The Irish Penal Reform Trust, IPRT, greatly welcomes the establishment of the Sub-committee on Penal Reform. We wish members well in their work and look forward to being of assistance to them. The Irish Penal Reform Trust is a non-governmental organisation campaigning for the rights of persons in prison and in the penal system more generally and also advocating that prison should be a sanction of last resort. We are committed to reducing imprisonment and to the progressive reform of the penal system. The creation of a safer society and safer communities must be the core goal of any criminal justice system. The current system is not capable of achieving that goal to the extent that it should because of problems within the system. In particular, its potential is restricted because of overcrowding, the poor physical conditions referred to by my colleague, Ms Cuthbert, lack of access to workshops, education and training, and the incidence of violence and drug use in prisons. All of these problems are well known.
One of the key impediments to progress within the system is the extreme level of overcrowding in prisons as a consequence of the increase in the prison population in recent years. In this context, the IPRT strongly supports the Minister's proposals for the early release of suitable prisoners. We also welcome the equally, if not more important, shift in policy away from large-scale prison building to concentrating on improving existing prison conditions. The causes of overcrowding were identified by the Thornton Hall review group as being systemic in nature. We do not have a clear articulation of what the various elements of the criminal justice system, including the Garda, courts, probation and welfare service, prisons and so on, are meant to do and how they should relate to each other. The current system disproportionately punishes the disadvantaged and produces high rates of recidivism. It is not delivering good value for society, is damaging individuals within the system and is not reducing the number of victims of crime or making society safer.
If we are serious about penal reform we must review the fundamentals of the system of punishment in Ireland. The White Paper on crime and the Minister's proposed strategic review group on penal policy are steps in the right direction. We have clearly articulated our vision of how the system should be reformed in the various position papers we have published, particularly our Position Paper on Penal Policy with Imprisonment as a Last Resort. There is more to this than merely diverting people from the prison system through the imposition of fines and community service. At every stage in the system we must ask ourselves whether we need to detain people in expensive prisons or whether they could be punished and supervised more effectively in the community.
A particularly notable problem of the current chaotic system is the overuse and inappropriate use of temporary release. It has come to function as a safety valve in the system, which is not its original purpose. Likewise, the current system of remission is a blunt instrument and does not serve as useful a function as it could. The Parole Board remains subject to political control, which brings us into conflict with international human rights law and creates great uncertainty and potential injustice for prisoners and for the community.
We have identified these specific mechanisms around the release of prisoners as ripe for reform. Reform in this area is the most effective and immediate way of bringing the prison population down to a level that is within the capacity of the existing prison system. Ireland is far out of line with most other common law and European countries in having a very restrictive system of temporary release and parole. We will be setting out the proposals contained in our submission in more detail. As the sub-committee will accept, with the time constraints involved, we have only sketched a broad outline for this meeting. We hope we can set down the parameters for how the sub-committee might examine a process of reform in each of these specific areas.
The first relates to the current law on remission and temporary release. Remission is a blunt instrument and there is potential for it to contribute to a more incentivised system. A distinction can usefully be drawn in respect of less serious offenders who could benefit from remission automatically at a certain point in their sentences. This happens at the three quarter point, but we see no reason this should not be brought into line with the position in most other jurisdictions where remission can be offered half or two thirds of the way through a sentence. For more serious offenders, again, eligibility for parole or temporary release should kick in at a fixed proportion point of the sentence, at which point there should be independent adjudication of eligibility. For example, it is the case in England and Wales that the position of serious offenders can be reviewed at the halfway point in their sentences. We are suggesting it would be reasonable to initiate reviews when prisoners reach a point two thirds of the way through their sentences. However, this is a matter for the Legislature to deal with down the line.
The important principle is that we can distinguish between an automatic entitlement to remission for less serious offenders and, perhaps, a reviewable, discretionary system for more serious offenders. In respect of both categories, however, there should be a more generous provision for remission for those who can demonstrate that they are engaging constructively with rehabilitation services. This is the key to creating an incentivised prison system under which prisoners work towards a final goal of being released. Such a system could very easily be tailored to the existing sentence management programme. It could also be tailored with specific emphasis on particular areas such as, for example, addiction or literacy which are, perhaps, most closely connected with future reoffending. Exceptions to such a system could also easily be made if there were particular categories of offenders, the members of which needed to be treated differently. I refer, for example, to sensitive categories such as sex offenders. There are clear examples - provided by our nearest neighbours and other jurisdictions - as to how such a system might be advanced by building on the existing system. At the same time, the use of temporary release on compassionate grounds, an essential feature of the current system, should be retained.
In the context of how decisions are made, the current system involving the parole board is subject to political control. I do not intend any criticism of the parole board which carries out its functions to an excellent level. Ultimately, however, decisions are taken by the Minister which creates great uncertainty and arbitrariness for individuals who appear before the board. In addition, it also brings us, potentially, into conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly in respect of prisoners serving life sentences. The Government has indicated that it is committed to parole reform, which we welcome. A number of essential targets must be achieved in any such reform process. The parole board must be fully independent, placed on a statutory footing and allowed to make binding recommendations with regard to prisoner releases. This would remove the release of prisoners as a decision-making function from the Minister for Justice and Equality, which is the key objective we must achieve.
The legislation underpinning the workings of the parole board should set out the functions thereof and the criteria to be used in making decisions. In our submission we suggest consideration should be given to a number of issues, including whether oral hearings should take place, who prepares the information on which the parole board makes its decisions, how its members are appointed and what is their term and security of office and how the board is to be funded. Individuals who appear before the board should have access to legal representation. There is a growing body of law at Strasbourg level which indicates that, essentially, this is a quasi-judicial process and that individuals should be represented by lawyers, where necessary.
Questions on prisoner releases and how decisions are taken form only one part of the picture. Ms Cuthbert has addressed issues relating to what happens in prison. There are many deficiencies in the prison system which would not be capable of delivering the incentives necessary within an incentivised system of parole. The integrated sentences management programme is good, in principle, but it is largely an exercise in paper, as opposed to being fully supported through the provision of the necessary resources and programmes within the prison system. Particular emphasis must be placed on drug and addiction treatment and literacy programmes. The encouraging aspect is that in recent years many jurisdictions have by reducing prisoner numbers and their level of investment in security been able to divert money towards treating individuals within prison. This has had great social benefits in terms of reduced levels of reoffending. Countries and jurisdictions as diverse as Texas have been able to make progress in this area.
Another part of the picture is what happens in the community once people are released. The community service scheme and the community release scheme initiated by the Minister represent a step in the right direction. Again, however, support must be provided for the probation service and the agencies it funds in order to support people beyond release. At a general level, this is an extremely underdeveloped aspect and there is much we could learn from other jurisdictions.
This is an area which is ripe for reform. There is a clear direction from other jurisdictions on how we might construct a system which would be superior to that which obtains. It is also an area in which we are likely to see immediate benefits in terms of reducing the prison population. More generally and in the longer term, the sub-committee can lay the groundwork for many more systemic improvements. I do not refer merely to how the system of parole operates but also as a contributory factor to an incentivised system of punishment, under which prisoners would work towards a specific end in a measurable way and we would move towards more liberal regimes throughout the prison system and, ultimately, temporary release for prisoners at an earlier point than might have been the case in the context of sentences handed down.
We wish the sub-committee well in its work which is very important. However, there is one slight proviso which we would highlight. We have laid down general parameters and indicated time limits. Of course, these are matters which require to be examined in much more detail. We will be publishing a much more detailed position paper on this matter and submitting it to the sub-committee shortly.
