Is cúis áthais dom teacht anseo chun freagra a thabhairt ar an díospóireacht seo faoi sheirbhísí priosúin agus ba mhaith liom mo mhíle buíochas a ghabhaíl le gach Seanadóir a ghlac páirt san díospóireacht tábhachtach seo.
I want to assure the House that I am here representing the Government and the Minister for Justice. I want to assure Senator Costello in particular that the commitment of this Government to our prison services is greater than that of any previous Government and particularly Governments in which his party were involved. I have been given special responsibility for the prison services and we have ensured, by the investment we have made and by the decisions we have taken, particularly under the guidance of the Minister for Justice, Deputy Burke, and the support of the Department of Justice, that major progress has been made in the whole operation of the prison services and systems in this country over the past four years.
It is fair to say that the ground covered in today's debate has been well traversed over the years. The matters which have been raised here this evening have been dealt with in Dáil Questions, in motions before this house and in various other public statements. Nevertheless, as the operation of our prison system is one which is of such vital concern to the entire community, it is only right that Senators should wish to further debate the issue. I welcome the opportunity of contributing to and responding to the debate.
Those of us with responsibility for the prison service are always conscious of the contribution it makes towards the maintenance of law and order. It requires for its operation the dedicated input of a range of professional people, including doctors, psychologists, welfare officers, teachers, chaplains and representatives of various voluntary groups.
All of their work is underpinned by prisons management and prison officers, who keep our institutions operational 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. I would like to take this opportunity and I know the House will join with me in acknowledging the work done by all of these people who, day by day and with great professionalism and dedication, carry out this task on behalf of our entire community.
Prisons by their nature tend to attract considerable public attention. This is as it should be but it is an unfortunate reality that much of the attention focuses on the negative side of prisons. Publicity often gives an unbalanced picture and fails to acknowledge the many achievements of the prison system. Criticism often centres around prison policy, with the notion that this policy is flawed.
I am sure that in the light of what I have to say, the House will readily acknowledge that there is nothing to substantiate this assertion.
A prisons policy, if it is to earn the description of being effective, has to be characterised by a variety of features.
I do propose to list these exhaustively, but would simply like to mention some, which I regard as the essential elements and argue that not only are they coherent, but that they are being effectively implemented.
I think there can be no dispute that one of the central requirements of an effective prison system is that it should provide secure containment. While there may be much debate about the effectiveness or otherwise of imprisonment, all European governments agree that, if the public are to be protected imprisonment is the only sanction which is acceptable for certain kinds of offender and in respect of certain types of offences. Difficulties do, of course, arise from time to time in achieving secure containment, but I am satisfied that such difficulties as have arisen have been dealt with very well by prison governors and staff who deserve our deepest compliments for the good job they are doing.
A central feature of an effective prisons policy is that there should be an emphasis on a caring and humane approach within the limitations necessarily imposed by imprisonment itself, and the need to maintain good order and security.
This humane approach has been a cornerstone of Irish prison policy down through the years. Our prison system stands up well to international comparisons in relation to regimes, educational opportunities, medical care, diet, recreation and so on. The extent of our development in this area is the product of years of work by successive Ministers for Justice and staff at all levels at the Department of Justice, and I know the House will agree that this work must continue.
I should like to mention, in particular, initiatives in this area which have been introduced in recent times.
First, I should like to refer to the establishment of the Sentence Review Group under the chairmanship of Dr. Whitaker. Until the group were set up there was no systematic review of all long term offenders, although, of course, individual offenders were considered on an ad hoc basis.
The group was charged with reviewing all offenders who had served seven years or more of a current sentence, excluding a sentence for capital murder. Throughout 1990 the group examined all eligible cases and made appropriate recommendations in relation to them. All these cases were duly considered by the Minister and so the first round of reviews can be said to be completed.
The group remain in existance and, along with reviewing new cases as they arise, will reconsider old cases, where releases did not follow the initial review. I would like to take this opportunity to express our deepest gratitude to Dr. Whitaker and his team for the enthusiasm with which they have approached this very difficult task. Another initiative was the decision to establish the Advisory Group on Prison Deaths.
The sad problem of deaths in custody is not only a source of anguish to the families and friends of the deceased, it is also traumatic for fellow prisoners and prison staff who have the unenviable task of coping with the consequences on the spot.
There are many who, regardless of the facts, speak of the "alarming" increase in deaths while in custody. While there is little by way of solution to the problem to be gained by playing with statistics, it should be noted that there were four deaths in each of the years 1988 and 1989, and five in 1990. More significantly, however, in a four-month period in 1985-86 there were also four deaths. I make this point simply to illustrate that figures fluctuate and, while it is no consolation to anybody, least of all those who were bereaved, it is important to acknowledge the real facts.
The causes of suicide are varied and very complex. Deaths in custody are a world wide phenomenon. As we all know, suicides do not happen only in prison; they happen outside prison as well. No fail-safe way has been found of identifying all potential suicide risks, inside or outside prison.
So far as prisons are concerned it is likely that suicides arise from a variety of causes, and it is far too facile to suggest that there is only one cause, for example, pressure on accommodation, hoping that by addressing this one issue, we can come up with a solution.
It is because of the complexities involved that an expert advisory group were set up to examine the problem and make recommendations. The Group comprise a wide range of disciplines, including medical, psychological, psychiatric and welfare, together with people who are involved with the day to day management of offenders. They have already made interim recommendations which have been accepted and are currently being implemented.
Included in these recommendations is provision for 24 hour medical orderly cover in the closed institutions. The additional 43 medical orderlies necessary for this are being recruited. The other recommendations which are being implemented are the setting up of a suicide prevention group in each prison, a review of procedures for identification of potential suicide risks and improving the speed of response to suicide attempts. The final report of the advisory group is nearing completion, and when it is received it will be given urgent consideration.
Another area of great concern in prisons and which is, of course, critical for offenders and staff alike, is the question of communicable diseases including HIV. This is a matter on which my Department have been approached by various interests and which has become the subject of intense discussion within the prison service and with the Department of Health, the Eastern Health Board and others.
In the light of the considerable advances in scientific knowledge which have taken place in recent years in this whole area, it was decided to bring together people, who are appropriately qualified, to advise as to future policies in this area. The group were established in 1990 and are expected to report later this year. I intend to give priority attention to the advice which I receive from the group.
In the meantime, the House will be aware that last year Government approval was received for the construction of a special unit within the Mountjoy complex for those suffering from infectious diseases. It will be specially equipped to enable medical attention appropriate to the special needs of these offenders to be given. Work has started on the building, and it is expected to be completed within 18 months.
As part of the overall aim of ensuring that the medical services provided to offenders are of the highest calibre the appointment of a full-time medical director, as recommended in the report of the Inquiry into the Penal System, known as the Whitaker report, was seen to be a high priority.
Following initial failed attempts to attract a suitably qualified person for the post, approval was obtained for a considerable improvement in the employment terms and as a consequence, the medical director was appointed last October. This is a very significant appointment in the interests of bringing about improvements in the overall standard of health care throughout the prison system.
I am, of course, fully aware that many would consider that a prisons policy which did not embrace plans for the implementation of the recommendations in the Whitaker report should be regarded as seriously flawed policy. Let me say that I share that view. For anybody with responsibility for the running of the prison service to ignore the findings of such a distinguished committee would be an act of folly. However, despite the assertions by many people, some indeed who do not from their pronouncements appear to have read the report very carefully, if at all, that the report has been shelved, I can assure the House that the reality is very much to the contrary.
Some of the developments which it advocates such as the community service order scheme, the use of suspended sentences, fines, probation and so on, have long been a feature of our system. The setting up of the Sentence Review Group, the appointment of the medical director, the introduction of new duty rosters and so on is more recent evidence of the commitment to the implementation of the committee's findings.
It is quite simply false, and indeed unjust to the Whitaker Committee, to suggest that their findings are being ignored.
There are, of course, recommendations which are still under consideration such as the establishment of a prison board and the expansion of alternatives to custody to an extent which would reduce even more significantly the number of offenders in custody.
With regard to the establishment of a prisons board, I am not sure that many of the advocates of this have carefully read what the report has to say. The report recommends that the day to day administration of prisons should be placed in the hands of a public official called the Director of the Prison Service, who would be chairman and chief executive of a board, consisting for the most part of members of his own staff. The type of management structure proposed is quite similar in fact to that which currently exists in my Department.
A major question, which must be looked at when considering the subject is the question of whether the establishment of such a body is in the best interest of the public and of persons held in custody. There is a strong argument for saying that a member of the Government, should continue to have direct and immediate responsibility for those deprived of their liberty and direct answerability to the Dáil rather than that this responsibility should be placed in a non-elected public servant. Even if a satisfactory way could be found to delegate some responsibilities to a director, the reality of our situation is such that so many reservations would have to be entered in the public interest, in relation, for example, to subversives, sex offenders and other serious offenders, that such delegation could very well be meaningless.
In mentioning this I do not wish to imply that the idea of a prison board does not have merit. What I am saying essentially is that certain issues require very careful consideration before final decisions are arrived at if we are to ensure that whatever is ultimately decided is in the best interests of the prison service and the public. At the present time, this question is still being reviewed and no firm decision either way has yet been made about it.
There are many who continually advocate alternatives to custody, as if they did not exist already. I would like to point out that alternatives to custody not only exist, but are very widely and extensively used. Not many appreciate that at present there are some 3,500 offenders on alternatives of one type or another, including community service orders, compared with 2,200 in prison.
Further options in the area of alternatives were recently explored and earlier this year, the introduction of a scheme of intensive supervision was announced. Thirty-one additional probation and welfare officers are at present being appointed for this scheme. They will be assigned the task of providing special supervision for about 200 additional offenders in the community, as an alternative to keeping them in prison.
The scheme is aimed not only at reducing pressure on prison accommodation, but also at assisting those concerned in reintegrating successfully into the community. An innovation in the area of supervision will be the establishment of two drop-in centres for those under supervision. One of these will be located in Dublin and one in Cork. Counselling and other services will be available in the centres for those under supervision.
With regard to the prospects of significantly reducing the existing population by the greater use of alternatives, however, it is only right to sound a note of caution. The growth in the prison population is already kept in check by the use of alternatives. It is simply a fact that alternatives to custody would not be appropriate for many of the offenders currently in custody. It is simply not true that our policy is to imprison all offenders regardless. On the contrary, every effort is made to provide many offenders with an opportunity to stay out of prison. Many of those currently in custody have either exhausted alternatives, or are guilty of such grave offences that alternatives are not appropriate.
There have been many accusations that a revolving door system is now operating in our prison system. Under the Criminal Justice Act, 1960, the Minister for Justice may authorise releases in particular cases.
All of these releases have standard conditions, which include the obligation to keep the peace, be of good behaviour and be of sober habits. Other conditions are added, as appropriate, such as a requirement to report to the Garda Síochána, to be supervised by a welfare officer, or to reside at a prescribed hostel. Any person breaching any of these conditions is liable to rearrest and return to prison to serve the remainder of the sentence.
The criteria by which cases are assessed for release are well known. They include the nature of the offence, the offender's previous criminal history, his or her attitude while in custody, the length of the sentence served and a Garda assessment of the risk, if any, which may be posed to the community by a particular release. It should be borne in mind that the overriding concern when assessing cases for release is the protection of the public.
Parole systems are a feature of all civilised societies the world over. Our temporary release scheme is our system of parole and I am happy to tell the House the flexibility of our system and the substantial measure of control over the behaviour of offenders, which is possible under it is admired by international penological experts, throughout the world.
While it cannot be denied that pressure on accommodation is a factor in some early releases, it should be understood it is only one factor in a decision to release an individual prisoner and all releases are judged in the light of the criteria, which I have already mentioned. I can assure the House that in administering relatively long sentences for serious offences, shortage of accommodation is not a consideration and it is important that that point gets across to those who engage in serious crime. For them, there will be no easy release.
Apart from the normal prison regime, which includes training workshops and other facilities, we also run a number of workshop and welfare centres throughout the country for the more moderate offenders. We spent approximately £1.5 million annually on these services. We finance a total of up to 20 hostels and other voluntary groups. Training is specifically provided at Priorswood House in Coolock for discharged male prisoners run by PACE. Since 1977 we have supported the Candle Community Trust in Ballyfermot, which caters for boys up to 21 years of age. We also have excellent training workshops in Ballinasloe and Tuam and we support the Lions Villa Hostel in Chapelizod, Usher's Island Workshop, Dublin, the St. Vincent's Trust Hostel, the Youth Project in Dún Laoghaire, the Cork Probation Hostel, the Lady's Lane Hostel in Waterford and several other worthwhile projects.
This brings me to the general question of prison accommodation. No Minister for Justice has ever denied that there are accommodation problems in Irish prisons and I will not deny it now. However, these difficulties are not of recent vintage and are constantly being addressed.
In recent times a number of measures have been taken, which I know will help to alleviate the problems. Since 1989 a total of £23 million has been provided for maintenance and capital works for prisons, which represents a very clear commitment towards the ongoing upgrading of our prisons stock. Given the necessity to contain public expenditure in the interests of the economy in general, I would suggest that this allocation to prisons has been generous.
First the place of detention at Wheatfield which provides 320 additional places for offenders was brought into full operation. As well as the capital-maintenance investment, a very heavy investment was also made in staffing resources. Major refurbishment and reconstruction work was commenced in St. Patrick's Institution in mid-1990, and the first phase will be completed by the end of next August. The other two phases will be completed next year. The work being undertaken involves major refurbishment and reconstruction, and will result in the provision of vastly improved cell accommodation and facilities for education, work training and recreation.
In addition, the refurbishment provides for the installation of in-cell sanitation facilities and a cell-call communication facility in every cell. As part of this project, the existing women's prison is to be totally refurbished. There has never been any argument on my part that there was not an urgent need to improve these conditions. We fully accept that facilities for women prisoners must be improved as a matter of priority. With the completion of the first phase of the St. Patrick's project next August it is intended to move the women into the refurbished accommodation, as an interim measure. With regard generally to the question of providing a new prison for women, the position is that no option has been ruled out. However, it is considered that the total refurbishment of the existing facility is the only means whereby a significant improvement in conditions for women can be brought about in the short term.
Work to improve the women's prison itself will commence this year. These arrangments may not be a full solution to the problem but they will be a considerable advance on what is there at present. They are intended to serve while the matter of providing a more satisfactory long term solution is being decided. The total number of women prisoners is quite small—45 female offenders in total, compared to over 2,000 male offenders. It is wrong to suggest that the majority of these women are minor offenders who can be dealt with otherwise than in prison. The fact is that the courts are very reluctant to send women to prison and it is generally only where the offence is very serious, or where offences are repeated over and over again without regard to the warnings by the courts, or where all sorts of alternative have failed, that women wind up in prison. Many women prisoners are committed also for drug-related offences. In these cases it is quite clear that the courts have little option but to impose custodial sentences.
Plans are also well advanced for the replacement of one of the wings in Limerick prison by a completely new structure which will provide 30 additional spaces. Plans are also advanced for further developments in Portlaoise and Mountjoy. It has also been decided that in all new buildings and in refurbished accommodation, in-cell sanitation will be provided. It is expected that, within two years, 40 per cent of offenders will have 24 hour access to sanitary facilities.
It is one of my primary concerns to ensure that everything possible is done to prevent illegal drugs getting into prisons. For this reason I have asked my Department to carry out a full examination of ways to prevent drug smuggling. I do, of course, acknowledge that in order to prevent completely the passage of contraband between visitors and offenders, during visits, it would be necessary to separate visitors from the offender completely. To introduce such a system would be unnecessarily harsh, particularly in cases where young children may be visiting. The problem is finding the correct balance to avoid unnecessarily harsh conditions for visits while at the same time ensuring an adequate measure of control. I hope that the examination referred to will help in deciding on this balance.
Senator Ryan referred to the remission of sentences and compared our situation to the 50 per cent rate of remission in Northern Ireland, by his own admission an invidious comparison. Remission is only one aspect of the question of early release for offenders. The other one is parole which in our case is release under the Criminal Justice Act, 1960. The fact is that in our system any prisoner whose offence is not too serious and whose early release would not constitute a danger to the public is released well before his sentence expires. The increase of remission to be automatically applied irrespective of the nature of the crime, or the possible danger to the public, does not seem to me a sensible development. It is far better to retain the discretionary element which conditional release under the 1960 Act allows.
In the course of the debate a number of other questions were raised and I would like to refer to them briefly. A number of Senators made allegations that a young girl in Mountjoy is being held in solitary confinement in the women's prison. The implications in the allegation are refuted. Under the rules for the Government of Prisons, 1947, there is an obligation to segregate juveniles from adults. A successful action was brought recently in the High Court to enforce this obligation in the case of two young girls and, of course, my Department complied with the court order. Dormitory type accommodation with ancillary facilities were made available in the grounds of the women's prison and complete separation from adult offenders was achieved. One of the two girls has since been released and the result is that the other girl in this accommodation lacks the company of a like offender. Given this background it is a distortion of the reality to imply that the girl is being deliberately held in solitary confinement, a phrase which has specific connotations in prison language. I will, of course, keep the matter under review to find a way of avoiding any damaging consequences for the girl.