Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Dec 1985

Vol. 110 No. 5

Report on Prison Reform: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Seanad Éireann welcomes the enlightened and practical prison reforms proposed in the Whitaker Committee Report, and calls on the Government to implement the Report as a matter of urgency.

—(Senator M. Higgins.)

Mr. B. Ryan

I have some criticisms of the report but it deserves to be welcomed. It contains a level of compassion, perception, understanding and an unwillingness to be shanghaied down roads of popular frenzy at present in the way it looks at the nature of crime, the response to crime in society, the role of the prison system in responding to crime and also the role of the prison system in dealing with people within it. In particular I am pleased to repeat what I said when we last discussed the prison system and that is that I was satisfied when I saw the name of the chairman of the committee, whatever my disagreements with him on social and economic policies, that it would be the committee's report and that nobody like the Department of Justice or any other interest group would shanghai it. I am satisfied that this is the report of the committee. It is important to remember that it is not the report of some bunch of well-intentioned liberals. There are involved a number of prominent business persons, trade unionists and people with expertise in various areas to do with life in our society. Therefore, this report is an authoritative review of prison life and, indeed, of the whole problem of crime.

I welcome the report of the committee and am happy about most of its recommendations. I am not nearly as happy about the likelihood of the recommendations being introduced or operated. For example, it recommends that St. Patrick's Institution be closed as soon as possible. I understand that the Minister for Justice has already rejected this. The recommendation, I believe, reading the evidence, is based on the idea that St. Patrick's Institution, far from preventing people from committing offences creates a climate in which people are far more likely to be encouraged to commit offences than if they never were in the place before.

In reading this report, we need to think about the functions of prisons. People can see prisons in three different ways. They can see them as institutions of restraint to keep people out of the way for a while and prevent them from doing harm to society. They are people who are seen to be such a threat to society that society needs to be protected from them. They can be seen as institutions of rehabilitation within which people are put into an environment in which they are encouraged by various means — some incentives and some, perhaps, pressures to take a different view of society and their own role in society and give them personal skills, educational and others, to make it less likely for them to resort to crime in the future.

There is the concept of prison as retribution, that people are in prison so that we can get our own back on them for what they did to us. When people speak in a detached way about prisons, they tend to emphasise rehabilitation most and play down retribution to the maximum possible extent. On the other hand, when we have any serious upsurge, real or imagined in our crime rate, the whole emphasis is turned on its head and we have half of the Irish establishment — largely political — baying for retribution, demanding to have more prisons opened, to have the regimes made tougher and demanding to have what are alleged or perceived to be excessive degrees of comfort removed. Much of this is people talking about what they think would be the sort of prison that would bother themselves. Most of the people who are talking about making prison regimes hard are people who are of their nature petrified of the prospect of ever ending up in prison although the nature of the crimes they will commit guarantee that they will never go to prison.

Thus, the people who bay loudest about prisons saying they should be harsh regimes are, by and large, those who own cars and drive them without much concern for the quantity of alcohol they have consumed and pose a far greater threat to the safety of ordinary citizens than most of the youngsters who swagger down O'Connell Street looking dangerous late at night. Yet these children who swagger down O'Connell Street have every chance of ending up in jail but those who drive a car under the influence of alcohol have virtually none.

One could go through a number of other areas — those who fiddle their taxes and owe the State hundreds of millions of pounds will never go to jail but most of those who between them steal £40 million — which is a tiny fraction of what is being stolen from the State in terms of unpaid taxation — will end up in prison. Even though polite words are used about prisons and noble sounding and progressive phrases issue from Minister upon Minister, the reality is that prisons are seen as retribution of a kind which gives various Governments at various times a convenient bolt hole down which to disappear whenever public opinion becomes outraged.

Nothing in the area of rehabilitation is ever sacred if public opinion gets sufficiently outraged as was evidenced by the disgraceful decision to close the educational facilities in a number of prisons in order to meet with an alleged epidemic of joyriding in Dublin and Cork. The epidemic turned out to be a non-event when the statistics were published revealing that we had far less incidents of car theft in 1985 than in 1984. We responded to the epidemic in 1985 largely, in my view, because a couple of major newspapers had made hay out of generating hysteria on that issue. What we have then is the closure of educational facilities and the deprivation of prisoners who are already in prison and who could not be blamed for the so-called incidence of crime. They are being deprived in order to satisfy the hysteria of a manipulated public opinion to see that something should be done.

This created enormous tension in prisons. Those who wanted to do something with their lives and make some use of the time that they would have otherwise wasted were the ones who suffered most from pathetically hysterical Ministerial responses to short term public pressure. There is a certain public psychology that we do not want to talk rationally about crime. Crime is one of those issues that we prefer to treat in an emotional way. There is a need for a profound emotional response of compassion and concern for the victims of crime but compassion and concern for the victims should never be confused with outraged cries for vengence and retribution against the perpetrators. The two things are not necessarily related and are not synonymous. This is why we have always had this difficulty of looking objectively at prisons. We need to have the feeling that they are places in which people, if they are not whipped, at least feel the worse for it and, therefore, we can feel better for their feeling the worst.

It is in the context of identifying that prisons, if they are to serve any purpose, must contribute to the benefit and the good of prisoners that the report recommends that, as far as possible, people should not be imprisoned and that where people should be imprisoned fairly definite criteria of necessity must be met. One of those would not be the state of public opinion at a particular time or the success of a particular newspaper group in creating hysteria about a particular form of crime. They would not be the criteria. The criteria would be the severity of the offence and the failure of all other forms of remedy. It is interesting that the report should identify that 14 per cent of the population in prison are there because of non-payment of fines. If the penalty is a fine, then prison is so much more dramatic than a fine. Whatever remedies are taken to ensure that fines are paid, prison should not be one of them. It is a complete quantum leap into another level of penalty to send people to prison because of failure to pay a fine.

Likewise, I am very happy that the committee recommend the repeal of large sections of the Vagrancy Act in line with the recommendation of the Law Reform Commission. I am sorry the Minister for Justice is not here, although that is not to reflect on the Minister who is here because some of the snotty remarks that the Minister for Justice made to two friends of mine at a seminar in Limerick recently do not suggest that the Minister for Justice has much interest in dealing with the Vagrancy Act. Indeed, his factual statements on the Vagrancy Act suggest that not only does he not have any interest in it but he does not know anything about it either, which is an extraordinary state of affairs for the Minister for Justice.

The other emphasis that runs through the report is the emphasis on the need to minimise the damage to people if they must be imprisoned and I emphasise the "if they must be". It is not a remedy. It is not necessarily ever a solution. It rarely works in the way that it is intended other than in giving society a feeling that we are getting our own back. This is not a particularly pleasant reflection on ourselves. Prisons do not rehabilitate people. They do not deter crime. They do not, unless we lock them all up for 40 years, provide much restraint or protection for society. Therefore, the only way they might work is in making people feel we are getting our own back to some extent. Even then that is very temporary and it is also a reflection of the lack of information that is available to people.

I would like to quote from the report in the few moments that I have left because I think it needs to be said fairly clearly what the report does specify. These are rational, dispassionate people doing an intelligent analysis of what they regard as the minimum needs of a decent prison regime. I am quoting from paragraph 7.4, page 61, of the commission's report:

Basic conditions

Basic living conditions for a prisoner should correspond broadly to those available to persons with an average disposable income.

Thus, prisoners should be expected to have:

—a balanced diet in sufficient quantity and variety, prepared in hygienic conditions;

—clothing of a kind and quality in common use and suited to their activities subject, however, to a right to wear private clothing provided it is clean and presentable and is not, because of its design or colour, prejudicial to the maintenance of custody;

—normally (and always where prisoners so desire) private sleeping accommodation in single cells, with beds and bedding of normal quality;

—a wash-basin in every cell and ready access to toilet facilities at all times;

—a general prison environment which is clean, bright and hygienic, well lighted naturally, and comfortably heated and ventilated;

—physical and mental health care which is up to the standard generally available in the community, with ready access to psychiatric, specialist and hospital in-patient treatment, as needed;

—maximum out-of-cell time;

—flexible access to participation in ordered activity such as education and work, to recreation facilities and to welfare services;

—facilities in the case of women prisoners to care for any child born in prison;

—facilities which are adequate to practise the religion of genuine choice, with reasonable access to clergymen of choice.

That is the sort of stuff which sends the law and order brigade into paroxysms of anger. They are the specified minimum standards — and I emphasise minimum standards — that this committee regard as acceptable for the running of a decent prison. This is not the optimum; this is the minimum that the committee specify. I will conclude by quoting one more piece from the report because I think it needs to be put clearly on the record:

One-third of all offences are committed by persons under 17 years of age.

As the committee says, and this is as fine a way as any with which to conclude a discussion on prisons:

...the majority of young people coming before the courts have a very limited stake in conventional society. Their prospects of employment are bleak. Their poor educational attainments and minimal work skills place them at a decided disadvantage in the labour market even at the best of times. Their housing and environmental conditions aggravate their disadvantage. Rarely can they entertain any realistic hope that things will improve. The reward which they perceive for conforming to the values and norms of society is continuing poverty and ineffectiveness. It is clearly not by any reform of the criminal justice system, but rather by more wide-ranging economic and social policies, that the problem of juvenile crime can best be tackled.

That is as fine a reply to the hysteria of the law and order lobby, to the media hysteria and to the occasional hysteria regrettably of the Minister for Justice, as I have ever seen put together. It comes from a body of reasonable, rational people who have made a reasonable and rational assessment of the prison system. There are many things about this report that one could argue but as a step in the direction of rational policy in the area of prisons it is most welcome and I support the motion.

Mr. O'Leary

First of all, I understand Senator Harte was before the previous speaker. It gives me considerable pleasure to be able to make a contribution to this debate, which is an ongoing one. I have one or two preliminary points to make before going into the meat of the report.

I will spend some time then on the two aspects of the report which I think are important. The first preliminary point I would like to make is one that I raised in this House before and I would like to raise it again. I do not consider it appropriate for a judge of the Supreme Court or, indeed, a judge of any other court to be on inquiries like this. I consider it a singularly inappropriate appointment to have a judge of the Supreme Court considering, among other things, the number and deployment of prison staff, the management structure, the recruitment and training of prison service staff and staff management relations in the prison service. That is contrary to the division of responsibility between the Judiciary and the Administration. I mentioned before that I consider that appointments of that kind have been made which were inappropriate. I could conceive of none more inappropriate than the appointment of a Supreme Court judge to a review of this type, a review which is essentially a review of matters of policy as they related to the practice of politics in this country. That is to cast no reflection whatsoever on the individual judge concerned. No doubt, because of his personal characteritstics, he was eminently suitable for this appointment but, as a matter of principle, the appointment in my opinion should not have been made.

I consider this a very valuable report. The house owes a debt of gratitude to the hardworking members of the committee including, I am sure, the judge of the Supreme Court who put together this very substantial report on the structural facilities in the prison, on the relationship between the staff in the prison and the Department of Justice and on the whole reason for having a prison service at all. They tried to address themselves to that latter point and I think they failed. I do not think they really know why we have a prison service and I do not think I really know myself either. It is an admission by human beings of their inability to persuade by logic and by commonsense their fellow human beings to conform to the norms of society. It does actually represent a failure by us that there is a necessity for prison. I am not arguing that there is no necessity for prison but it does represent our failure.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator O'Leary, I am sorry to interrupt but there is a division in the other House and I am sure you will excuse the Minister.

Mr. O'Leary

I will continue on because with the limited time available to us, it would be unreasonable not to. I think that that is a very serious problem. I will tell the House why it is becoming so serious. In Chapter 5, paragraph 7, and in summary form in Chapter 2, paragraph 12, some of the alternative methods of punishment to the prison service were mentioned by the committee. Chapter 2, paragraph 12, deals in considerable detail with the alternatives which are available to society. For example, they mention the question of probation, fines, confiscation of income or assets in certain cases, restitution, conditionally suspended prison sentences, community service orders, disqualifications and withdrawal of licences, etc. They are the main ones. The problem is that there is a substantial difference between different groups of people within our society and the type of punishment which is available to us for them. Senator Brendan Ryan said prison was not for the well off and so on. There is some merit in what he is saying. There is even greater merit because there is a large number of offences for which fines and other financial penalties are appropriate remedies or appropriate punishment. I support the committee's view that fines and punishments of that kind should be used to a greater and greater extent. Indeed, I include in that the confiscation of the income and assets of, for example, drug dealers. It is a much harsher penalty for drug pushers than mere imprisonment. I would much prefer to see a lesser period of imprisonment and a far harsher financial penalty. I think a move along that road is to be commended.

The suggestions to that effect in the report are worthwhile. A problem, however, arises where we are dealing with people in society who do not have a financial stake in society. If you have a person with nothing, there is no point in fining him. This is where we have backed ourselves into a corner by allowing people in society without a financial stake. You cannot fine these people because they do not have the money. All you can do is fine them £20 and then petition the Minister for Justice to remit it to £1 because they are only on subsistence social welfare. In effect, we are incapable of doing anything in respect of small transgressions by the more economically deprived members of our community. We have no method by which we can punish them. What happens in those cases is this. Because they continually commit small offences, eventually somebody loses patience and throws them into prison. If they were financially well off, they would have got a massive fine the first time and even a more massive fine the next time. The third time they would say "It is not worthwhile. I will not do it."

That is something which I do not think this report has adequately tackled. I do not know the answer but the important thing is, how can we reimpose in a post-Christian society a discipline on that section of the population which has no substantial financial resources? That is a problem which has not been tackled and should be tackled. I am certainly not going to tackle it in the short space of time available to me. I support the increasing emphasis on substantial financial fines of one kind or another.

I would also like to refer to the recommendation which is contained in the summary, at paragraph 2.27, to increase the remission from 25 per cent to 33 per cent. A tremendous incentive should be given to people who are in prison to behave themselves, and there cannot be a greater incentive than the increase in the remission. I should like to support that. It is a well worthwhile recommendation and one which should be implemented straight away. However, what I do not support is the idea that the gratuity, which is referred to as being the amount of money over and above their living expenses which is given to prisoners, should be increased from £4.20 to £10. I do not think we should financially blur the difference between being in prison and working outside where many younger people would find it difficult to have £10 surplus after all their living expenses. In those circumstances we should recognise that it was a punishment element in the prison system for as long as we have it and we should not go along with that recommendation. It does not appear to me to be correct.

The idea of having a Prisons Board with a Director who would be responsible for taking the day to day decisions in the prisons is a good one. It will have the beneficial effect of separating the Minister from the day to day operation of the prisons which is in both the Minister's interest and in the interests of the prison and, indeed, of the prisoners. Coupled with that, the idea of an Inspector of Prisons reporting directly to the Minister, not reporting to the Secretary of the Department is an excellent idea which must go hand in hand with the idea of a Director of the Prisons Board. In that way you retain a political connection, but that political connection is by way of reporting on a situation rather than accepting day to day responsibility. Those recommendations are contained in the summary at paragraphs 231-249 of the report which is before us.

One thing which I would like to devote the rest of my time to is the situation that has grown up between the Department and prison officers. I recognise that there may well be faults on both sides. I recognise that in paragraph 2.47 of the report the prison officers' and departmental problems are summarised and suggestions made as to the reasons for them. I certainly recognise that within the Department of Justice the implications of having trade union rights conceded to the Prison Officers Association is undoubtedly a contributary factor. I think that anybody who has listened to what the prison officers have said over the last few years, going back quite a few years, must accept that the attitude of mind with which they approach their work is less than what we would expect from professional people who are part of the security service of the State. They require a drastic reorganisation of their organisation. Their constant high profile criticism of successive Ministers for Justice — not the Department — coupled with their almost insatiable appetite for meetings with the Minister rather than the Minister's officials, gives an impression of a group of men who are unreasonable. It is something in relation to which they should certainly consider their position very carefully.

I have one or two reasons why I think that that happened. Paragraph 14.15 of the report summarises fairly well what has happened with regard to prison officers in this country. In 1970, 264 of them were looking after 749 prisoners. Now 1,550 of them are looking after 1,874 prisoners. There are too many of them there. They are overstaffed. They are underemployed. It is a good principle of management that, if you have people underemployed, you are going to have industrial relations problems. You will not have industrial relations problems with a busy staff, but you will with an underemployed staff. That is their problem.

I accept that they have a difficult job. I also accept that a lot of their work is custodial, which means that they are waiting for something to happen rather than anything else. That gives rise to a situation where, even if they were fully employed, they are still in such close proximity to one another that the little grievances that occur from day to day in any activity grow out of all proportion. I think that the staffing levels within our prisons are excessive. That matter has to be redressed or should be redressed by the Minister.

There are a number of other things I do agree with as well. I agree that the age of recruitment for the prison officers should be looked at carefully. The upper age limit of 30 is not, in my opinion, good. You would be much better off getting in mature people — perhaps mature members of the Garda Síochána or people who are fairly well used to dealing with trouble on one level or another. The recommendation in paragraph 2.56 of the report that "The committee also favours a substantial extension of the present upper age limit of 30 years" is something to which I would lend enthusiastic support.

I do not really believe that there is any good, sensible reason for the change of the rules with regard to sex equality, which is referred to in paragraph 2.62 of the report. The principle of having mixed staffing of prisons which are themselves single-sex, is not something I would find instinctively attractive. I do not agree with it. I am capable of being persuaded on that count, but it does not automatically find favour with me.

Having said all that, the report itself draws together the various problems associated with the prison service. It does a substantial job in that regard. The members of the committee are to be congratulated for that reason. It is now the responsibility of the Government to act on this report. If I were to pick one aspect of the report to which the Government should give top priority, it would be the question of the appointment of a Director of Prisons and the removal of the day-to-day operation of the prison from the Department of Justice in the interest of preserving the sanity of those in the Department of Justice and of public confidence in the system, together with the appointment of the liaison officer who has been referred to — he may be called the Inspector of Prisons — directly responsible to the Minister to ensure that the political sensitivity, which is such an important part of running an efficient prison service, would not only remain over the years to come but would increase and improve in the years that lie ahead.

Mr. Ellis

Like other Members, I welcome this report because I feel it is time our entire prison service was reviewed. Many of our prisons, as they are at the moment, are antiquated buildings of a standard which is not, in many cases, habitable. Indeed, it is even pointed out in the report, with regard to certain sections of Portlaoise prison, that it is not up to the standard of Loughan House, for example, as a modern building in reasonably good condition.

Prisons, while they are places of detention, should also be places of rehabilitation. It is necessary that the people who are admitted to those institutions are given whatever help possible to bring them back to where they are fit, on ending their prison sentences, to take their place in society again. Sometimes people are imprisoned to protect the general public. In other cases they are imprisoned for their own protection, because of organisations they belong to or of groups which they may have been involved with during their criminal careers. We should press for greater rehabilitation of prisoners. We must press the Department of Justice to have improvements made in our prison facilities regarding education and the conditions under which prisoners spend their time. I say that because the report cites, in a number of places, cases where prisoners are housed three and four to a small cell. That does not help to establish good relations with the prisoners or the prison staff.

There are a number of interesting items in the report regarding the cost of maintaining somebody in prison. In many cases it would be more beneficial to the State if people who are imprisoned for petty crimes were made do community service work rather than be imprisoned. Sending somebody to prison for six months for stealing £150 is not in his best interests of him or the best interests of society. He will come from prison with a chip on his shoulder against the society which has locked him away for a period. He will find that he is an outcast among his friends and also in society. He would be much better if he were made to do some community service work.

Our prison costs are excessive compared with state prisons in other countries. In the United States there are prisons run by public companies. In fact, it is one of the fastest growing sections in the American economy at the moment. The amount of money being invested by people in the running of these prisons suggests that there must be very good financial returns for the investors. It also seems to have proved quite successful from a state point of view.

The increasing number of people in custodial institutions is alarming. It appears that society is now breaking down. There is an increase in crime and vandalism. The perpetrators of the crimes we have had in this country in recent weeks deserve long custodial sentences.

Violent crime is quite distinct from the petty crime for which many people receive long custodial sentences. The activities in our prisons in recent times also give grave reason for alarm. The recent press article regarding the football being kicked in and out of Mountjoy, carrying drugs for those taking drugs within the prison, is very alarming. It is worrying to think the people who are being supervised could have this sort of activity in their midst.

The drug problem and the recent death in Mountjoy means that immediate steps should be taken by the prison authorities to have this type of trafficking stamped out and that those responsible, whoever they may be, should be dealt with in the harshest manner possible.

We need to be careful with regard to our prison system. Much publicity has been given to our prisons. I refer especially to a radio interview which was given yesterday by Father McVeigh, with regard to recent happenings in Portlaoise. It is a matter of the gravest urgency for the Minister for Justice to investigate the accusations made by Father McVeigh. If those accusations are untrue, nobody is telling the public that they are untrue. People have been told by Father McVeigh of strip searching and other undesirable actions taking place in Portlaoise recently. This matter should be examined immediately by the prison authorities and by the Department of Justice to see if the allegations made are true or untrue. If they are untrue, they should be contradicted as quickly as possible. Many people, who may not be as critical as some of us, could be influenced by statements such as that made by Father McVeigh. I appeal here to the Minister of State to ask his colleague, the Minister for Justice, to have those accusations immediately investigated and, if they are untrue, to have a statement issued on behalf of the Department of Justice and in the interest of clearing the good name of our prison officers. It is as important that they should be protected. They are not in a position, individually or jointly, to make statements regarding such accusations.

We should look at something which I feel is very odd regarding the prison service. People who are taken into custody for minor crimes, for debt payments or other such things are immediately whisked to Mountjoy and then redispatched to Loughan House. I have heard recently of cases where people who lived within 20 or 30 miles of Loughan House were taken to Mountjoy, held overnight there and then returned to Loughan House. When the commital orders are made they should be examined to see where the most suitable accommodation is for the person being committed. If it is adjacent to them they should be taken there rather than to Mountjoy first and then redispatched, because the cost of doing that is quite considerable to the State.

We should also ask the Department to fully investigate the recent happenings on Spike Island. There was a very dangerous situation there for the staff, and the people who inhabited the island. The Department of Justice have not carried out a complete investigation into the happenings on Spike Island or the happenings recently in Portlaoise.

With regard to the recent attempted breakout from Portlaoise Prison, could the Minister tell us the source which supplied the keys which were available at the piers to the prisoners concerned? What was the source of prison warders' uniforms? Were the gates which they had access to installed by the Department of Justice through the Board of Works or were they installed by outside contractors? I believe work in our prisons should be carried out only by the Board of Works because the people who are employed there are people who work for the State and would be totally committed to the maintenance of law and order. When one looks at the possibility of outside contractors being employed to do work within our prisons one must feel that it leaves quite an amount to be desired.

I welcome the report, while I might have made those criticisms with regard to a few of the prisons. Our aim should be to provide custodial services and detention centres which are of the highest standard in order that the people who are committed to those institutions may be given the opportunity of rehabilitating themselves in order to take their place in society at a later date. It would be very wrong of us as legislators to have prisons which are not of the highest standard.

Minister of State at the Department of Education (Mr. G. Birmingham)

I want to apologise to you and to the House for the Minister for Justice this evening. As Members of the House will be aware, he was present for much of the debate a fortnight ago but, unfortunately, he has a difficulty this evening and he has asked me to come along and contribute to this debate on his behalf.

I generally accept the spirit of the motion before the House, as I know the Minister for Justice does. I have some difficulty in giving it my full and wholehearted support and that will be so for two reasons. The first of the reasons that gives me difficulty relates to a matter that was mentioned in the Dáil recently by the Minister for Justice and that is simply that the recommendations that were made by the committee have yet to be considered by the Government. The Government will shortly be in a position to give at least preliminary consideration to the issues which arise but I think every Member of the House will accept that the nature of the report is such — and this comes across from the contributions that have been made — that it requires very detailed analysis. Inevitably, some lapse of time is going to occur before decisions can be made.

No one should infer from that that there is any lack of commitment on the part of the Government or on the part of the Minister for Justice. As Members will recall, the decision to set up the committee was one of the very first that was taken by the Minister for Justice when assuming office. I want to assure the House that he has no intention whatever of ignoring the report, a report which is the very first of its kind in the history of the State. In saying he is not going to ignore it, I must also say that the Government are not going to ignore it. That is not to say that it is necessarily going to be possible to accept all of the committee's conclusions. If any of them is to be rejected then it will only be after a thorough analysis has shown that the balance of public interest lies elsewhere.

The second difficulty I have is that were I to unequivocally accept the motion it would be ignoring the fact that even since the report was concluded other issues have taken on an importance and a prominence which they may not have had while the committee were deliberating and which could affect implementation of some of the report's recommendations. For example, decisions are now required as to how best to equip the prison system to cope with growing medical problems. The changes which may have to be made could be on a scale not envisaged in the report and have an effect on accommodation. That was not averted to. The type of issue which has arisen means that even if all the recommendations of the committee were generally acceptable in themselves, the changing circumstances could prevent their implementation in full, as the motion suggests to us. At the very least there would be a need for an adaptation to changing conditions.

As further evidence of that I was listening to Senator O'Leary earlier — he is a Senator I rarely find myself in disagreement with — and I heard him express unease about the suggestion that the Employment Equality Agency legislation should be applied to the prison service. I can put Senator O'Leary's mind at ease. He will not find himself in any difficulties with the Government because that has already happened since the report was published. For those two reasons — the fact that the Government have yet to consider the report and the emergence of changing conditions since the committee sat and deliberated — it seems that it might be wiser not to press ahead tonight. That is entirely a matter for the House. If the House were to take that view, then I am sure it would be prepared to do so only on the clear understanding that when the report is to be considered by Government the Minister would bring to the notice of the Government the views that have been expressed by Senators in the debate.

While on the subject of medical services I want to refer to some remarks that were made by Senator Lanigan a fortnight ago when he said that it had been suggested that a prisoner who had a very severe physical problem was allowed on to the streets of Dublin without any care and attention. The Senator went on to say that this person, who had a serious illness, did not get the type of help that one would expect in the situation. I would like to assure the Senator that the person in question had not been diagnosed as suffering from a serious illness. The individual involved, who was due for release on 26 November, was released from custody on the day on which notification was received of the presence of AIDS antibodies in his blood. He was released on condition that he attend for appropriate medical monitoring of his condition. The presence of AIDS antibodies does not of itself mean that an individual is suffering from an illness. I am sure that the Senator, in those circumstances, will accept that the information on which he based his remarks was something less than the complete picture.

The Whitaker report before the House represents the first major independent review of our penal system since the foundation of the State. It will be clear from the contributions that have already been made to the debate that the report is essential reading for anyone who is concerned with the fundamental issues that face our society. Senator Higgins in particular pointed out with great force and eloquence that its interests lie not just in its review of the penal system itself but also in what it has to say about the criminal justice system and society generally. I share the Senator's appreciation that the committee took a wide view of its terms of reference and did so in a way that helped rather than confused their consideration of the specific issues they were asked to examine. I welcome that, particularly because of the emphasis it placed on preventive action and the recognition it gave to the role of voluntary organisations and the youth service in reducing the level of crime and, in consequence, reducing the pressure on the prison system. May I, on my own behalf and on behalf of the Minister for Justice, echo Senators from all sides of the House who have paid tribute to the members of the committee and to its distinguished chairman for the valuable service which they have performed. I echo Senator O'Leary's comments about the composition of the committee and, in particular, the presence of a member of the Judiciary. I know this is a view he has held because he has expressed it in relation to other reports, tribunals and commissions. While I know the view is held with conviction, I do not go along with it in all respects. It is happily the case that members of the Judiciary are held in such esteem in this State that their very presence on a committee of this nature can give the body status and ensure that it is seen to have an integrity that guarantees it will be taken seriously by the public and by those to whom the report referred.

The Minister for Justice received the committee's report during the summer. Having received it, he then published it within a matter of days so as to encourage as thorough a public debate as possible on the difficult issues which arise in this area. Such a debate was regarded essential. Why? Because it was important that the widest possible public consensus should be achieved in an area so fundamental to the way that we, as a society, organise ourselves. Against that background and in the context of the Minister's desire for the widest possible public debate this motion is particularly welcome. I thank the Labour Party sponsors of the motion for providing the House with an opportunity to discuss the report.

While there was the desire for a wider-ranging public debate, unfortunately I think it is the case that the initial debate and the immediate aftermath of publication of the report was dominated to a great extent by some people who concentrated exclusively on the recommendation about establishing a prisons board. It is quite clear that a number of fundamental principles of public accountability arise in determining the nature of such a body; but, while that is clear, the Minister has already indicated that he will be recommending to Government that a prisons board should be established.

I want to sound a note of caution on this. It would be foolish to believe that the establishment of the board is itself a panacea for the problems of prison administration. It is a pity that concentration on that part of the report has served to obscure other more fundamental issues that were addressed by the committee. That is all the more unfortunate because the committee emphasised in their report the importance of public opinion in setting out and determining the nature of our penal system. In relation to the prisons, they said that no reform could be accomplished without a major change in public attitudes and perceptions. The recommendations of the report are being examined in great detail by the Department of Justice. I am sure Senators will readily appreciate that it will be some time before the Minister can make up his mind fully on all the conclusions of the committee. This is only a preliminary response to a couple of the major issues that have been raised by the report.

When speaking in the other House on the Estimates for the Department of Justice the Minister for Justice expressed the view that people should only be sent to prison where it is clearly necessary in the interests of society to do so. In saying that, he would not find himself a thousand miles away from some of the quotations that were put on the record of the House by Senator B. Ryan. I accept that a lot hinges on how that phrase "clear necessity" is defined or identified. Nonetheless, it is fairly clear that that approach of the Minister is consistent with the views expressed by the committee that imprisonment should be employed only as a last resort. For some time it has been recognised in our prison administration that, as the committee put it, imprisonment is itself a punishment and that nothing should be done to inflict hardship or punishment beyond the inevitable consequences which flow automatically from the deprivation of liberty involved in imprisonment.

I welcome the extent to which there was a recognition of just how serious a step imprisonment is. There has been too much glib talk about prisons as holiday camps. Perhaps that represents an understandable symptom of people's frustration at crime but it is not based on any appreciation of the reality of loss of liberty. Those who continue to hold the view that our prisons represent a holiday from crime would do well to study the report and in particular the section in chapter 11 on public opinion and on the normalisation of prisons. That section of the report gives a clear view on why imprisonment should be used as sparingly as possible and why every effort has to be made to provide alternative facilities. Also every effort has to be made to provide counteracting facilities such as education, work, youth service, and so on. There has been a steady commitment over the years to developing these facilities. It also has to be recognised that the growth which has taken place in the prison population in recent years has made that difficult. The committee's view that our penal system will be faced with enormous difficulties in the future if the growth in the numbers being committed to custody continues is manifestly and obviously correct.

Earlier in this debate Senator McDonald pointed out that between the years 1972 and 1982 the average number in custody increased by 200, from approximately 1,000 to 1,200. Since then the prison population has gone up to 2,000, an increase of almost 800. That level of increase over such a short period, has caused inevitable difficulties for the prison system. It reflects a conscious and correct decision on the part of the Government that people convicted for serious offences should serve the sentences imposed on them by the courts.

Senator B. Ryan referred to what he believed to be a campaign of public hysteria in relation to the so-called offence of joy-riding — the unauthorised taking of motor vehicles. He suggested that the hysteria was misplaced and pointed out that statistics show a reduction in the number of vehicles taken. The reason that there has been a reduction in the number of vehicles taken is because the measures taken by the Government to respond to that have been successful. Measures were taken by the Government in terms of the organisation of the Garda. There was the firm determination of the Minister for Justice and the Government that people convicted of that serious offence, which puts lives at risk, should serve the sentences imposed upon them by the courts. I have seen in my own constituency the tragic consequences that can flow from that kind of anti-social behaviour. An elderly lady was carried on the bonnet of a car. I deprecate any suggestion that such an offence is to be dismissed lightly. I believe that the level of public concern about crime has been so intense that it would have been unthinkable that people sentenced to imprisonment by the courts — courts sitting in accordance with the laws passed by both these Houses — should not be required to serve their sentences simply for want of prison space. The Government have a duty to respond to that public concern.

While I would agree with those who deplore any attempt made to sensationalise the level of crime and induce crime panic, as Senator Higgins mentioned, I recognise the legitimacy of the public concern in that area. It is in no sense inconsistent with the approach that was taken by the committee and in no sense inconsistent with the approach that I have outlined — that sentences when imposed must be served — to say that the courts should have available to them the widest possible range of sanctions so that they would be able to impose effective and appropriate penalties.

In many instances penalties, while effective and appropriate, are alternatives to imprisonment. The courts have a fairly wide range of sanctions available to them such as probation, monetary penalties and ultimately imprisonment. The latest addition to that range of sanctions has been community service. Senator Ellis referred to the desirability of this sanction being available to the courts. I am not clear from his contribution whether he realises that it is in fact in force. But if there is any doubt, let me dispel that doubt. That scheme has proved to be one of the most useful additions to the criminal justice system for a very long time.

From its consideration of the legislation the House will recall that the scheme provides that an offender, rather than being sent to prison, is sentenced to work in the community. To that extent it is a real, genuine alternative to imprisonment. It is specifically written into the legislation that it is only to be used where, if it was not available to the court, a sentence of imprisonment would follow. There was a universal welcome for the legislation.

Senators will be pleased to learn that since the scheme came into operation nine or ten months ago it has proved very successful. Many of the offenders on the scheme are juveniles. It is a particularly appropriate scheme for young people. Schooling, for example, need not be interrupted. The scheme provides an opportunity to come in contact with those who can be genuinely disadvantaged in society and also with caring people who work voluntarily in these areas. At its best community service can change a young person's outlook, encourage him or her away from crime and at the same time provide benefits, often substantial benefits, to the community.

It interested and pleased me very much to discover that there have been a number of recorded cases where offenders who were sentenced to undertake a task of community work voluntarily stayed on when the period of work to which they had been sentenced had been completed in order to complete the projects and work with the community group to which they had been assigned. That of itself indicates the very real merits of a scheme such as that.

Since the scheme began operating there have been approximately 600 orders made. That figure, representing a very high level of recourse, demonstrates the willingness of the courts to use new sanctions when they are made available.

From what I have said it will be clear that there will be a positive response to suggested alternatives to imprisonment if they can be judged to be appropriate responses to particular crimes and if it can be shown that they hold out a reasonable prospect of success.

For the hard-pressed taxpaying community, community services and other alternatives to custody have one enormous advantage over imprisonment and that is cash. For example, the cost of supervising someone on a community service order is about £20 a week. The cost of keeping someone in prison for the same period is about £440. One does not need to be a mathematician to identify the very real benefits to the taxpayer whenever a court has an opportunity to have recourse to this option.

One of the more disturbing aspects of the Whitaker Report is the committee's estimate of the cost in financial terms if current trends in the growth of the prison population continue. The committee state that if current trends continue the prison population could reach 4,000 by 1995 and that it would then cost something of the order of £300 million to provide those additional places. They also estimate that for every 100 fewer new prisoners there will be a saving in capital outlay of £12.7 million and an annual saving of £3.8 million. Clearly then, it is in our financial interest to develop as much as possible effective alternatives to custodial sentences. I am not suggesting that financial considerations are the only considerations or even paramount considerations. I am not saying that they have a greater importance than social requirements, such as the maintenance of order or the reverse of that, ensuring that people are not needlessly imprisoned. But they are there and the financial considerations are clearly significant. The committee placed considerable emphasis on them.

The difficulty which arises is that it is not at all clear that we will be able to develop sufficient alternatives to custody to contain the growth in the prison population. As against that, as the report highlights so starkly, the cost of providing prison accommodation can be enormous. It is not apparent at this stage how that difficulty can best be resolved. I mention it only for the purpose of sounding a note of caution.

There is a fairly widely-held belief, and it found echo in the course of this debate, that there are substantial numbers of people in custody at present who should not be there. If they could be identified and diverted from the prison system, then much, if not all, of the pressure on prison accommodation could be eased. There is some merit in that point. There are a number of indications that the number of such offenders may not be anything like the size that some people suggest. My reason for saying that is that there are two points to be borne in mind. First, people serving prison sentences are there because they have been convicted by the courts, sentenced in accordance with the law. There is no clear evidence to suggest that our courts generally are unduly punitive in imposing prison sentences. That is obviously an issue on which every Member will form his or her own view.

Second, and more capable of objective assessment, is the fact that the actual experience of the prison administration in finding suitable offenders for open centres or for early release tends to support the belief that we are now dealing with more hardened criminals. Consequently, it is not easy to be optimistic that there is substantial scope for reducing the prison population through the introduction of further alternatives to custody. That does not mean that further alternatives are not desirable in themselves, even if they have not got the potential for large reduction in the numbers being committed to prison. I believe that such alternatives do have intrinsic merit and need to be considered and where possible introduced. So, it is clear that resolving this difficulty is not going to be easy. If we can sustain significant decreases in the crime rate, then of course it is a difficulty which will be very substantially reduced. This is not an appropriate time to dwell on the obvious desirability of crime prevention other than to emphasise, as the committee do, the responsibility of the community generally and not just the agencies of the criminal justice system in dealing with the crime problem.

A number of Senators in the course of their contributions praised the efforts of prison staff and the prison administration in performing difficult jobs on behalf of society. Obviously, I share those sentiments and I am sure that the House will continue to support the efforts of the prison system to cope with the varied and at times difficult demands that are placed on it. On that point Senator Ellis expressed concern about allegations that had been made which he thought reflected badly on members of the prison service. He referred in particular to remarks that had been made by Fr. McVeigh. I assume what he was referring to was the allegation of strip searching and of ill-treatment. He suggested that these should be the subject of a denial. The Department already indicated when the allegations were first made that those allegations were completely false. That type of allegation has been put forward before and has been denied by successive Ministers. It is not without note that the allegations are frequently made in the aftermath of escape bids or sometimes as part of a campaign for improved conditions, open visits and so on.

Senator Higgins complained that the prison system was bedevilled by secrecy. If that were true then that would be highly regrettable. All I can speak of with authority is the situation that has obtained in recent years. In so far as this administration and this Minister for Justice are concerned he has tried to ensure a wide access to the prisons for interested groups. The House will be aware that during his terms in office, many journalists have visited prisons. Other bodies, such as the Commission for Justice and Peace, have been facilitated.

While the Minister has responsibility for the running of prisons, they are run for and on behalf of the community. It is only right that the community be as fully informed as possible of their operation. This must be seen against the background of the committee's view of the importance of public opinion on the prisons. Naturally, everyone will accept that security considerations have to be taken into account. But I do not think they have been allowed, nor do I think they should be allowed, to bring about the air of secrecy that was referred to by Senator Higgins. May I say on that point, on behalf of the Minister, that he would be more than happy to facilitate any Senator who is anxious to see any of the prisons.

Senator Higgins also referred to difficulties in conducting proper research on prisons. I can assure him that the Minister will look favourably on any research proposals, and I am happy to inform the House, that last Friday the Minister signed a contract for the first phase of computerisation in the prisons. The computerisation project is one of the most sophisticated of its kind in western Europe and should greatly facilitate research into the penal system. The Department of Justice has already been in touch with the Economic and Social Research Institute with a view to setting up a committee of outside experts to advise on the type of statistical information analysis which the new system could provide for researchers. I hope that that will go some distance to meeting the type of research facilities that were referred to by the Senator.

The committee report contains many far-reaching recommendations and in my remarks tonight I have only been able to touch on some of them and to deal with some of the points that have been raised by contributors in the course of this debate. But I want to assure the House that when the Government come to take their decisions that they will do so in the light of the valuable contributions that have been made here in the Seanad on this motion and against the background of this report, the first report of its kind in 101 years.

Mr. M. Higgins

With the permission of the house, I would like to allot five of the 15 minutes allocated to me to Senator O'Mahony, if that is possible, to enable him to make a contribution.

Mr. O'Mahony

I too, would like to commend the committee which produced this report and to join with those Senators who have supported it during this debate. I must say it has been one of the most impressive reports produced in the social policy area by any committee or group directly on behalf of the Government. It compares, in my view, with the report of the Task Force on Child Care Services in the quality of its analysis and in the statement of principles which it contains. That task force report was produced in 1979. I had the privilege to be part of it, although I would not claim much credit for the magnificent results which came from that committee also.

However, on that note I would like to make the following point of concern. That report, which was produced in 1979, following an interim report on the subject of child care which was produced in 1975, has not been implemented to any significant degree. I would most strongly urge the Government to act quickly on this report and the recommendations it contains. It does serve a number of very valuable purposes particularly in the context of the very high level of public concern at the increasing crime rate over the last decade or two. First of all, it makes the point that Ireland is not unique in facing a situation of rising crime. It is, of course, a phenomenon common to all urbanising societies, and it would tend to suggest that the causes of crime have more to do with complex society changes than with individual decisions made by individual people in isolation to commit crime. We are, therefore, dealing with a highly complex social issue which is not amenable to the kind of solutions which are frequently put about by those who would demand more penal approaches to what is admittedly a problem of concern to many people.

The committee also suggest that we should try to learn, from those societies who experienced rising crime rates before we did because they urbanised before we did, both what are the causes of crime and what remedies are appropriate. Its findings serve as a valuable and realistic bulwark for those of us who are trying to maintain a liberal and objectively correct response to rising crime rates against those whose outrage leads them to demand penal solutions, which not only will not work, but which would make a bad situation even worse by making hardened criminals of those who would not necessarily fall into this category, were appropriate solutions developed.

The committee rightly point to the fact that, while all crimes cannot be put down to social deprivation or to social conditions which alienate a minority of our community, a great deal of it is attributable to these social phenomena. It is no accident that most of those who commit crime in our society come from deprived families or deprived neighbourhoods. In this sense, crime is a response, albeit a misguided and anti-social response, from the economically deprived. In this sense most crime derives from the class nature of our society rather than from a failure on the part of many of the individuals who actually commit those crimes. That is not, of course, to say that individuals do not bear responsibility for their actions in many cases, but it is to say that the objective data before us suggests that crime is society based and in particular it is based on the nature of the class structures which pervade our society.

In a very real sense, therefore, society is subject to the level of crime it deserves; and I am speaking here of crimes against property in particular. For this reason, it seems, the State has a very serious responsibility in the interest of its own safety and order, to put it at its very least, to break into the class system, break it down and transform it. This, indeed, is explicitly recognised in the report in paragraph 2.6. I am disappointed that in the discussion we have had, with the exception of Senators Ryan and Higgins, there has not been any great consideration of the causes of crime, particularly the class nature of those causal factors. Finally, I would urge that the Government respond as rapidly as they possibly can to the principles set out in this report and to the sense of direction given us in its recommendations.

Mr. M. Higgins

I want to thank you for allowing another speaker to speak. Indeed, I see Senator McGuinness in the House, who is associated with another group who has studied the prisons. It is very appropriate and proper to acknowledge on an occasion like this the work of all those groups, the different inter-Church groups and the different Church groups and groups such as, for example, the MacBride Commission and now again the Whitaker Committee which, as so many Senators have said, have contributed to the debate on penal reform. In concluding, may I thank all the Senators, including the Chair and including the Minister of State, who have contributed to this debate.

May I just make a couple of points that are very important? The danger about discussing the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Penal System is that one might tacitly accept the necessity of prison as an institution. I am not an idealist when I say that when I look back across the history of prison systems there is an almost unanswerable case against prison except for those who are the most serious offenders. I would say this very carefully. Probably the best book on the history and origins of the prison system is Michael Ignatieff's book A Just Measure of Pain which correctly locates the origins of the present penal system — the penitentiary system in the period between 1750 and 1850. It is very interesting, I am sure, to historians to note the close connection between the origins of the factory system and the origins of the prison system. In my opening speech moving this motion on behalf of the Labour Party I made the point that both were attempts at control in so far as you would control space and time, in so far as you diminished privacy. I want to repeat that point: that it is time for those people who believe in humanity to begin looking at the historical moment of the rise of the prison which in western European circumstance is very specific,

The present system came into existence at the end of transportation. Before that, there were arbitrary punishments, mutilation, death and so on. And the classical period of criminology is one that made, if you like, the crime, the punishment and the procedures certain, but it equally unleashed a view in society that society could somehow or another control itself, make itself survive without problems and reproduce itself only in circumstances where it controlled what is called misdemeanour.

I would offer people the example of the origins of Bridewells. The Bridewells were in existence at the end of monastic charity and it was due to the fact that people were wandering the roads, as they were referred in the text at the time, as masterless men with the idea of there being nobody to control them in an ownership way, within the servitude of labour that the Bridewells came into existence.

In my opening remarks, I want to say that this motion does not accept the historical inevitability of prison. The second caveat I want to make, and I could not make it strongly enough, is the appalling illogicality in the suggestion that the crime rate can in fact be answered by a prison response. The crime rate is located in the wider society; it is located in the terms of the rate, as I have worn myself out saying, due to different kinds of situational or circumstantial, socio-economic causes in its incidence by a personal decision which is sometimes exercised responsibly and sometimes not so informed. But the question of crime and the society cannot be answered solely by a prison response and it is only people who are not aware of the literature on causes of crime, incidence of crime and the fluctuations in crime who are looking for a prison response.

In fact, the reason I am late, a Chathaoirligh, is that I have just been visiting a prison. I am grateful for the facilities afforded to me to visit that prison. But I will come back to your own remark about the openness of the present system. It is still not an open system and I will believe it is open when I see the research that is carried out in the prison system in the same way as in any other area of life. The research is not there to prove it.

To move on to the contributions that have been made I would urge Members of the Oireachtas, Senators and Deputies to visit prisons so that they will know what they are talking about and I would particularly invite those people who want to solve the crime rate by sending more people to prison, by having more overcrowding in prison and by building new prisons, to visit the prisons and to speak to prisoners but, rather like Northern Ireland, it is easier to speak about it than to go there and it is easier to speak about prisonisation than it is to go and acquaint yourself with the experience of prison. I am a little weary of listening to people coming out with these speeches to the effect that it is all a matter of tackling the crime, these people who have created moral panics in this country and who have, I believe, set up an atmosphere in which we cannot thoroughly examine either the crime rate or the experience of prison.

Are people aware, for example, that in Mountjoy there is available to 160 prisoners one hot water tap, two large plastic containers with two cold taps available to maybe 60 people at the same time? In my opening speech I noticed some people leaving rather quickly after I had drawn attention to the potting out ceremonies which have been retained in this prison in Ireland, as they have been retained in other prison systems not only because of the difficulty and the economic expenditure required in improving sanitation but because of the ideology of such a destruction of privacy. Is there anything more demeaning than people with pots with lids queueing to empty them through a grating as they do in a prison in Ireland, with all the fumes and smells and degradation that goes with it? What kind of a society can justify that kind of an experience? Let the newspapers print that; let the Evening Herald go and print that and the Irish Independent group set up an illiterate kind of panic, putting victims on the front pages to suggest that any kind of incarceration is really too good for the people who commit crime.

Let me say in conclusion that I am not here to justify any crime that is carried out against anybody and I am not insensitive to the feelings of victims and I am worrying about the growing crime rate but it behoves us, those of us who are sent here to legislate, to draw distinction between two quite separate things, the rising crime rate to which we must address our minds and our responses to the sanctions that we impose and the procedures we use to impose those sanctions and the particular form of sanction that the prison experience is. The prison experience involves the loss of liberty, loss of freedom to make a decision in relation to your space and your time. The average prison routine, as I read it out in my opening contribution in moving this motion, is one of 16 hours locked up and I said that it is in all our interests to examine why we have prisons, why we have prisons like those we have. I am glad to see that the Whitaker report went some way towards making a number of fundamental suggestions.

Why do we need women's prisons? What, for example, is the justification for them. There is no point in wheeling out one woman who has been guilty of a crime of violence and saying "For this woman alone we need a woman's prison." I worry about only one item in the report — because I praised the report unreservedly in my opening speech and in response to the speeches that have been made — and that is the cost that is given for keeping a prisoner in prison. I would like to think that when we come to develop a critique of the prison system —and this report of Dr. Whitaker's committee is a very valuable contribution in that regard — we would not only look at the prisons and reform them for the economic reason that it is simply too costly to have them, but look at the origins of the prison system, why we have it and why we insist on it; what happens the individuals who have the slow form of death through recidivism? Why, even for the eight hours that they can come out —and you take the training or education period out of that — and which give perhaps a period of unsupervised recreation in the prison yard, they stay in their cells and do not come out. As a Legislature what is our function? Our function, and the test of our humanity, is to look at the most vulnerable sections of the community and ask ourselves the question: "What responsibility have we in their regard?" It is not our responsibility solely to listen to groups of people who would want us, as I say, to build more and better prisons and so on.

This report now joins the McBride report; it joins reports like the report from the Council of Churches, the report from within the individual churches, and there have been contributions from both sides of this House. What is needed now — and I repeat it — is a time scale for action. It is not a matter of putting an administration on the rack; it is not a matter of comparing one administration with another. What is needed now is to take the modest, strained proposals of the Whitaker Committee, put a time scale on them and say that within two years we will have, in fact, made all of the changes that are made. But I hope that if we consider doing that and, as the necessary legislative reforms come before this House and the other House, Members of both Houses will have used the intervening time to visit the prisons; to consider the prisons, to talk to prisoners, ask how we come to have them, so that when they make their contributions they will be informed by humanity rather than economics.

I am asking what kind of a society is it that needs the concept of control. Is it in fact that we have to dehumanise so many people so as to allay the fears that are lurking within ourselves? Perhaps it is our own fear we should address, and perhaps it is our inability to address these fears in ourselves and in the structures of our old society that makes us keep these antiquated structures, these barbaric practices — and it is no condemnation of those who work in them.

For all of these reasons I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate, including the Minister of State, and I hope that we will hear the time scale I speak of and the reforms being implemented. I repeat what I have said: what we want is an open approach towards justice in the courts, among offenders, in the prisons and so forth and the test of that will be the public research when legislators can go in without notice at any time to any prison. That will be an open prison system, not one where you have to arrange elaborately a specified visit so that arrangements can be made in advance.

Question put and agreed to.