I asked the Minister what role, if any, the juvenile liaison officers could play. Can they play any useful role?
Criminal Justice (Community Service) Bill, 1983: Committee and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
Limerick East): The juvenile liaison scheme is for offenders under the age of 16 years or so whereas the Bill deals with offenders over 16 years of age. There is close contact between the probation and welfare service and the gardaí operating the scheme. I would hope that that will continue. That contact will be essential to the successful operation of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
The Minister in his reply on Second Stage touched on a point to which I should have referred. I had a note on it but I overlooked it in my Second Stage speech, that is, the question of the Act applying to an "offence for which, in the opinion of the court, the appropriate sentence would but for this Act be one of penal servitude..." The problem which the Minister referred to and which I would like to reiterate and emphasise is that it might be used as an alternative to a fine. The Minister was quite right to emphasise that that should not be. It is grand to say that the law says that, unless it is an occasion when a sentence of imprisonment would have been appropriate, then it will not apply. The dividing line between a fine and a prison sentence in reality is very thin. Anybody who has attended a court, particularly at District Court level, knows there are certain set pieces that take place in court. The solicitor on behalf of the defendant pleads with the justice not to send his client to jail. The justice says: "I have to send him to jail. This is the most scandalous thing I have ever heard of in my life." It is all done, I suppose, to increase the tension and seriousness with which the offender is treating the occasion.
Very often that is carried on and the justice has no intention of sending the person to jail, and is merely going through this ritual. The difficulty which the Minister has correctly pointed out is that, if it is seen as an alternative to the kind of cases which ultimately would not have ended up in jail, it will only be an additional burden. It is important that the Minister should emphasise that point in instructing the probation and welfare officers who, under section 4, will have quite a considerable say in whether it goes ahead.
A query to the Minister. I would have thought it would have been appropriate to refer to young offenders. Presumably there was a problem. I do not know what it was. I would have thought that for young offenders the idea of community service orders as an alternative to imprisonment could have been emphasised more in this Bill because it is obviously an area of great importance. The stigma of imprisonment on a young person's career is obviously far greater than it would be for somebody heading into his fifties. There is also a tendency to treat things differently. Is there a reason why a particular emphasis could not have been put on young offenders in this section because obviously it will be a matter of interpretation. The second thing which worries me on this section is the administrative practicalities where we are liable to have very differing interpretations of this section by members of the Judiciary in different courts. I know there is an eternal problem about the Judiciary and Legislature and the independence of one from the other. Is there anything which could be done to get some sort of evenhanded interpretation of this, so that the probation and welfare services can have some evenness in handling it? I can see different district justices taking very different views as to how this section will be implemented.
(Limerick East): Two points have been raised. First, why there is not more concentration on young offenders. It applies to people from 16 years of age upwards. There would be a difficulty if we were to reduce the age, which I presume is one of the points the Senator is making. The practice at present is that the Department of Justice deals with offenders who are 16 years of age but, if they are under 16 years of age, they are dealt with by the Department of Education. There are special schools to which people can be sent if they are under 16 years of age. There would also be a difficulty if, under the general corpus of labour law, we do not allow people to work under 16 years in the normal way, and at the same time, we left it open to the courts to sentence them to work. There would be a major contradiction in that.
The second point made by both Senator Ryan and Senator O'Leary needs to be stressed. The practical operation of this legislation will be the deciding factor in whether or not it works. There is concern at the moment about a lack of uniformity in sentencing policy in different District Court areas and other courts. I do not want to encroach on the line which divides the Judiciary from the Executive. There are provision under the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961, whereby the President of the District Court calls district justices together to discuss many matters, particularly sentencing policy. I would like if the Bill could be looked at by district justices in this context. I do not see any difficulty in harmonising the approach of probation and welfare officers throughout the country, because as a section of the Department of Justice they work directly to it. Consequently, it is possible to make the approach there uniform under this section of the Bill, so that the input in different court areas by different probation and welfare officers will be uniform. There is enough power under the Courts Act of 1961 to enable the President of the District Court and district justices to take a uniform approach to sentencing policy. I hope they will do so, before the implementation of the Bill in 1984.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
In section 3 (2) the Bill specifically refers to unpaid work. Presumably "unpaid" was put in very deliberately. Was it necessary to specifically say "unpaid work"? Would it not have been possible to leave this open because, generally speaking, it will be unpaid work? It might be that in particular circumstances suitable employment could be provided and pay could be offered for it which would be useful to the person concerned. Further down the section says that these orders may be made in addition to the payment of compensation, costs or expenses. An offender might have to pay some kind of compensation and expenses as well, and he would be willing to do this work but, under the Bill, he is forbidden to take work where payment would be forthcoming. I agree that in general that it should be unpaid work and in general it would be unpaid work. Was it necessary to specifically preclude the possibility of paid work being appropriate on some occasions?
(Limerick East): I understand the point being raised by the Senator. What he says has validity but there are two points. First, it is an alternative to a prison sentence. It is not a provision of an employment scheme of any sort. The second point is that, when this idea was first mooted, and when the initial briefing document was published on it, it was welcomed to a great extent by the trade union movement. Both the formal and informal reactions from the trade union movement were very much in favour of this. One reason for that was that it specified unpaid work.
If we proposed a scheme which would provide work for young offenders, who were working under a community service order as an alternative to imprisonment, probably we would have had practical difficulties with the trade union movement. It would be very difficult to argue, if we were actually paying for work done, that this was not work which could be paid for in the ordinary way under local authorities. There was a practical need for introducing it.
We have no intention of taking work away from the ordinary workforce. One of the advantages of this scheme is that the community work could be done while somebody was still in employment, if there was another charge, or compensation to be met. Someone in employment could be doing his full week's work and be doing the community service order work on a Saturday. If somebody unemployed was doing community service work, of course he would be receiving unemployment benefit anyway.
This crossed my mind. An unemployed person who is the subject of a community service order could well run into problems with the Department of Social Welfare with regard to his availability for work. This is an administrative point which the Department of Justice and the Department of Social Welfare should be able to work out. The Department of Social Welfare have a notorious reputation for taking the most extraordinary attitudes to whom is and is not available for work. Since it is the object of this legislation not to interfere with people's other activities, it is very important that the consequences of being sentenced to community service would not be to deprive somebody of his unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance. I would ask the Minister to make sure the necessary interpretations are put on it by the Department of Social Welfare.
(Limerick East): That is being discussed with the Department of Social Welfare. Even if the discussions did not prove fruitful, and I am sure they will, the community service scheme is being organised in such a way that it would be appropriate for somebody who was in full-time employment to do community work. Consequently if it is appropriate for somebody in full-time employment, it is also appropriate that it can be administered and somebody is still fully available for work if unemployed.
The Minister and I are reasonable men. My experience of the Department of Social Welfare is not that they interpret their legislation reasonably.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
You flatter yourself, Senator.
No, I am flattering the Minister, a Leas-Chathaoirleach.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
I do not understand the Minister's attitude on the distinction between consent and choice. I do not agree with it. I know they are two different words and I know they mean two different things. What is involved here is both a choice and a consent. It is quite true that the courts, in the first place, have a choice as to whether or not they will make this offender liable under a community service order. The district justice can decide to send the person to prison or he can decide to do something else. He has a choice in that regard, but once he has exercised that choice and has told the offender how he proposes to exercise that choice, then the offender also has a choice. The offender has a choice of agreeing or of not agreeing. It is quite clearly stated — his consent is needed. The withholding or giving of that consent gives him a choice. He does not have the original choice, but he has a choice eventually.
As I said in my Second Stage speech I believe very strongly that this section will run into difficulty. It is right that the offender should be fully informed as to what the alternatives are. Even if there were no possibility of the section running into difficulty I firmly believe that the offender should know what the options are. He should know that, if he does not want to do community service order work, he will go to prison. It is inherent in the application of the community service order that if he does not consent to it he will go to prison. He should know for what length of time he is likely to go to prison. It is important that he should have the full facts before him before exercising his choice. At that stage it has become his choice, by the decision of the court exercising their prior choice.
If it were to stop at that, I would still be in favour of the offender being informed. But I am firmly of the opinion that difficulty will arise, if section 4 is not amended, in respect of an offender who consents to have a community service order made against him and who subsequently fails to comply for one reason or another with the terms of the community service order and is then referred back to the court for sentencing. In those circumstances there will be an application along the lines that the offender did not in the first place properly consent to the making of the order, and that he should not be fined £300 or alternatively that the time has elapsed during which he could be properly sentenced for the offence for which he was found guilty at the earlier date.
It is important that there would be an addition to this section which would have the effect of informing the offender — prior to the giving or the withholding of his consent — of the consequences of his action. That can be done in one of two ways. It can be done by inserting after (b) "the offender has consented", a statement that prior to ascertaining whether or not the offender is consenting, the court shall inform the offender of the actual sentence which will be imposed if he does not consent. It has the additional advantage of ensuring that the court really only applies this in cases where they are going to send someone to prison.
Alternatively, it can be done by the addition of a paragraph (d) to subsection (2) which says that before making a community service order in respect of an offender the court shall explain to him three things. We should add a new paragraph (d), showing the alternative sentence which will be imposed if he does not consent. In order to ensure that the offender could be dealt with in the normal way if he failed to fulfil his commitments, we would have to add a sentence saying that the alternative sentence shall not limit the power of the court to deal with the offender under sections 8 (1) (a), 8 (2), 11 (1) (a) and 11 (2). They are the various circumstances in which the original offence is re-examined by the court and the opportunity is given to the court to re-impose a sentence.
The purpose of that addition would be to ensure that the alternative sentence mentioned at the time of the making of the original order could be varied at a later date as there would probably be no record of it. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about that. Even as the Bill is drafted the offender has a choice. He does not have the first choice, but he has a second choice and it is a real choice.
Senator O'Leary has raised a very interesting point. I am not inclined to agree fully with him on this interpretation. If the wording here was that the offender may exercise an option, quite clearly he would have to be told what the alternatives were. I would not agree that in order to consent to any course of action a person must know the alternatives. Consequently, I would not agree with him fully on that.
In many cases the district justice may not in his own mind have decided what he will do. He may decide that it is clearly a case for an order under this Act and offer this course of action to the offender without necessarily having considered what he would do in the alternative. I am not sure that it would be entirely desirable that the judge should have made up his mind; he may be a very enthusiastic upholder or believer in the principle of this Bill. He might even go out of his way to say that unless a person consents he will impose a very severe sentence. I agree that this is an interesting point but I am not inclined to agree fully with what Senator O'Leary has said.
The second point is whether suitable arrangements can be made for an offender to do what is required of him under this Bill. In any circumstances where there is a will on the part of the judge and the local probation officer, suitable work will be found. The Minister has said that the whole purpose and success of this Bill depend on goodwill and people wanting it to work. I certainly want it to work. It is very commendable and should be made to work but there will be people who will not make the necessary effort or show the necessary ingenuity. If that happens then quite clearly there will be applications made in the case of a person who is not given the opportunity of serving a sentence under this Bill.
Take the case of two young people, both of whom are studying for an examination and both of whom are equally guilty of whatever the offence is. If one is allowed to serve a sentence under this Bill and allowed to continue studying and eventually do the examination and the other is not given the opportunity and is sent to jail, the second person quite clearly will have a case for some kind of action under the Constitution that he is being discriminated against. This may give rise to difficulties in the future. I say that not in criticism of the Bill but every effort should be made to ensure that kind of situation will not arise.
I do not see as many difficulties as Senator O'Leary. At the time this offender comes before the courts, following much discussion with him through the probation officer or the welfare officer, will he not be told of the fact that he may be the subject of a community service order of so many hours? At the end of the day will the judge not say to him: "I sentence you to 50 hours community service or if you do not want that you will go to jail for three weeks or a month"? Is it not as simple as that? This section is much easier and much more simple than Senator O'Leary suggested.
(Limerick East): I do not think it is as simple as Senator Fallon has suggested but neither do I think is it as difficult as Senator O'Leary is making it out to be. Senator Ryan has made the case very well for what I have in mind.
The Bill is based on two principles. First of all, the case must be serious enough to justify sending the offender to prison. Secondly, his consent is necessary before a community service order can be made. It is true that the combination of these two principles involves some element of choice for the offender. The main reason for requiring the offender's consent is to avoid any conflict with international conventions prohibiting forced labour.
If Senator O'Leary's points were accepted and pursued to their logical conclusion, not only would it be necessary for the judge to specify the extent of the possible prison sentence but also to specify details of the community service order, the number of hours of community work and what the nature of the work would be. We would get into all kinds of practical difficulties. It is not the intention that somebody who has offended and is found guilty will be presented with two choices in court and asked which he would prefer. That is not the idea. Consent is essential so that we would not be in conflict with international conventions prohibiting forced labour but that consent is a long way away from a position where there is a free choice on behalf of the convicted person as to how he should be dealt with under option (a) or (b). A justice would not work in this way. He might want to reserve his position to see whether the offender was amenable to perform community work. He might defer his decision pending further information.
Senator O'Leary already made the point when he was talking about the importance of not using this legislation as an alternative to fines, that there was a certain drama involved in courtroom proceedings where what is said does not always mean what it represents in so many words. He made the point about increasing pressure on the accused. If the justice was put in a position where he had to say categorically that a person was getting six months under these conditions in such an institution or alternatively getting so many hours of community work doing such a job in such a place on such a day, the specifics would be too detailed to be practical. Secondly, there is the difficulty which the Senator mentioned when he raised the point about fines, that maybe this is part of the drama of the courtroom; a way of getting somebody to opt for community services rather than imprisonment or vice versa. It is an interesting point that Senator O'Leary raised.
The difficulty can be met in the practical working out of this if district justices adopt a uniform approach. The regulations under section 14 can be drafted in such a way that uniformity of approach by the probation and welfare service can be required. I do not accept the kind of amendment suggested. If somebody does not complete the allocation of work under a community service order and subsequently returns to court and the defence makes the point that he did not understand or did not have full information when he exercised the choice, we will cross that fence when we come to it. I do not believe that the suggestion the Senator is making will hold up in court. If it does, I will be back again to amend it.
I interpreted it as meaning that there was a choice here and I think the Minister will hear more about this choice. Here we have a man accustomed to the courts scene warning his Minister that he will hear more about this. The Minister talked about more information and in my Second Stage speech I spoke about trying to deal with the whole problem of the offender in a human way and getting the backup before the said offender is sentenced, whether it be to community work of his or her choice or to a prison term. It would require the goodwill of the community at very local level.
There seems to be an argument as between consent and choice but there seem to be a number of prerequisites before the ultimate operation takes place. The first is that the person be an offender within the meaning of the Act, which means that he must be guilty of a crime in respect of which penal servitude, imprisonment or detention in St. Patrick's Institution would be the appropriate order by the court. The next prerequisite is the consent of the offender, whether he is willing to allow himself to come within the ambit of this Act, and it is at that stage that the question of choice arises.
I take Senator O'Leary's point that the offender should have some idea as to what the choice is. The difficulty may arise as to whether there will be a specific statement of fact by the court as to what the sentence or the detention period would be as opposed to the working hours which might be imposed under the Act.
I can see difficulties arising in the event of the offender committing an offence under the Act not completing the hours and coming back before the court when the original matter can be dealt with. Is it to be dealt with de novo? Is the court completely to rehear the matter, in addition to dealing with the offence under the Act by virtue of which the offender can be fined £300?
One could run into extreme difficulties on the basis that an offender could come before the court a second time before a different justice. The original justice might not be alive or might not still be a justice. The second justice could be faced with the difficulty of having to rehear the case totally unless the statement of the original detention period is made at the time of the first hearing.
In some of the comments on this section there is a tendency to minimise what is happening to an offender. A 240-hour community service order effectively means the equivalent of one working day a week and for somebody who is working it means either a Saturday or a Sunday for 30 weeks. It is not a small thing to have half your weekend taken up and that much of your freedom restricted. The penalty element involved is very real.
The more I listen the more I am in agreement with what is being said. It would be preferable that the individual would know what prison sentence was to be imposed if he did not become the subject of a community service order and the practicalities are quite extraordinary. I am not going to move an amendment but it would be rather difficult if somebody who failed to meet a community service order came before a different district justice. Presumably there would be an inclination in any human being to react both to the original offence and the non-compliance with the community service order and therefore the person could be subject to a more severe sentence of imprisonment as a result. It could have been provided that the alternative prison sentence would be stated at the time the order was made.
I am sorry that I was not present for part of the beginning of the debate due to the fact that I was in court. There is a parallel with the idea of the suspended sentence where frequently an offender in the District Court, say in the Bridewell District Court, will get a suspended sentence which means that if he is of good behaviour during the course of the sentence he will not be put in jail but if he commits another offence he will have to serve the sentence. To allow him to know what the alternative sentence to the community service order would be is not beyond the wit of man. It would be parallel to being able to tell him that his suspended sentence is so much.
(Limerick East): Strange things are happening when Senator Honan is agreeing with Senator O'Leary and Senator Ryan is in general agreement with the Minister.
The conservatives are on the same side.
Do not push it too far.
(Limerick East): There are obvious practical difficulties and there is no doubt that there will be teething troubles when we come to implement this. There is the difficulty of unevenness of sentencing practice between our courts and this could be transferred to this legislation. There is also the difficulty of how arrangements can be made in different court areas to have an appropriate range of work which is relatively uniform throughout the country as a whole.
I can see the difficulty being pointed out by the Senators. Somebody may decide he does not want to go to prison and that he will consent to work of a community nature instead. That is where the consent comes in. I do not think it is appropriate to go on and list a range of options and ask which he would prefer. I do not think that is appropriate. Even if it was, I do not think it is possible to bring that situation about by amending the section along the lines that Senator O'Leary suggests. We would still have the practical difficulty.
A judge faced with an offender must take his general demeanour into account. This must be a consideration when he decides whether somebody will be fined, given a suspended sentence or sent to prison. Whether he would or would not consent to doing work for the aggrieved community could be a factor in making up the judge's mind about the length of prison sentence which he would impose. We can overcome the difficulty through the regulations under section 14 and by a more uniform approach on the part of district justices. I do not see the amendment along the lines suggested by Senator O'Leary as really helping the situation.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
This section provides for a second community service order to be made. I wonder about the circumstances in which this could occur. If a person is the subject of a community service order and during that time commits another offence it seems most unlikely that the judge before whom he comes for the second offence would feel it appropriate to impose another community service order. If he, in effect, abuses the advantageous way in which he has been allowed to serve his sentence by committing another offence, I cannot envisage a situation where a judge would give him the option of the imposition of another community service order. I wonder what was in mind for this section, other than the situation I have mentioned, which would rarely occur in practice.
(Limerick East): Many offenders come before the courts with quite a number of charges against them and the charges would have to be dealt with separately. A number of community service orders could be imposed either concurrently or consecutively, provided the limit of 240 hours would not be exceeded.
Subsection (3) envisages a situation where there is already a community service order in operation.
(Limerick East): Yes, and it is simply allowing the court to deal with it as it sees fit, but I take the Senator's point that in practice if somebody breaks down in the community service order and returns to court it would not be appropriate certainly as a general practice, for further community service orders to be applied to that offender.
The court can, I presume, direct that the concurrent order be in line with some order that is in operation?
(Limerick East): Yes.
There is a slight tendency here to treat community service orders a little like, say, suspended sentences or a lesser sanction than imprisonment, in the sense that if a person is sentenced to a community service order on one occasion perhaps the next time he comes before the court he would expect an escalation of the penalty. I do not think this is intended. It should be regarded as an equal sanction which could be used against the same individual on a number of successive occasions and not just for first offenders.
Petty offenders who spend a lot of their lives in and out of prison take up an enormous amount of the resources of the prison service with no great benefit either to themselves or the community. I have had some experience with this type of offender and whether they would be appropriate people for community service orders is a matter that we would have to discuss. I do not think any impression should go abroad from here that a community service order is just a first step to prevent people from going to prison and that if it does not work they will go to prison on the next occasion. This is not the way to deal with it. It is a sanction which could be applied over and over again even to the same people.
(Limerick East): I accept that but when we talk about it not working we are using the phrase in two senses. It might not work as a deterrent and if somebody committed an offence again I would envisage a situation where another community service order would not be issued. I am using “not working” in the sense of somebody not actually doing the work laid down by the community service order. If it is clear that somebody will not perform the work required then it would not be appropriate that a further community service order would be imposed as a general practice, although obviously there would be individual cases where that would be appropriate.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."
Section 7 (2) and section 9 are really inter-related. One refers to the other. It is stated that subject to section 9 the work to be performed under the community service order shall be performed within a period of one year beginning on the date of the order. Unless revoked the order shall remain in force until the offender has worked under it for the number of hours specified on it.
Section 9 deals with the extension of the time for the performance of work. It states:
Where a community service order is in force and, on application by the offender or a relevant officer, it appears to the District Court that it would be in the interests of justice, having regard to circumstances which have arisen since the order was made, to extend the period of one year specified in section 7 (2), the court may, in relation to the order, extend that period.
This would appear to give the power to the court to extend the period without limitation. It does not extend it for a specified period but open-endedly. This is my interpretation of it; if it is wrong I would like to know.
If you take section 9 and apply it to section 7 (2), which refers to section 9, the effect could be that the community service order could be extended under the provisions of section 9 and could remain in force indefinitely. This would probably happen if the person was ill and was unable to perform the work and an application was made under section 9.
If an open-ended extension can be given, the community service order can remain in force forever. The community service order should terminate after a period of time. Obviously, if the offender has deliberately not done the work specified under the community service order he will be dealt with under the provisions in other sections. It is only where there is a good reason that the extension will be applied for and that the consent will be given for the extension of that period. It should not be open to the courts to extend the period indefinitely pending the improvement of a person's health. There could be a situation where the community service order would remain in force for the remainder of a person's life. For the sake of putting the past behind somebody it is important that the community service order should automatically lapse after a period of time. I had hoped that the Minister would have included a suggested amendment to this section to the effect that no order should remain in force after a period of three years from the date on which the order was first made or alternatively in respect of section 9 that it would be amended so as to extend the period but not beyond three years from the date of the first order. I would like to hear the Minister's viewpoint on this.
(Limerick East): The Senator combined section 7 and section 9. The extension beyond the one-year period for the completion of the community service order would be to enable the offender to complete the work. In other words, it would be beneficial to the offender and that would be the reason for it. I note the point made. Where an offender for whatever reason fails to comply with the order it will be the duty of the probation and welfare officer to bring him before the court. It is a matter for the court then to decide what to do and in suitable cases it could revoke the order.
The Senator is worried that orders might be left in existence for years, possibly by default. I can deal with this in two ways other than amending it. Firstly, the instructions that will be given to the probation and welfare service will ensure that no such situation as is feared will arise. If it is thought necessary, it can also be dealt with by regulation under section 14 so that this particular difficulty will not arise. I will see if I can draft an appropriate regulation under section 14 to deal with that point.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 8 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."
Is there any reason why the gardaí are excluded as being a relevant body who may make application in respect of the revocation of a community service order? The section would appear to limit applications to the offender or a relevant officer within the meaning of the Act. It would seem to me that as the gardaí would have an interest in the behaviour of the offender within the community, they should be included in this section as having power to make applications.
(Limerick East): The probation and welfare officers are the appropriate officers to deal with the legislation in practice, but I would hope that the close relationships between the individual members of the Garda and the probation and welfare officers would continue, and that while a garda could not apply under this section, he could indirectly do so because of the close contacts between the gardaí and the probation and welfare section.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 12 and 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."
I would like to ask the Minister a little about the regulations because the practicalities of organising the system will arise under this section. When the White Paper on the proposal to introduce this system was published, there was discussion suggesting that there should be certain arrangements made, hopefully for the co-operation of various voluntary bodies, in providing work for community service orders. Could the Minister tell me if any further progress has been made? I recall that the National Social Services Council, as it then was, was consulted about this and we made various remarks about it at the time. I wondered whether there has been anything further done about the possibility of community service order work being done through voluntary bodies who might be able to provide the kind of work that will be needed.
(Limerick East): Initial contacts have been made. These will be firmed up now that the Bill is going through and will be passed today. The regulations will be very important. I will take into account the points raised by the various Senators and Deputies and the various submissions that have been made. The people dealing with this obviously will have a very big contribution to make to the nature of the regulations. I have met other interested parties as well, and I will take their views into account before I draft regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill."
Most speakers will agree that this is the kernel of the Bill, because it deals with the finances that will be available for the implementation of the Bill. The Minister said he should get money in next year's budget. Money might be saved under this Bill because as the Minister said it will cost £18 a week for a community service order, and 500 service orders at £18 each would be less than £10,000. I do not understand that, and perhaps the Minister would explain it. If it costs over £400 per week to keep a man in prison, 500 people in prison per week would cost £200,000; and £18 multiplied by 500 would cost less than £10,000. That would be a huge saving. The Minister might explain what he meant by that. With the savings that can be made in this Bill the Minister has a very strong case at Government level to get the money he needs for the implementation of the Bill. Will he be employing extra probation and welfare people, perhaps 50 to 100? Is he going to provide money for the supervisors? Is he going to provide money for equipment? Is he going to provide money for painting, paint brushes, carpentry and all the equipment that would be necessary for community work? Then there is the question of insurance. What happens if an offender is injured in the course of such work? Is there a contingency fund for that? Perhaps the Minister would comment on that aspect, because this is the kernel of the Bill. If he has not sufficient funds, it will not be operational.
On the question of the expenditure involved and the recruitment of extra staff, my understanding is that the probation and welfare service is mostly based in the areas where there are actually prisons in existence. In a country with the distribution of population we have outside the urban areas, and in the areas where there are no prisons, is it envisaged that staff will be located in areas where there are presently no officers of the Department of Justice in the probation and welfare service, or will these orders have to be served at one remove from the probation and welfare service, or will people have to travel to where they can be supervised?
(Limerick East): I will deal with Senator Ryan's point first. No, there are probation and welfare officers throughout the country. They are in every court area; they are not just confined to areas where there are prisons. The main cost involved will be for extra staff. Obviously this will impose an extra burden on the probation and welfare service, so there will have to be extra probation and welfare officers. There will have to be supervisory staff as well, actually supervising the work under the guidance of the probation and welfare service. There will be some additional costs for materials, though not a very large amount — brushes, shovels, paint brushes and so on.
Hammers.
(Limerick East): Yes. hammers, but if would not be a major cost item. The point I was making about comparisons between the cost of this system and the cost of the prison system is that obviously the more community service orders that are implemented up to a certain point, the lower the cost per capita of each community service order. If you get new staff obviously you will get one level of cost at 350 orders, and another level of cost at 500 orders, and another level of cost at 700 orders per year. If we take the middle one it works out at £28 per week per order on the basis of the proposals I am putting up for extra staff, against £424 for a place in prison. That is the figure I was dealing with. Senators asked if the finance would be available. Obviously, when the Government took a decision to put this Bill to both Houses of the Oireachtas and to go ahead with this as a policy decision there was a concurrent decision that funds will be provided to implement this system.
That would automatically mean that the prison costs would be reduced.
(Limerick East): No they would not. With crime increasing at the present rate, all we can hope to do is to slow down the rate of increase. We are not going to have vacant cells in prisons or anything like that.
There is a queue outside.
(Limerick East): This legislation will bring about a situation where in future we will not have to spend as much on the prison system, but I do not see a reduction in costs in the running of prisons or in the provision of extra prison space.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 16 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I asked the Minister a question on Second Stage, and I do not think he answered it. He said the number of prisoners had not increased significantly over the years. That could mean that there was not room for any more prisoners, or is it the fact that there has not been a significant increase in prisoners over the last ten years?
(Limerick East): I will have to check the actual figure, but speaking from memory the figure was just under 1,000 and it went up to just over 1,200. That figure has gone up substantially this year, partly because there was not a great increase in crime until recent years, and the space is not there. Many warrants are not executed and many people are being shed from the prison system, especially in 1981 and in the early part of this year. The extra accommodation available in Loughan House and in the second wing in Cork prison is helping, and I hope the community service order will be another input, but there is still some shedding from the prisons. It is very difficult to get an accurate figure on how many warrants are outstanding and waiting to be executed if prison space is available. It is very hard to project what will happen in the future. If the different policy of deploying gardaí is to be effective, it will be shown by extra detection and extra convictions. When we introduce the Criminal Justice Bill in the autumn giving extra powers to the Garda, if it is effective it will result in extra convictions and extra people going to prison. As I said it is very difficult to project future prison needs. It is an enormously costly system and is a huge burden on the taxpayer. When people are talking about vandalism and crime, about mandatory prison sentences and the desirability of keeping people in prison for very long periods, they might remember the figure of £424 per week per prisoner out of their own taxes.
There are a couple of things I want to say. The last time I debated legislation with the Minister it was in very difficult circumstances. Therefore, I am glad to have had the opportunity to deal with him on this Bill. I was more than pleased with his response both on the Second Stage and Committee Stage and I would like to compliment him for the open and generous way he dealt with various points, particularly on Second Stage, points which it probably could have been argued had no real relevance to the Bill. I would like to compliment him on this Bill because I expect with the next Criminal Justice Bill I will not be in a position to be as reasonable or understanding as I am today.
(Limerick East): The Senator should not prejudge it.
I asked what would happen if an offender is injured in the course of work? I would be concerned that if he was doing work for, say, a residents' association he might decide to take an action against them. Is there any indemnity there? How is it proposed to deal with this situation?
(Limerick East): This is obviously one of the practical details. If an offender in such circumstances was to establish a liability on the Department of Justice, then the Department would have to pay. We are aware of the difficulty and it is being discussed with the Department of Finance.
Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 1.12 p.m. and resumed at 2.15 p.m.