Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Feb 1986

Vol. 111 No. 9

Criminal Justice System: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Seanad Éireann takes note of Report No. 77 of the National Economic and Social Council entitled "The Criminal Justice System: Policy and Performance".

—(Senator Durcan.)

Mr. B. Ryan

The first thing I must do is to welcome the Minister to his new job. I do not know how he feels about it, but I think his new Ministry is possibly one of the most challenging. Apart from the obvious things, an enormous amount of legislative reform, administrative reform and policy reform is needed, much of it not necessarily enormously expensive, in the area of the Department which he administers. Some of it is, perhaps, moderately expensive relative to the expenditure — for instance, in the courts — but in terms of overall expenditure a reallocation of resources within his own Department could help.

I wish the Minister well. I do not envy him the job. The impositions on his personal life of the security regime within which he has to operate must be a great burden to himself and to his family. I wish him success in the job. I do not want to make any comparisons with his previous job because I do not think that would be fair.

Go n-éirí leis an Aire agus leis an obair atá idir lámha aige. B'fhéidir nach mbeidh na bacanna curtha os comhair lucht na Gaeilge i bPortlaoise agus a chuirtear ó am go h-am ó thaobh na slandála de.

Obviously, it would be impossible to talk about this report in 15 minutes. I welcome the initiative of Senators Durcan and Belton, and Senator Belton's conversion to the liberal wing of the law and order issue. Perhaps Senator Durcan would pass on my congratulations to Senator Belton, as he is not here.

Mr. Durcan

It is not a conversion. The Senator did not appreciate his true stance until now.

Mr. B. Ryan

Perhaps he did not read the report fully.

Irrespective of my making smart remarks about Senator Belton, the report is most welcome and contains an enormous amount of information. I am only going to take about a few aspects of it. I will concentrate on putting on to the record of this House some of the conclusions that are drawn in a number of areas.

I am glad that there has been reflection on the operation of the courts in this report. I am particularly glad that the sort of mystical aura that surrounds the Judiciary, that somehow because you become a judge you become a pillar of wisdom, knowledge, information and judgment, is, in a gentle, respectful and no irreverent way, being questioned. The suggestion that judges need to be trained, educated and to have an induction to the processes in which they are involved is both welcome and important. Given the experience we have had in Cork in recent times, the need for a fairly thorough induction and training for members of the Judiciary is particularly apparent to those of us in Cork, including my fellowcitizen in Cork who had to run the best part of three miles in half-an-hour in order to keep out of prison — something I thought was an unusual penalty.

There is an enormous amount in this report but what I would like to concentrate on is the section on page 43 on social inequality and crime, not because it is the only thing in the report but because I think one can either talk in broad generalisations about what is contained in this report or one can advert to specific issues that are raised within it. The issue I want to talk about is the question of social inequality and crime. The author of the report, as distinct from the council's comments on it, does go to some length to make it fairly clear that the connection between social inequality and crime is pretty well overwhelmingly proven, but that that can be misrepresented in a number of ways.

On page 43 he said:

There is a correlation which indicates that crime rates are high in years with high unemployment and crime rates are low in years with low unemployment. This does not imply that all persons who are unemployed commit crimes, or even that a substantial minority do so. Instead, it suggests that as the labour market opportunities of some groups become more restricted, particularly groups of young people, the relative attractions of non-criminal and criminal activities shift in a way that increases the probability of their engaging in illegal activities. So with high unemployment the probability that a young person will commit a crime increases, leading to that age group having a higher rate of arrests.

That is carefully worded, and quite rightly so, because those of us who would argue that crime correlates with social inequality can tend to stigmatise whole communities in the way in which we correlate crime with high levels of social inequality. On the other hand, it is extremely important that what has been said here should be accepted, because if it becomes the basis for our analysis of crime and the causes thereof, then we do have an obligation to look at the social inequalities that correlate with crime. Unfortunately, it is true that some exercises in reducing some areas of inequality do not necessarily produce the immediate changes in the crime system that might be hoped for or in the occurrence of crime that might be hoped for. However, regrettable that may be, the correlation, I think, is established.

The report goes on to say:

This way of linking economic and social conditions to crime can be used to explain variation between social groups in the rate of involvement in crime, rates that reflect the probability a person from a particular background will come to the attention of the criminal justice system. It may lead us to conclude, say, that children from areas with high long-term unemployment have, say, twice as high a probability of becoming involved in crime, as do children from more advantaged areas.

The author then concludes:

The accountability of the individual before the courts for his or her choice is in no way diminished by such a link.

I must say I would take issue with that particular conclusion. I remember Dr. Noel Browne on one occasion saying that there was a case to be made that all prisoners were political prisoners, because many prisoners were in prison because of factors over which they had limited control and, therefore, to a large extent they could not be regarded as being culpable for many of the crimes they became involved in. That might be somewhat extreme. Dr. Noel Browne was very good at challenging us by making statements that pushed us beyond our normal parameters of thinking. Nonetheless, I think it is a bit hard to suggest, if there is a correlation between social inequality and crime, that you can then pass on and say, that even though this correlation exists it in no way diminishes the accountability of the individual before the courts for his or her choice.

If that means that one cannot prosecute people because of the crimes they have allegedly committed, that is, perhaps, reasonable; but if it means that there should be no distinction between the methods of dealing with people who commit crime, then we have a far more serious issue to be concerned with.

The report goes through an overwhelming amount of evidence to add to this accepted correlation between social deprivation and high rates of crime incidence. It would be a boring and monotonous exercise that might even test the patience of the Leas-Chathaoirleach if I proceeded to quote long chunks of a report at this late hour of the evening. I no longer believe there is a need for us to get involved in these eternal arguments about the causes of crime. Whatever about the causes of crime, one of the correlations has been fairly well underlined. The report deals with educational disadvantage at great length. It quotes from Hakim, 1982 as follows:

...high levels of unemployment can be expected to contribute to higher levels of crime and delinquency and to an increase in the prison population... Three processes appear to operate: unemployment increases recidivist crime; parental and youth unemployment increase juvenile delinquency (which can form the basis for eventual adult criminality); and unemployment increases reconviction, the rate of imprisonment and the size of the prison population.

That is a fairly damning indicator of the cost of unemployment to a community and I think that the costs of unemployment, in terms of the increasing tendency towards criminality, need to be accounted. I do not think economists are really in a position to assess these costs. Politicians can at least begin to attempt to measure them, because they are part of the balance sheet of a society, the human damage and, indeed, the damage not just to the criminal people but to the victims of crime, that are consequential on high levels of unemployment. We do need to look at it with a good deal of care.

In terms of the correlation between criminality and high levels of unemployment and high levels of social inequality, the report highlights a number of other areas, particularly of the perceptions of society of what constitutes crime. I should like to quote one of the more astonishing statements in the report. While we might all have suspected it, I have never seen it stated so badly. The quotation deals with the comparison between what are called "street crimes" and "white collar" crimes. The report states the following:

Though an abhorrence of "street crime" such as robbery is virtually universal, if we measure the cost of crime in financial terms, "white collar" crimes, such as embezzlement and fraud, inflict the greater loss. White collar crime is the abuse of occupational positions of trust and responsibility. They are almost by definition middle class crimes. The amount of money taken annually through white collar crime vastly exceeds the profits accruing to robbers and burglars in most countries. Indeed, the famous Equity funding fraud involved a loss to its victims that was equal to nearly three quarters of all money stolen in the United States by robberies and burglaries in the year the fraud was discovered.

In terms of a society's perception of crimes and of the hysteria that at times is generated in society about alleged criminal activity, this perception of what constitutes crime is one of the most fundamental questions that needs to be addressed. Our perception of crime gives us very much a class-based perception of what constitutes serious criminality. Burglary, as I have said, is regarded as a serious crime, but "white collar" crime is treated with far less opprobrium in the sense that, as the report has stated, far greater sums are involved in white collar crime. But the real obsession in society is with the incidence of crimes like burglary and so on.

That is all I should like to say on the issue of social inequality and crime. It is satisfying and equally important, that the correlation between a high incidence of social inequality and the incidence of crime is, apparently, accepted and heavily underlined. In terms of our response to criminal activity, that particular correlation must be accepted.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator has one minute to conclude.

Mr. B. Ryan

In the one minute that I have left to conclude in, I will simply make one further quotation from the comments of the report on prisons. It is very difficult to deal with a report of the length and breadth of this report in 15 minutes. I do want to comment and read a footnote on page 153, which refers to the quality of the report on prisons of the Department of Justice. The comment says:

The Report on Prisons suffers from a format that is poorly thought out, inconsistent in its application within each report, and subject to arbitrary changes from one report to the next. Tables often refer to subpopulations that are of no apparent interest (such as those omitting prisoners serving sentences of "penal servitude") and the descriptive categories are often poorly chosen or difficult to understand (as in the choice of offences). The crucial distinctions between remand prisoners, those sentenced to imprisonment, and those imprisoned on default are made for some purposes and not for others. The format for the adult prisons often differs from that used for the places of detention. No information is given to the user on how particular statistics are generated. If these criticisms seem harsh, the reader is directed to the Statistical Abstract of Ireland, 1980. We find in Table 238, for example, that the average number in custody in 1975 was 458; the 1976 average jumps to 1,049. Equally peculiar “leaps” in numbers are found for a category in the analysis of committals to prison in the same table. Some of the anomalies have obvious sources, as when figures for St. Patrick's Institution are incorrectly included with the adult prisons. Others, such as the origins of the highly volatile “committed and acquitted” category of committals defy explanation.

I simply quote that as an example of what I mentioned in my initial remarks when I was welcoming the Minister. There is an area where no vast amount of expenditure is required, but where obviously an awful lot could be done to improve our knowledge, our understanding and our capacity, therefore, to deal intelligently with the obviously pressing problem of the increasing numbers of people in our prison system. If the information is not presented in a coherent way, that is comparable from year to year, we can make no progress at all. On that issue of the report on prisons alone the Minister could make a major contribution to the debate on the prison system.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Dukes)

I would like to thank the Chair for affording me the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this motion and to speak to the House for the first time as Minister for Justice on a number of topics which come within my new brief.

The areas which I will be speaking about are the Garda Síochána, the courts and the prisons. I will begin with the Garda Síochána.

While increasing Garda numbers cannot, of course, be regarded as the only response to the crime situation, a good Garda presence must be maintained in the streets of our cities and towns. To this end, Garda strength was increased by close on 600 during the three-year period 1983 to 1985. This extra manpower provided for an increased level of patrolling, with particular emphasis on foot patrols which are considered to play an important role in the prevention of crime. We have now reached an overall Garda strength of 11,400, which is the strength provided for in the national plan published in October 1984. The emphasis is now on ensuring that the existing strength operates with the maximum efficiency and effectiveness in meeting the policing needs of the community.

The question of members of the Garda Síochána not residing in the areas to which they are appointed was raised earlier in the debate. The Commissioner of the Garda Síochána accepts that members of the Garda Síochána who reside in the areas where they are stationed are able to maintain a closer and better relationship with the community they serve and it is his policy to encourage this practice in so far as is possible without imposing unreasonable hardship on members and their families. The Garda authorities report that while the majority of members of the chief superintendent, superintendent and inspector ranks assigned to areas outside the Dublin Metropolitan Area reside with their families in their districts or in adjoining districts, a number of members of these ranks who were recently promoted or transferred have not yet taken up permanent residence in the areas to which they have been appointed. Members of sergeant and garda rank are not required by regulations to live within their subdistricts. The accepted practice, except where official accommodation is provided, is that a member is free to reside where he chooses provided he does not live at an unreasonable distance from his station. The onus is on each Garda divisional officer to ensure that an adequate Garda service is maintained within his division at all times.

Measures to get the Garda and members of the general public into closer contact are being pursued by the formulation and implementation of a policy of community policing. Some experiments have been carried out with a view to establishing what can be described as "police clinics" in areas which are fairly far removed from a Garda station. Such clinics would involve the attendance of a garda at a local centre for a fixed period one or two days per week and would provide the public with a convenient means of contacting the Garda, for example to report crime, discuss aspects of local policing, seek crime prevention advice or get various application forms such as those for motor tax, driving licences, and so on. The Garda authorities are currently considering the development of this type of service, and other measures, aimed at fostering good relations between the Garda and the community, are also receiving attention. There is a total acceptance on the part of the Garda of the need to involve the community at large in crime prevention activities and I think that resources directed to this end will show positive results in reducing crime, particularly the types of crime which can be prevented through extra vigilance on the part of individuals, neighbours and communities in general.

The report referred to Garda training and that matter was referred to also in the course of the debate. The House may be aware that the Commissioner established a committee in January of last year, under the chairmanship of Dr. Thomas Walsh, to undertake a thorough review of Garda training at all levels, from recruit intake stage up to and including courses provided for senior management in the Garda College. The committee presented their first report — Interim Report on Probationer Training — to the Commissioner in December of last year and this report is now being considered in detail. I hope that it will be possible to implement a number of recommendations made to the benefit of recruits who join the Garda Síochána from the next recruitment competition. Having regard to the wide range of training that the committee have been asked to examine and to report on, it will of necessity take some time for them to complete all aspects of their work.

In the context of the NESC report, it is appropriate to mention that the crime rate in this country is not exceptional by international standards and the problem of high crime is not unique to Ireland but is a feature of virtually every modern democratic society and indeed, a feature of a number of undemocratic societies also. This is accepted in the report which compares our situation favourably with that of our near neighbour — the United Kingdom. I should also point out that immediate measures to deal with specific problems such as joy-riding, drug abuse and attacks on the elderly, have had a fair measure of success. In 1984 the Garda Commissioner reported a 2.6 per cent decrease in indictable crime. This was the first time in seven years in which indictable crime had actually decreased. Provisional figures for 1985 indicate an even grater decline of the order of 8.5 per cent.

One of the most striking features of the report is what it has to say in regard to the causative social factors of criminal behaviour. I am referring to issues such as unemployment, poor educational attainment and certain housing and related environmental conditions. Although it is impossible to say with any degree of certainty in any individual case that any particular factor causes a person to become involved in crime, it is abundantly clear that there is a strong link between criminal behaviour and what we normally refer to as poverty or social disadvantage.

The report indicates that the 15 to 20 age group has a crime rate approximately four times the national average, that the vast majority of young offenders are the product of disadvantage arising from a combination of factors including poverty, unemployment and poor educational attainment. It is evident, therefore, that the response to the crime problem, if it is to be effective, must go beyond strengthening the components of the criminal justice system, namely the Garda Síochána, the courts and the prisons. A comprehensive, multi-dimensional response involving appropriate social and economic policies is called for. It is equally clear that the Government must work through its economic and social policies, towards the elimination of poverty in our society and for the achievement of equality of opportunity.

I should emphasise that our efforts to identify the root causes of crime do not imply, in any sense, that we accept that these causes excuse crime. I will say more about Government policies in the social and economic areas in a few moments. I want to emphasise the fact that law-abiding citizens must be protected in their persons and property now, and it is the responsibility of the Government and of the Minister for Justice in particular, to do everything in their power to provide them with that protection. I would like, therefore, to outline some developments in the recent past which have been of assistance towards that end.

The report emphasises the importance of a community-based approach to policing. I fully accept the necessity to involve the community at large in crime prevention activities and specific policies are being implemented in this context. One such policy is Neighbourhood Watch. That is essentially a network of public spirited people who observe what is going on in their neighbourhoods and report any suspicious or unusual happenings to the Garda. The development of Neighbourhood Watch is an indication of the willingness both of the Garda to adopt new approaches to crime prevention and of the community to become actively involved with the Garda to defeat the criminal. The scheme, which is most suitable for urban areas with high population densities, is in operation at 107 centres throughout the country and is at various stages of implementation at 63 other centres. It is particularly appropriate in the context of discussions in this House on the NESC Report that I should mention that the Garda authorities have commenced a formal scientifically-based evaluation project on Neighbourhood Watch to measure the effectiveness of the scheme in reducing crime levels and in developing improved relations between the Garda Síochána and the community. The results of this evaluation will form part of the process of formulating and developing other policies in the area of community-based policing.

Long-term solutions to the main causes of crime, as the report highlights and as I have pointed out earlier, are more likely to lie in the areas of economic and social policy than within the narrower area of the criminal justice system. It has to be accepted, however, that the creation of a society free from social and economic disadvantage is a long-term goal. In the meantime, I believe that we can do many things to help towards the prevention of crime. For example, local authorities, town planners and health authorities could all take greater account of crime prevention as a factor in their recommendations and decisions. The Government's recently published National Youth Policy "In Partnership with Youth" is of particular relevance in this context. The policy is aimed at assisting all young people to become self-reliant, responsible and active participants in society. It includes a detailed plan for the provision of services to young people generally and to disadvantaged young people in particular. Total Government support for appropriate services in 1986 will be in excess of £6 million. I believe that the initiatives taken by the Government in this area will prove, in the long term, to be extremely significant in the fight to prevent and deter crime.

I would now like to deal with some aspects of the NESC report which concern the courts, namely, the physical appearance of courts, consultation facilities and the sound amplification of court proceedings. The provision and maintenance of court accommodation outside the Dublin area is the responsibility of local authorities under the Courthouses (Maintenance and Provision) Act, 1935. There are three factors which influence the level of local authority expenditure on these courthouses (i) the large number of such courthouses, (ii) the relative infrequency of court sittings in many of them and (iii) the general financial constraints under which local authorities are operating. There are basic physical deficiencies in many courts and I am taking steps to have them remedied in so far as these steps are open to me. In taking action, however, the terms of the 1935 Act and the realities of present financial constraints must never be far from the front of my mind.

In relation to court accommodation in Dublin — for which I have, in general, direct responsibility — there is an extensive building programme under way. A modernised temporary Children's Court at Smithfield was opened recently. Building work is in progress on an extension of the Four Courts complex on the site of the old Four Courts Hotel. A contract is expected to be placed shortly for a purpose-built Children's Court. When completed this will allow the temporary Children's Court to be diverted to other uses. An examination is under way to see how the courts complex at Chancery Street might be improved. Bearing in mind the general financial constraints, it is considered that this programme to improve court facilities is a reasonable one.

With regard to the question of facilities for offenders to meet and consult in private with their solicitors, it is the policy to aim towards the provision of reasonable consultation facilities in court premises where they are considered essential and every suitable opportunity of doing so is being availed of. Consultation rooms have been provided, for example, in the newly restored courthouses in Tralee and Waterford and in the new court premises at Dolphin House and the temporary Children's Court premises at Smithfield, both in Dublin.

Whenever sound amplification of the proceedings is considered necessary by the judge or justice the Office of Public Works, in relation to the Dublin courts or the appropriate local authority in other cases, is asked to provide the facility. Ultimately, however, the decision whether or not to make use of sound amplifications rests with the individual judges and justices who are controlling the proceedings.

With regard to the question of inconsistencies in sentences being imposed by the Judiciary, the position is that under our legal system the law provides generally for maximum penalties for criminal offences. This enables the judge or justice to exercise his or her discretion within the maximum penalty by reference to the conclusions he or she has reached after trying the case, hearing all the evidence and assessing the culpability and the circumstances of the accused. This means that it is inevitable that there will be divergences between sentences even for the same offence because the circumstances will differ from case to case.

While there is provision in law for meetings of justices of the District Court to discuss, among other things, the avoidance of undue divergences in the general level of fines and other penalties, there is no similar provision in the case of the other courts. The position is, however, that over the past few years regional conferences of judges have been convened to discuss the administration of justice. Members of the Judiciary regularly attend national and international meetings and conferences on matters of concern to the Judiciary which keep them in touch with new ideas and developments. Legislation to make regular meetings mandatory is unnecessary in the circumstances.

I now turn to the recommendations made in the NESC report in relation to the prisons. The House will be aware that since this report was published we have also had the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the penal system which addresses in even greater detail many of the issues referred to in the NESC report and many of the recommendations made by NESC are repeated and indeed amplified in the Whitaker report. I am at present studying the Whitaker report and I have already make it clear that I regard taking action on the conclusions of the committee as a priority.

The Whitaker report was the first of its kind in this country for over a century and the decisions which are taken on foot of that report will shape penal policy here for a long time to come. The issues which arise in this area are basic to the way we, as a democratic society, organise ourselves and it is a matter of the very greatest importance that the Government can get all of these right.

The House will appreciate that I cannot say at this stage what those decisions will be, and you know yourself, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, that I resist temptations to indiscretion in this House. But I can repeat the commitment which was given here when the report was debated recently: namely, that if any of the recommendations made by the committee are to be rejected it will only be where a thorough analysis shows that the balance of the public interest lies elsewhere.

While, as I have indicated already, I cannot respond in detail tonight to what the Whitaker report has to say, I can offer some preliminary observations on some of the issues currently affecting the prisons.

There is no doubt that the prison service has to contend, on behalf of society, with some very difficult problems. It is not uncommon to read reports of various "crises" besetting the prisons; and, while labelling the difficulties with which the prisons have to contend as "crises" is at best over-dramatic and certainly does not contribute in any way towards a resolution of the problems, it is important that there should be a public awareness of the difficult issues which arise in relation to the prisons. I am bound to say that some of the public comment, particularly over the last couple of months, has not contributed a great deal to developing that public awareness of what those issues are.

A very heavy demand has been placed on our prison system over the past three years or so because of the unprecedented growth in the numbers in custody. This, it has to be said, is partly a reflection of the Government's determination to ensure that people convicted of serious crimes — for example, crimes which threaten the safety of citizens such as joyriding and attacks on the elderly but other crimes also serve the sentences imposed on them by the courts. At present about 1,900 offenders are being accommodated, whereas just three years ago the daily average prison population was only about 1,200. The unprecedented level of this increase can be seen from the fact that over the past three years numbers have risen by about 700 while the increase over all of the previous ten years was only about 200.

The increase of over 50 per cent has had to be coped with, by and large, without any new purpose-built accommodation being available. I should make it clear that, despite what is sometimes alleged, the lack of new prison accommodation cannot be attributed to any action taken by the present Government. It is obvious that an increase in the prison population of the proportions I have outlined and over such a short period places pressure on the prison system, but, generally, this increase has been dealt with in a very effective way.

The Irish prison system is by no means unique in having to contend with pressure on prison accommodation. Many countries, particularly in Western Europe, are facing similar difficulties and I do not think that it has been sufficiently recognised that we have been fortunate in being able to deal with this problem without resorting to the type of extreme measures which other administrators have found necessary. We have not, for example, had to greatly restrict out-of-cell time for offenders or have offenders "queue up" to serve their sentences until a prison space becomes available. The policy here has been to cope with the increased numbers in a way that maintains to the greatest extent possible the quality of services and regimes in the institutions and I can assure the House that that is a policy I wholly support.

While the outcome of consideration on the Whitaker report will have implications one way or another for prison accommodation, I think it is important that we are clear about the current situation. There has been a lot of talk lately about overcrowding in our prisons; but it is, nevertheless, the case that we do not have this problem on anything like the scale being experienced by many other administrations. For example, in one neighbouring administration it is not uncommon because of pressure on accommodation for prisoners to be locked up three to a cell for 23 hours a day. I am glad that we have never had to countenance anything like that.

While I believe it is important to keep our problem of pressure on prison accommodation in perspective, I recognise that in terms of prison administration the numbers in custody are undesirably high. This has to be seen against a background of the need to ensure that people convicted of serious offences are not let out of prison without having served a substantial proportion of their sentences. Given the genuine and understandable concern which people have about crime, it is imperative that the prison system makes every effort to ensure that those convicted of serious offences serve the sentences imposed on them by the courts. That is what has been happening in recent years and when difficulties arise in the prisons I think, in fairness, that it is in this context that they should be judged.

Even since the Whitaker committee reported, some issues in relation to the operation of the prisons have taken on a prominence and urgency which did not obtain when the committee were deliberating. In particular, we now have to face the problem of prisoners who have been identified as having AIDS antibodies. There are two points which I think important to emphasise about this. First, the presence of AIDS antibodies in a person simply indicates that that person has come in contact with the AIDS virus — the chances of the individual going on to develop AIDS itself are considered low. Second, the indications are that the virus can be transmitted only through very limited means — essentially, either through sexual activity or blood to blood contact, through, for example, the sharing of needles by intravenous drug abusers.

The House will be aware that offenders found to have AIDS antibodies are now being segregated within particular institutions. This has been found necessary both to reduce the level of unease — however irrational or unfounded it might be — among the general prison population and to enable the precautions and restrictions which medical advice indicates to be necessary to be applied as easily as possible.

While it is important to keep the problem in perspective, it will be clear that the presence of offenders with AIDS antibodies represents a wholly unwelcome development in the context of the pressures already being experienced by the prison system in dealing with the substantial growth in the numbers being committed to custody. The presence of offenders with AIDS antibodies is a reflection of the high proportion of offenders who have been intravenous drug abusers before being committed to prison.

Over recent years there has been a significant increase in the number of offenders with drug related problems. Dealing with them poses very severe difficulties for the prison service. The prison system here — or indeed anywhere else for that matter — does not have some kind of ready-made cure for drug addiction and the essential difficulty which arises is that it is not possible to impose effective therapy on someone who is not sufficiently motivated to give up drugs.

For some years now we have had a scheme under which prisoners who appear sufficiently motivated and who are not considered a serious threat to society are allowed temporary release from prison to attend at a centre such as Coolemine. I intend to continue and, if possible, expand that scheme. As part of my examination of the Whitaker report I will be paying special attention to what further measures might be taken to help offenders with drug problems, but I think we should recognise that there are no easy or complete solutions in this area.

What I have been saying about the prisons tonight represents just some initial observations on a number of issues which have received prominence lately. I look forward at a later stage to a fuller debate on many of these issues, particularly in the light of the outcome of our consideration of the Whitaker report.

I now wish to say a few words on the question of statistics, which has been referred to on a number of occasions during this debate by Senator B. Ryan. Those references reflect in a general way the shortcomings already mentioned in this area in the NESC report. I do not argue with some of the points raised in the debate and in the report itself. For example, I agree that the availability of relevant statistics is essential for an examination of the system's problems and for the development of recommendations as to its future direction. I agree with the report's point that current statistical practices do not allow us to track people through the criminal justice system from beginning to end, or to discern what is happening at certain stages in the process. I do not agree that they fail to give a general portrayal of what is going on within the system and what is being done about it, although the picture might not be as detailed as one would like. It is not true to say that the information collected at present does not allow for evaluation or accounting for what has been done. Indeed, the financial and other data available accounts, to the last penny, for what has been done with the money spent in the system.

Furthermore, the consultant, by his extensive use, in chapter 4 of his report, of tabular statements of crime statistics taken from the annual crime report, shows just how valuable and relevant those statistics, and the way they are presented, are to analysts such as himself.

The Garda Commissioner's annual report on crime is a useful indicator not only of the level of criminality which faces the community and the Garda, as reflected by the numbers of crimes reported, but also of how successful the Garda and society generally are in combating criminality, as reflected in the detection rate for each category of crime.

My own Department's research unit is conscious of the system's statistical shortcomings and is tackling the problem on a methodical basis.

As far as court statistics are concerned, a revised format for collection of statistics in the Circuit Court has been produced recently. It is to be tried on a pilot basis in selected Circuit Court offices over the next few months with a view to full implementation from the beginning of the next legal year. A similar operation is underway in relation to High Court statistics, with the same time-scale in mind, and it is intended to overhaul the District Court statistics-gathering system after that. We will then have the more meaningful court statistics and the question of making them available to outside researchers will then be considered. The council can rely on my own well known proclivity for statistics to ensure that we make rapid progress in this area.

Mr. O'Leary

We will be glad to assist the Minister.

Mr. Dukes

A very significant development is now taking place in my Department with the implementation of the first phase of a major computerisation project for the prison service.

The two aims to the proposed system are to modernise prison administration and to provide fuller data and analysis of that data. The first phase of the project will include the computerisation of all prisoner records and the second phase will cover probation and welfare service records. When the project has been completed it should go a long way towards meeting many of the criticisms which are made about the inadequacy of statistics. In an attempt to ensure that the information provided by the system will be as thorough and as valuable as possible, a committee of outside researchers has been set up to advise my Department on requirements in this area. I believe that having such a committee established virtually from the start of the implementation of the computerisation project will prove to be of substantial benefit to both my Department and the various interested outside bodies.

I know that this has been far from the in-depth discussion of all of the items raised in the report. I should like to assure the House that I will be an assiduous attender at debates here. Having had the experience of the assistance of the House in the financial area for just over three years, I have every confidence that I will have the same level of assistance in the Justice portfolio. The House can be assured of the same attention and, if necessary, assiduity, from me in relation to debates that we will have in this area.

Mr. Mullooly

I should like to join in the welcome and the good wishes that have been extended to the Minister in his new role.

The motion calls on Seanad Éireann to take note of Report No. 77 of the National Economic and Social Council entitled "The Criminal Justice System: Policy and Performance". This report is another one of plethora of reports which have been submitted in recent years by a variety of committees and commissions which were established to examine various aspects of the criminal justice system. We have had, for example, reports from the Committee on Court Practices and Procedures, the Task Force on Child Care, the Criminal Legal Aid Review Committee, the Ó Briain Committee, the Conroy Commission, the Ryan Committee and, more recently, the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Penal System.

The report to which the motion refers was submitted to Government in December 1984. I am sure that by now it, like all the other reports that I have mentioned, is safely gathering dust somewhere on shelves in the Department of Justice and elsewhere. One hope that this NESC report appears to express is that some day we will have a Government or a Minister with the political will to implement at least some of the laudable recommendations contained in all of these reports. Perhaps this motion should be calling on the Government to deal with some of the problems which the report identifies and to implement some of its recommendations, instead of calling on the Seanad to take note of it. It is pointless to call on the Members of the House to take note of this report when there are so many recommendations in so many other reports which have not been — and probably never will be — implemented. One would have to be an optimist to believe that this report will have a fate any different to that of many of the reports to which I have referred.

In the limited time available to me in this debate it will only be possible for me to comment on a few sections of what is a very comprehensive and detailed document. The report is divided into two parts: part two runs to almost 200 pages and contains the findings of the consultant who was commissioned by the National Economic and Social Council to examine the social policy implications of the criminal justice system. In part one the council notes the findings of the consultant, comments on them and on other associated matters. I will confine my comments to the findings and recommendations of the consultant. I am in total agreement with almost all of the conclusions which he reaches, as I am sure most people are.

Crime in Ireland today has reached serious levels in spite of what the Minister has stated. In certain areas, particularly in Dublin, it has reached crisis proportions. Nobody can deny this. Statistics which are given in the report indicate clearly the colossal rise in the crime rate which has occurred in the last 15 to 20 years. There were 55 robberies in 1932; 43 in 1942; 23 in 1952; and 39 in 1962. By 1972 the figure had risen to 622. In 1982 this number again had increased threefold to 1,883.

This increase in the level of crime has posed serious problems for our criminal justice system. These problems have manifested themselves in every area of the system. The problems to which I refer are further aggravated by the fact that the operation of our criminal justice system is antiquated in many ways. This is mainly because the system was structured at a time when the crime rate was lower than it is today and when social conditions and attitudes were very different. In the area of record-keeping, antiquated procedures are still being used. The consultant points out that only the Garda Síochána have substantially modernised their record-keeping and he notes that the courts and, to a lesser extent, the prison system retain a deep attachment to older bookkeeping procedures. As a result of this antiquated approach to record-keeping there is a serious lack of information and of accurate detailed records. This lack of information and the inadequacy of published crime statistics are given by the consultant as factors which make it difficult to fully evaluate the operation of the system.

These are areas which should be rectified immediately. They should not have had to wait the publication of this report to draw attention to them. The criminal justice system has not benefitted to the extent that it should have from the major technological advances in information processing and recording which have occurred in recent years.

The main social objective of the criminal justice system is the maintenance of law and order. The main agencies of the system are the Garda Síochána, the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the criminal courts, the probation and welfare service and the prison system. A large part of the report is taken up with an examination of these agencies and their activities, particularly the Garda Síochána, the courts and the prison system. The Minister in his contribution dwelt mainly on these three agencies of the criminal justice system. In the short time available to me these are the three areas which I will deal with.

The report examines the pattern of crime and endeavours to identify those factors which appear to have an influence on the prevalence of crime among certain socio-economic groups. It also deals with the relevance of various aspects of social policy to the problems of crime and how social policies have an effect on crime levels. The final chapter in the report looks to the future and outlines the options that are available for change.

The report attempts to evaluate how well or how badly the Garda Síochána, the courts and the prison system are fulfilling its role. If one had to define the role of the Garda Síochána in one sentence one would have to say that their role is to prevent and detect crime, to maintain law and order and to protect the person and the property of the citizen. Such a definition provides a simplistic and incomplete view of the work which the force does on a day-to-day basis. One of the reasons that modern police work has become so diverse is that the public expect the police to provide a whole range of services, some of which bear little relationship to either crime control or law enforcement. One would imagine that success in the areas of crime prevention and law enforcement should be the criterion on which most people would judge the effectiveness and efficiency of the Garda Síochána. It is interesting to note that the report points out that there is evidence that public satisfaction with police performance is most strongly affected by the non-crime public assistance role of the force. It goes on to state that, if that is the case, the success achieved in such activities may well be a prerequisite to effective crime control and law enforcement, because both depend heavily on public co-operation.

It is regrettable, therefore, that in recent years the level of public co-operation with the Garda appears to be decreasing rather than increasing. The main reason for this is undoubtedly the fact that the Garda are not out among the people to the extent they used to be in years gone by. In those days they worked hard at getting to know the people and gaining their trust and confidence. They were in much closer contact with the communities in which they served than is the case today. In rural areas particularly the advent of the patrol car and the closing of many small stations has changed all this. They no longer know the people in their areas in the same way as they did in the past.

The Minister made reference to another factor, which is that members of the force do not live in the areas they serve. The report also deals with the discretionary powers of the Garda and points out that they are the main decision makers in the initiation of criminal prosecutions. The only cases which must be referred to the DPP's office are those which the Garda wish to pursue in the higher courts. Otherwise, decisions taken by the Garda in relation to prosecutions are entirely at their own discretion.

Having considered all these factors, the report concludes that the information needed for evaluation purposes as far as the Garda are concerned is simply not available. The point is made that it is the method rather than the level of policing that affects both the level of crime and public attitudes. The report also attempts to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the courts, and in the sections dealing with the court system the report refers to the desirability of avoiding unnecessary delay in court proceedings and also to consistency in sentencing. I am sure that every Member of this House is aware of cases in which there would appear to have been undue and unnecessary delays. Every effort must be made to eliminate such delays.

On the question of consistency in sentencing, the report makes the point that it is unreasonable to expect that identical sentences will be imposed on all persons convicted for any one type of offence. However, it is reasonable to expect a basic level of consistency. Unfortunately, the public perception is that this basic consistency does not always exist, and this perception has been strengthened in recent times by the fact that sentences imposed in a variety of cases have attracted a considerable amount of media attention and comment.

It is also suggested in the report that the courts should convey by their physical appearance and the manner in which they conduct their proceedings, the seriousness, dignity and openness of their work. All persons involved in court proceedings should be able to hear what is being said and to understand the terminology and procedure. This should be the situation, but unfortunately it is not always the case and we have all read reports of dilapidated courthouses where there is inadequate heating and poor acoustics. While it is very easy for the members of the legal profession and the Judiciary who are familiar with procedure to understand what is going on, sometimes it is very difficult for the unfortunate individual who may be appearing in court for the first time.

The importance of access to legal assistance and also the work being done by the probation and welfare service are also dealt with in the report. I would like to deal with the sections of the report concerning the prison system, but unfortunately I have not time to do that.

In conclusion, while I have only touched on a few aspects of the report, I want to say that there are many good points and excellent recommendations in the report and I hope to see many of these recommendations implemented. One criticism that I would make of the report is that it does not contain a summary of the recommendations which are contained in the various chapters. A summary of the recommendations would be very helpful.

Mr. M. Higgins

I would like to join with others who have welcomed the Minister, to this House in his new responsibilities, and to wish him every success and a fruitful period in the Department of Justice. I will turn in a moment to the text of his speech, but I am glad to notice a continuation of the trend observable in his predecessor's speech of a new attitude, perhaps within the Department of Justice itself, towards the crime problem. When I began speaking about four or five years ago on crime and justice in the other House, there did not seem to be, for example, an acceptance of the basic difference between factors associated with the rate of crime and the incidence of crime. This is accepted very thoroughly now both by the present Minister in his speech and by his predecessor. That is not a pedantic point. It has supported many of us who have been arguing for a separate discussion from basic structural features in society that affected the rate of crime and to prevent these explanations from being confused with particular case histories which used to be used from time to time.

A number of other points are to be welcomed. I welcome the commitment to carrying through some of the fundamental proposals of the Whitaker committee report. May I, at this stage, pay tribute to Dr. David Rothman, who is the consultant involved in NESC report No. 77 and who has also served on the Whitaker committee report? I believe that this report, taken together with the Whitaker report, comprise the two basic documents from which people who are studying criminology in Ireland will now depart. They are very valuable locations of major theoretical issues in criminology and we are indebted to those who served on the committee and to Dr. Rothman for his work for the National Economic and Social Council and to the council itself for this report.

May I begin immediately with what is dearest to the Minister's heart, the comments on statistics? Quite frankly I wish his computerisation project well, but he will understand it when I say, instantly, that the problems about computing the rate of crime and trends in crime do not derive really from the mechancial manipulation of the data: they really derive from the construction of the data itself. This point is well made in the consultants' report, and it is also very well adverted to by the council in responding to his report and in making recommendations on changes in the gathering of statistics.

It is impossible and incorrect statiscally to take the data that comprises the categories of the report of the Commissioner to the Minister in any one year with another year. It is impossible to take those that are represented in a particular column in the report and find them in the following year's report. Numbers of crimes go missing. You cannot balance the books, to use an analogy which the Minister will be glad to say goodbye to, I am sure. It will be much more difficult in relation to the crime area, if the Minister is relying on the Commissioner's report, than he found in his previous Department.

There are other problems. There is the fact that the individual offence may be reported in several different ways. It may find itself in the statistics in several different expressions. There is the further problem that individuals committing crime cannot be construed from statistics that report numbers of crimes. Equally, the processional character of crime — that is processing, how crimes move through the system as you move from one column of the report to another — cannot be used. I say this as someone who has wanted to use these figures professionally. You cannot use these figures adequately. If you are going for an accurate statistical approach towards crime I would very strongly endorse the concluding recommendation in the report. The consultation makes a suggestion that those who are involved in the preparation of gathering statistical material should provide an explanation of how they construe the unit that is being used and the manner in which the figures are being recorded. Therefore, we might have a possibility of comparing like with like within the statistics.

I equally say that we should look very seriously at the different points of entry to which our attention has been addressed. There is the whole question of court decisions. The decisions from the courts are recorded in various ways from one court district to another and even between one time period and another within the same court. I am only saying this to be of assistance. Computerisation from the final end of the processing side may not achieve as much as clear indications to those who are responsible for first direct entry in relation to crimes and so on. The best way is to take the fine decision points that are involved and that are referred to in this report. It is suggested that these arise, first, in relation to the arrest or summons; second, initiation of court proceedings; third, the determination of category and court proceedings; fourth, the verdict; and, fifth, sentencing. If one took those five departure points as the points at which you said "I want accurate figures on these that are comparable not only from one period with another, from one area to another and from one socio-economic group to another" you would have valuable information and it would achieve a great deal.

Far more important than the question of accurate statistics is the construction that exists of the rate of crime. I welcome this report. I find it useful and I am already using it with those with whom I discuss criminal law. I would have welcomed a chapter or section on the media and criminal law, both in terms of the criminal justice system and in the public construction and perception of the crime rate. There is no doubt at all — and I repeat it here so that it may be understood even more widely — that there are three different things in relation to crime. There are the crimes that are committed; there are the crimes that are reported; and, finally, there are the crimes that are perceived. If we take a single example, in relation to crimes against the elderly, there is a great danger of the elderly in Ireland perceiving that they as a totality are at risk because of the much-publicised individual crimes from particular cities and from particular contexts. It would be wrong to condemn the news media generally in this regard, but particularly the Independent group of newspapers has behaved with a disgraceful irresponsibility in whipping up what can only be called a moral panic, in relation to the crime rate in Ireland. If you create a great deal of fear among older people you are doing them a great disservice. In relation to crimes against the elderly they showed less interest in what was either the actual or the recorded rate than they did in increasing perceptions and fears among the elderly.

The rate of crime in a society is always amenable to the work of those people who I called earlier moral entrepreneurs, people who construe moral panics for their own purposes. There is a wide literature in this regard even in relation to the linguistic expression of it. If you look at the career of the word "mugging", for example, it became fashionable in Britain for a period of about ten years and then they went back to the conventional description of people being robbed and battered and so on. In other words, there are fashions in relation to exploiting fear in the population as a result of changing crime.

This is not to say that I am closing my eyes to the changing nature of crime. I have read Dr. Rothman's work earlier. I think his work has been enormously valuable in identifying the actual increase in crime and some factors that might be associated with it and in locating it in time very accurately. Where I would differ slightly is in relation to the explanation of crime. A great deal of work has yet to be carried out on the perception of "the law" in Ireland. The criminal justice system is not an independent, objective entity perceived equally by all and every citizen in exactly the same way, irrespective of the socio-economic group to which they belong. The law and the criminal justice system has an entirely different construction, for example, for those who are at the receiving end of a court system which has bad amplification, and who have to be nudged when they have to make their move within court, than it has for those who preside over the court. Equally, for those whose property has been stolen and who may have become victims for the first time, their perception of the criminal justice system is different in turn than for those who will work within the system, perhaps in terms of representing any of the parties involved and so on.

I would welcome a much greater interest in this area as to how "the law" and the criminal justice system is viewed variably by different groups within society. For example, if you are to understand the prominence of car theft and associated crimes in Dublin city I believe that you have to begin this work, if you are to understand crime. I note I have used the word "understand". There is an enormous difference between understanding the criminal justice system and understanding the crime phenomenon and controlling the crime phenomenon. A problem in relation to understanding the crime problem is one in which you have to look at all sorts of motivational patterns. Managing the level of crime is something into which Governments in Europe have fallen back. I am glad the consultant knocks out the idea that we have become victims of something rather like the Asian flu which is going around at the moment and of which I might possibly be a victim. We are not being infected internationally but we have to try to understand crime in terms of our own structures and society.

I would welcome greater attention in the report, and particularly in the council's response to the report to the changed nature of property in Ireland, to the increase in value of portable property, the increase in urbanisation rates and the changed spatial distribution of the population. In fairness, this is adverted to in the report, but I think it is of a much greater importance than is recognised.

I have been speaking about statistics and the construction of the rate of crime and the difference between the real rate and the perceived rate. I also think that there should be an appreciation of the full title of this report. It is entitled "The Criminal Justice System: Policy and Performance". I presume that the second word in that title means that it is analysing the legal system as a processual entity. If it is, it must be able to begin at the point at which the law impacts on people's lives, whether they are victims or those who perpetrate crime, and be able to go right up to the end, when perhaps it is the 8 per cent who have come out of the prison system.

May I make a plea here, as I have made before, that in this enlightened age — and I wish the Minister success in his period of enlightenment in the Department of Justice — there be a great deal of openness in relation particularly to the prison system. We are not able to do the work we can in the area of law, crime and society in the absence of far more availability of information in relation to the prison system as it impacts on the lifecycle of prisoners. This is not to argue for a second for infringement on the constitutional rights of a prisoner; it is to enable us to construct life cycles and patterns so as to be able to make the links that are necessary, for example, between social policy and crime. I would take the position that might seem initially to be more conservative than the Minister. I do not believe that the crime rate is as amenable to social policy as many people think. The whole question of the distribution of life chances in society is much deeper than that. I think that social policy on a day-to-day basis or as initiated by Government is insufficient to redress the structural imbalances that are producing the major fluctuations in crime.

I appreciate that many things in this report are valuable. The proposals in relation to sentencing policy are very valuable. I would like greater account to be taken of the section dealing with young offenders. Dr. Helen Burke's views, stemming from her work on the social and economic circumstances of young offenders, is enormously valuable. Many people who should be kept out of the juvenile criminal justice system at an early point could be kept out of it if there was a greater possibility of co-operation and exchange of information between the school attendance system and the youth offenders system. I support every recommendation in this report that speaks for the extension of the juvenile liaison system, the social and welfare possibilities and back-up facilities available to judges involved in sentencing and who want non-custodial alternatives. It is important to recognise that often when you have identified families with chronic school attendance problems you have identified families at risk in relation to youth crime statistics. There could be much more done by way of intervention if we were able to do that.

In relation to the criminal justice system there is a point occurring in the middle of all of this, which I am glad has been ignored to some extent because it would generate heat in its own right. That is, the distinction of role between the solicitors and barristers and perhaps the retention of what would be regarded as archaic practices of etiquette. I have my own view on that. I do not want to deflect now from the substantial considerations, but I think all of these problems are very important. We too easily accept the legacy of legal procedures of former times. There is no doubt in my mind that the court practices, be it in terms of the setting the procedures, the symbols, or even the assumptions concerning the process, are from a former colonial age and reflect our lack of confidence in ourselves to develop settings for the processing of people in difficulties. When the British White Paper on children was published by Labour Minister many years ago it was called Children in Trouble. I welcomed that because it had an appropriate title, a title that showed that you could perhaps look at how children came into contact with the law. During the period in which the Minister is in the Ministry — I would like to offer him what co-operation I can by way of work in this area — I would tell him that he will have difficulty in countering the work of those who have, as has been accurately pointed out in this report, a vested interest in suggesting that the rate of crime is much greater than it is.

An Cathaoirleach

You are running out of time, Senator.

Mr. M. Higgins

Let me say it is not incidental or irrelevant to the more theoretical arguments I made for a better physical setting in which we might examine the criminal justice system. May I offer one point in this regard? If 90 per cent of the cases actually tried are tried in the District Court, why not make the District Court an absolutely model place in which everybody will hear and understand everything that is going on? I conclude by saying this. If somebody says that the law is coming and if the Cathaoirleach will put himself in the position of a teenage urban young person about to steal a car and drive it around Dublin city — if you are going on to pass the decision points that are described here in a flow chart and if you find yourself in a court where you cannot hear what is being said, every physical setting, every set of social assumptions, the whole symbolic canopy will begin to emphasise more and more that you have entered a world which has stood apart from you; that it is not your law that is at stake, but that you have come into collision with their law. All the physical improvements and all the social relationship improvements and others must work towards that end to try to create a situation in which the law might be the law of those who have come into conflict with it.

An Cathaoirleach

Before I call Senator Fitzsimons I would like to say that there are two other Senators I must call on. I do not want to reduce his time but I would like if he could accommodate me.

Mr. Fitzsimons

I have been facilitated myself many times and I would be glad to facilitate the Senators. I will be brief. This is not an area in which I am expert, but nevertheless I have a general interest in that area.

I welcome warmly the Minister of State, Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan, and wish him well.

I think this is a very fine report. It is a comprehensive report and I would like to pay tribute to the members of the National Economic and Social Council and also to Mr. David B. Rothman for the work which he has contributed to the report. I would like to feel that in a situation like this we would realise we are dealing with individuals. I understand that statistics have a role to play; nevertheless, I think that this concept could be lost in referring to statistics. I remember on one occasion many years ago, when I was working in Dublin, a serious crime was committed by a young man. This got widespread publicity and the following morning one of the officers in my Department said that this man should be flogged within an inch of his life. Another officer, a more kindly man, with a young family of his own, said "That is all very well, but it could happen to be your own son". That is my concept of how we should view statistics. When we call into a housing scheme and meet a young wife with a young family whose husband has left and will never return, she has this major problem whatever her views are on divorce. It is far different when we come across these problems in the flesh, so to speak, rather than when we meet them in statistics.

With regard to urbanisation, there is no doubt whatever that urbanisation results in increased crime. I had many passages to read in connection with that but I do not have the time. We should look at this whole idea of urbanisation. In the past people have gathered in the cities to find work. Work is no longer in the city and yet we have this growth in urbanisation. In financial terms — for example, as in the case of battery hens and deep litter broiler chickens — there is a case to be made for lumping people together like that. On the other hand, if we take in the whole concept, if we take in the stresses that are caused on account of this, if we take into consideration the crime and the cost of crime, we would have to look again at urbanisation and feel that perhaps there is something to be said for encouraging people to remain in rural areas.

Paragraph 12, on page 8 of the report, dealt with pattern of crime in Ireland. It stated:

In Dublin the inner city and the newer suburban estates accounted for a large proportion of those arrested.

This is a very sad situation, and it illustrates what I say in relation to that. People were pulled from their roots in the area of the inner city. There was a strong case to be made for that financially, because land in the inner city is costly and therefore a strong political case could be made that for a certain amount of money more houses could be provided in the suburbs than in the inner city. That was done and more houses were provided. These people were pulled away from their roots, their culture and their tradition. They were put into stressful situations which resulted in an increase in crime for which they were blamed, but which in reality had nothing to do with them. The Minister, referred to that. He said for example local authorities, town planners and. health authorities could all take greater account of crime prevention as a factor in their recommendations and decisions. Of course they could. If those problems and the cost of those problems had been taken into consideration, those people would not have been moved from the inner city. Problems arise from this and this was illustrated where decent hard working people who never came in conflict with the law were pushed out by high finance and for other reasons into criminal areas. This was wrong.

With regard to the Garda Síochána, I would like to go into this in detail, but there is not enough time. The Garda Síochána, in my experience, have fulfilled their role excellently. As a peace commissioner I was involved in many cases with the Garda — many of them sad cases. I do not know of any situation where the Garda could be criticised for being unkind or uncaring. I know that the papers have highlighted areas where the Garda could be blamed, but in a force as large as the Garda I am sure it would be impossible not to have some people who are not considerate. My experience is that the Garda have been very kind. They have had, as the report points out, considerable discretion with regard to prosecutions. I should like to say in this respect that I know of situations where the Garda have worked very hard and where they have brought people to court on account of that hard work. Then at that stage, because of representations made by public representatives, the cases have been dropped or something has been done to take the edge from the prosecutions. In situations like that the Garda have reason to feel peeved. They are doing a job. They are doing it well. On the other hand I know it is very hard in a situation like that to say "I am sorry, this man deserves what he is getting". Many people ask me — as they do other public representatives — to make representations for them. We cannot be a judge in that situation. There is a conflict here.

There are two final things I would like to say. With regard to women in prisons, the report points out that the number of women committed to prisons is very small. There are plans to provide a prison for women. This could be looked at again to see if something more humane could be done rather than building solid walls to deprive women of their liberty.

Finally, I feel that adult education is not utilised enough in this whole area. We know from the report that deprived people and uneducated people have been brought into this net. At a time when we have so much unemployment and where we have the facilities in colleges and buildings that can be used in the adult education distance education summer time and in many other ways, adult education distance education or whatever we call it could help to reduce this whole problem of crime.

I welcome the report. Like all the reports from the National Economic and Social Council, it is very comprehensive and thorough. It is unfortunate that we did not get more time to debate it. I hope that the Minister will bring in legislation and whatever statutory instruments are necessary to incorporate the recommendations in the report.

An Cathaoirleach

I would like to thank you. Senator Fitzsimons, for being so brief. We have roughly ten minutes left. It is between Senators Robb and McDonald, so I would ask you to divide it up as best you can.

Mr. Robb

First, I should like to thank Senators Fitzsimons and McDonald for their generosity. I will try to say what I have to say in four minutes flat, so it will really have to be a list. I agree with the points Senator Fitzsimons made in relation to the need to produce a healthier and more holistic type of social environment so that crime will gradually become less likely. There seems to be three main types of crime in Ireland — the political crime; the criminal crime, if you like to call it that; and the crime of the genuinely pathological person. These need different approaches.

We are not here to deal with the political crime. That is in the whole area of national and regional politics. We are chiefly concerned with what people understand as criminal crime. We have to consider what sort of person gets caught up in that. Is he the person who has not got the confidence to cope with the society he finds himself in? Has he in some way not had the opportunity to develop the talent that is unique to him in such a way that he can find a form of self expression in his society? Is he a person who has developed a lack of confidence? Is he a person who resents the failures that he has had, and the lack of opportunity that he is presented with? Is violence in some sense an expression of a need to find space, which has been denied to him? If so, once he has violated, what are we doing with the remorse he feels, the guilt he has and the anger which is contained within him. With all these things in mind I go with what previous Senators have said and say we need to have a new conceptualisation of prison and a new concept of the community supports that are needed in relation to community policing, community reintegration of the ex-prisoner and the whole community back-up that makes crime less likely.

Let me deal first then with the prisons. We must see our prisons as something which needs the integrated support of all the various strands that make up the community. The doctor should not be seen primarily as a servant of the State. The doctor should be in the prison adhering to his prime role which is the one-to-one relationship between himself and the person who in the case is a prisoner. Is he only concerned with curing his diseases or preventing them or is he concerned also with promoting his health in the total sense? What about the role of the clergy? What about the role of the educators? Senator Fitzsimons mentioned that. Are we involving these people enough in the prisons? Are they by statute obliged to go in? I proposed at an international meeting of doctors concerned with the whole business of prison welfare that it was time we had an independent body in each country which would consist of criminologists; would consist, by obligation of representatives, doctors who have in their practice prisoners among it and who would be obliged to attend every now and then the person in prison as well as being attended by the prison doctor. Prison doctors, ex-prisoners, prison officers and policemen, this should form a new institute of criminology where the whole subject of crime and the causes of it could be discussed and analysed and the cures for it brought about in a political sense as well as a social sense. That brings me back then to the community.

There is much glib talk about community. Certainly as part and parcel of Senator Fitzsimons's decentralisation society, ruralisation of society, there is need not to talk about giving out in a patronising sense, but giving the people back a sense of their own power so that they can take back to themselves what has been lost. In the local community we might consider the positive aspects — and I mentioned this before — of a community forum where it would discuss maybe three or four times a years matters of importance. In this case, matters dealing with law and order; the containment of offenders; what we are doing with them; and what we are doing to reintegrate them.

Do we have community fora at all? Do we oblige and invite our citizens to discuss at community level important subjects such as this? We might consider the idea of the guild — community law and justice guild where we could bring together the social workers, the clergy, the educators, the ex-prisoners, the young people, the parents that have people in prison and so on to discuss these matters at community level along with the community involved and the police, about whom we have heard something already.

I have heard recently some chat about national service. Why do people have to go out with rifles? Why not have a national social service where our youngsters, before they are given the badge of mature citizenship, are able to have periods of social involvement with the prisoner, the police, the courts and so on. They will become more aware of what is going on in society so that when they become mature citizens they will not only have the knowledge that their education is bound to give them, but an awareness of the whole breadth of social involvement. In this instance, this includes crime, prisons, prisoners and reintegration. I have covered, at a considerable pace a few of the points that I wanted to make. I hope that this will not be the last time that we have an opportunity to debate this extremely important subject.

Mr. McDonald

The preamble of the Constitution and Terms of Reference of the National Economic and Social Council states that:

The main task of the National Economic and Social Council shall be to provide a forum for discussion of the principles relating to the efficient development of the national economy and the achievements of social justice, and to advise the Government, through the Taoiseach, on their application.

I submit that this report does exactly that in a very caring way. It gives those people in the Department responsible for the administration of justice, the criminal justice system, policy and performance, a lot of food for thought. It is unfortunate that we do not have the opportunity of going in depth into this very worthwhile report but I should like to deal with two area and make two points.

From my own experiences after almost 30 years in public life, I feel that we need, at this stage in our development, four prison systems. We need a special unit for subversives, a training and rehabilitation unit for first offenders, a special rehabilitation and treatment unit for those people on drug-related sentences and very importantly, we need a tough, corrective institution for the punishment of habitual offenders and people sentenced for serious and brutal crimes. The entire prison system is constantly under review. I hope that the new Minister for Justice will ensure that adequate resources will be allocated to the prison service to give the prison officers a chance of carrying out their duties with some degree of safety.

As far as the prison in Portlaoise is concerned, I ask that immediate steps be taken to provide adequate and new steel doors on that prison because obviously the old timber ones are not serving the purpose for which they were put in. I would ask the people either in the Department or the Board of Works that the next time they are measuring them that they would be careful and not have the new constructed doors lying on some scrap heap. It is a matter of urgency. This should be dealt with if the prison officers are to get the support they need in the performance of their tasks.

On the recommendations of the report I should like to quote one paragraph on page 185 dealing with the Garda Síochána. I thoroughly agree with it.

In all of this, the gardaí can draw on a tradition of public good will. It is, however, a non-replaceable resource. Once expended, it cannot be easily recreated. Maintaining that good will and good name should be a constant consideration. Its continued existence is a prerequisite for successful implementation of schemes like community policing and for the continuation of the co-operation from the public at large on which both reports of crime and detection of crime depend.

This is extremely important. I note in recent times that there has been a very clear change of policy on the part of the Garda, certainly in the midlands. They no longer appear to appreciate the co-operation of the public. In the town of Portlaoise, housewives and members of the public going about their day's chores have the feeling that they are being subject to police harassment. This carrying out the letter of the law by having 150 gardaí on the street and having people stopped two and three times going up and down to school with their children in the mornings is unacceptable. I believe that there is a need for a change of policy there. I would ask the new Minister to clarify for the ordinary members of the public the kind of society in which we want to live. We, as free people, are entitled to feel that the people paid by the taxpayers are our friends and our neighbours and we are entitled to have their co-operation and respect.

I thank the Chair for giving me the opportunity of making those two small points. I regret that I have not been able to avail of the time to fill in my sentiments more fully.

Mr. Durcan

I would like on behalf of Senator Belton and myself, in whose names this motion stands before the House, to thank the ten Members who today and on the previous occasion have contributed to this debate. The NESC report No. 77 is an extremely important report. As I said at the outset it is a pity that the report is written in language that makes it difficult to read and its contents difficult to assimilate. That having been said it is quite clear that the central issues have been identified by the speakers who contributed to this debate.

Senator McDonald summed it up very well when he quoted from the Constitution of the NESC which is specified on page 3 of the report. He referred to the efficient development of the national economy and the role which the criminal justice system plays in that. One of the points that came out in this debate on an ongoing basis is that the various arms of the State which are concerned with the criminal justice system have failed to allow themselves to be used as an arm of the national economy.

That brings me to the point made by speaker after speaker in the course of this debate that the statistics which enable us to gauge the level of crime, the performance of the courts and, more importantly, the crime detection abilities and capacity of the Garda, are absolutely unsatisfactory. I referred to this matter in my opening speech. Senator O'Leary referred to it. Senator Ryan also referred to it specifically in relation to the prison system, as did Senator Michael Higgins. I ask the Minister of State to communicate with the Minister for Justice and the Government in this regard. The Minister for Justice in his response certainly indicated that steps were being taken in this regard. I regard the steps he specified as being inadequate. The entire basis upon which statistical data are being made available, particularly by the Garda, in relation to crime detection and the apprehension of offenders is unsatisfactory. I do not think that the annual returns submitted by the Garda Commissioner are in any way satisfactory. They have been criticised by many people for differing reasons and I would like to see some change there.

Senator Smith in his comments referred to the criminal justice system and its operation. I quote from column 478 of the Official Report of 12 February:

It is no harm to say that it is an archaic, slow and sluggish system. This is borne out by the NESC report. It is not alive to the changing trends in society.

I agree totally with him. One of the problems — and I say this as a practising lawyer — is that we must make the system relevant to the needs of the 1980s. That is something which we have totally failed to do. The Minister in his response made reference to one aspect of that when he said that he would see that funds would be made available for making the physical appearance of courts more satisfactory. He has obviously got a responsibility for certain courtrooms, but the sooner the 1935 Act is looked at and that this unreasonable burden is taken off the shoulders of local authorities the better, and that those who have to face the criminal justice system do so in surroundings which are reasonable.

The Minister in the course of his speech referred to the increase in the number of gardaí to 11,400. He made reference, in particular, to something which I was not impressed by, and that was the fact that some gardaí are now holding "police clinics". It is a ridiculous suggestion that gardaí are holding "police clinics" when in the same paragraph of his speech the Minister says:

The Garda authorities report that while the majority of members of the chief superintendent, superintendent and inspectors ranks assigned to areas outside the Dublin Metropolitan Area reside with their families in their districts or in adjoining districts...

If the members of the Garda at all ranks were living in their areas there would be no need to hold "Garda clinics". The sooner we get away from this stupid ridiculous concept the better. I challenge the Garda authorites here in the Seanad tonight as to the accuracy of their figures. I am not in any way suggesting that the Minister said anything improper tonight, but I do not believe that the figures furnished to him by the Garda authorities are correct in so far as the senior ranks are concerned. I am sorry that so much of my reply in limited time must be taken up on this point. I would like to challenge the Garda Commissioner to furnish exact statistics and details as to where every chief superintendent, every superintendent and every inspector lives. On a previous occasion in this House I gave details of a situation in the Mayo district where five out of the seven officers lived outside their areas. My experience would tell me that most senior Garda officers are driving from long distance into the areas that they serve. If the members of the force lived in their areas there would be no need for clinics. They would be holding clinics on an ongoing 24-hour basis and giving that kind of police service that people require.

Senator Mullooly referred to the question of the rising crime rate. I agree with him. There is a problem in rural areas. Senator Higgins laid emphasis on the statistics problem. That, of course, is a major problem. Senator Fitzsimoms made reference to the question of urbanisation and the problem it creates for crime. I do not altogether agree with Senator Fitzsimons. I agree that the changing face of our cities and the changing social structure of our cities is certainly making it more difficult to police in the traditional fashion. A different form of policing is required in our cities. One would have to balance that against the increased crime rate in urban areas.

Mr. Fitzsimons

I was quoting from authorities on the subject.

Mr. Durcan

Senator Robb made a very interesting comment when he raised a question which was raised by earlier speakers as to the role of prison in our society. Is it to be merely a punishment, or is to have a rehabilitative role? The prison service must have a rehabilitative role. I agree with the points made by Senator McDonald when he said that we must more clearly define the different types of prisons that we have. There must obviously be a prison for the subversive but there must also be a different prison for the person who can be absolutely and totally rehabilitated.

I have tried to cover in the time available to me the points which have been raised in the course of this debate. I thank the various speakers who have contributed to the debate, and in particular the new Minister for Justice for his speech. I hope that the issues that have been raised will be addressed by the Minister and by his Department during the remaining years of this Ministry. If these issues are addressed, then certainly the economy and social fabric of this country can benefit. The policies which are currently being adopted in relation to our criminal courts are holding policies. Nothing has been done in relation to the organisation or the administration of our criminal courts since the Courts Act, 1924. The policy in relation to our prisons is merely a holding operation.

The Minister was very discreet in speaking about the Whitaker report. I compliment him for his diplomacy and discretion in so far as he referred to it. I ask the Minister — and he has given that commitment — to examine very carefully the contents of that report.

Finally, in relation to the question of the Garda Síochána, I have made one specific comment in relation to that, but the whole operation of the force needs to be addressed in a more meaningful way than it has been done at the moment.

Question put and agreed to.