked to remove graffiti. However on other occasions, they may be asked to participate in, or work on behalf of, committees. There will be issues in this regard in respect of people's expectations and fears and inevitably issues will arise in which such fears will be preyed upon by organisations, political or otherwise, which seek to oppose the scheme. Members must be careful in this regard when laying out the work people can do, the issues in which they can get involved and the amount of information given to a sponsoring organisation in the scheme.

I refer to the subject of Garda vetting. One assumes that even though a person has committed an offence, Garda vetting will be involved for anyone participating in a community scheme. The delays associated with the vetting section are well known. Unless, as I noted, a proper infrastructure is put in place for the community service scheme, the Garda vetting delays which already are causing huge frustration and on which Members collectively must work towards providing a solution will only get worse and lead to greater aggravation throughout the system.

The final word should be given to the Inspector of Prisons, Judge Michael Reilly, who has recommended that short-term imprisonment be brought to an end. Moreover, the words of Mr. John Lonergan who has given such great service to society for many years also echo that theme. In addition, I refer to the figures and statistics for bail released today. The Bill constitutes the first step towards so doing and Members should work quickly but appropriately to bring the legislation through Committee Stage and, I hope, onto the Statute Book before the summer recess in order that the challenges we face regarding the overcrowded prison community can be addressed in as benign a fashion as possible.

Fianna Fáil supports the Bill on Second Stage and looks forward to working with the Minister on Committee Stage to tweak it and make it better. However, it is important to ensure the infrastructure put in place is as robust as possible to deal with the challenges that must be faced. Perhaps this is a discussion the Minister can have with his colleague, the Minister responsible for community affairs, Deputy Phil Hogan, and other relevant Ministers.

Before asking Deputy Dara Calleary to move that the debate be adjourned, in the tradition of the Chair I congratulate Deputy Martin Heydon on making his maiden speech.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share