Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Mar 2003

Vol. 171 No. 15

Prison Visiting Committees: Motion.

Ms Terry

I move:

That Seanad Éireann

Recognising

– the important role the prison visiting committees should play in ensuring that the high standards of prisons in Ireland are maintained and that prisoners' rights are protected;

– the need for greater transparency with regard to the operations of Government and political appointments in particular;

– that there should be no objection to the appointment of political people to political positions;

Concerned at

– the phenomenal increase of 66% in the total cost of the prison visiting committees over the past three years and the 9.3% increase in the first ten months of 2002 alone;

– the massive divergence in the costs between committees and the inconsistency in the rates of increase;

– the propensity of committee members to live far from the prison they are assigned to visit;

Deploring

– the obvious party political bias in making appointments to committees;

– the clandestine manner in which appointments are made;

Demands that

– vacancies on prison visiting committees be advertised to the public;

– candidates be nominated by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on the basis of their skills in the areas of administration, law, criminology, human rights, social work, education and medicine;

– all nominations to prison visiting committees be vetted and approved by the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights before they are confirmed;

– efforts be made to reduce the cost of prison visiting committees by examining the expenses regime and nominating persons to visit prisons in reasonable proximity to their abodes;

– the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights be asked to investigate the spiralling cost of the committees and to make recommendations for their fundamental reform.

I welcome the Minister to take part in this debate.

Prison visiting committees have long been in need of a radical overhaul to enable them to fulfil their potentially valuable role in ensuring the highest standards are maintained in the prisons service. As constituted, they fail to perform the task they have been appointed to carry out at considerable expense to the taxpayer. The result is that politicians are held in lesser esteem by the public. The problem is a cross-party one. Prison visiting committees were in place when Fine Gael was in government, the reason the motion should not be understood as critical of any individual here or any member of a prison visiting committee. We seek long-overdue reform. The Minister must seriously examine the committees and institute the necessary corrections to the system.

Our ineffectual and inefficient prison visiting committees represent a poor use of resources which could be otherwise allocated within the prisons service. The committees should be localised, cost effective and accountable and appointments to them should be made transparently. They were established on a statutory basis a long time ago in 1925 and the only attempt to re-examine the relevant legislation was made in the Prison (Visiting Committees) Order 1972. The Minister, who has been in office for a number of months, is known for his views on the failings of the prisons service and I hope he will soon make the changes needed to create an efficient prison visiting committee system.

The prison visiting committees are venal in composition and their membership reads like a roll call of Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrats activists from almost every corner of the country. They include no less than five former Fianna Fáil Ministers of State, two former Deputies, including one from the Progressive Democrats, and a former Cathaoirleach of this House. The Wheatfield visiting committee comprises one former Minister of State, six Fianna Fáil county councillors and one Progressive Democrats county councillor. Four of its members come from County Kerry, at least two of whom are Fianna Fáil associates of the last Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. None of the committee's 12 members is from Dublin and only two come from adjoining counties. Fine Gael does not contend that politicians should be barred from membership of prison visiting committees, nor does it demand the placing of a cordon sanitaire around members of political parties in terms of these appointments. However, the committees should not be populated exclusively by party hacks who criss-cross the country to pick up expenses.

While there should be room on prison visiting committees for public representatives and those involved in politics, natural justice dictates that membership should also be open to professionals such as sociologists, social workers, criminologists and psychologists who are genuinely qualified to assess the well-being of prisoners. Penal reformers should also be included as persons who really care about the conditions in which prisoners live and about their prospects for rehabilitation. Doctors and teachers are in a position to accurately assess prisoners' educational and medical needs. However, it is not possible to do this because persons from these backgrounds do not sit on prison visiting committees as a matter of course. It is a joke to expect prisoners to make complaints to associates and appointees of the Minister who is ultimately responsible for the workings and failings of the prisons service. Prison visiting committees are a classic example of the Establishment investigating itself. This injustice demands reform. I ask Senators to accept this.

While it cost €656,500 to run prison visiting committees in 2002, we have seen very little for our money. Aggregate costs have soared by 77% in the last three years. However, certain committees have far exceeded the average. The costs for the prison visiting committee in Cork have soared by 192% in the last three years, while those for the committee at Mountjoy Prison have soared by 122% and by 192% for the committee at the Curragh. Given that it is the very one the Minister wishes to close, it is ironic that the most frugal committee is that at Shanganagh which has seen its costs increase by only 19%. As with the Government's operation of the health service, there is nothing to show that initial and ongoing expenditure on prison visiting committees over the last three years represents money well spent.

An answer to a parliamentary question reveals that between 1997 and 2002 the committees raised only one matter with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. In effect, it cost over €2 million to raise. How effective are those committees if over five years they ask one question of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform? They have cost €2 million in those five years, a sum that would be better spent within the prison service by providing rehabilitation and suicide prevention services. This is a disgrace to the State and a disgrace to all of us who allow it to continue.

According to the 1972 order, prison visiting committees should inspect the diets of prisoners, select library books, organise lectures and addresses and ensure that reasonable steps are taken to ensure that prisoners do not relapse into crime after their release. I ask the Minister if any of the visiting committees is doing these things. Will the Minister say how often he has asked the prison visiting committees to use their powers to hold inquiries into charges against prisoners? I do not expect it to be a very long answer.

To make matters worse, since the creation of the prisons inspectorate the supposed work of the prison visiting committees has been duplicated by an equally bizarre body with no statutory basis, made up of a judge, former prisoner governor and an official. Does this confirm the failure of the visiting committees to do their job or is it just another layer of bureaucracy?

It does not make sense to have people living in Kerry on the Mountjoy visiting committee and people from Dublin on the visiting committee for Cork. This is not an effective and accountable way of doing things and it will have to change. There are 23 members of the visiting committees who are resident in Dublin and not one of these has been appointed to institutions in Dublin such as St. Patrick's Institution, the Training Unit or Wheatfield Prison. We propose an end to this system. I ask the Senators on the other side of the House to support our motion. Reform of the prison visiting committees is long overdue.

Mr. B. Hayes

I second the motion and I congratulate Senator Terry on her comprehensive argument to the House on this prisoner welfare issue. I welcome the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to the House and I thank him for being present, given his onerous responsibilities relating to meetings in Northern Ireland in the past 48 hours. I wish him and his Government colleagues well in that matter.

This motion is straightforward and does not need to be debated for two hours. The truth is that all political parties and all Governments have engaged in this abuse since 1925. I ask that all colleagues on both sides of the House address this reality. I want to quote from a recent article by Dr. Garret FitzGerald, a former Taoiseach and leader of my party:

In my view there is also a possible problem relating to abuses of expense claims, including the appointment of political supporters to various bodies, for instance, to prison visiting committees far away from where these appointees live. Through this process such supporters may be enabled to claim unvouched standard subsistence and travel amounts which may be substantially in excess of their actual disbursements.

He was referring in the article to the issue of standards in public life. This issue has not been dealt with by any Government in recent years, including my own party.

The Minister claims to be a Minister for reform and I ask him to take this issue seriously. No one on this side of the House is suggesting that he as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform should not have the power to appoint people to prison visiting committees and we are not suggesting that there should be no prison visiting committees. We are suggesting that where decisions are made in respect of appointments to these boards a system of public advertisement should be used and those who do not come from the party political base should be appointed. I am not suggesting that politicians should not be members of the board but the large predominance of party political appointees, be they councillors or others, leads one to the inexorable conclusion that there is abuse in the whole procedure.

Senator Terry correctly pointed out that the vast majority of members of these prison visiting committees do not live in close proximity to the prisons they visit; they live 200 or 300 miles away. Section 3(1)(a) of the 1925 legislation states that the fundamental task within the responsibility of the prison visiting committee is to hear any complaints that may be made by the prisoners. If I were a prisoner, would I be satisfied in having my complaint heard by a group of people who were appointed exclusively by the Government, who are in effect supporters of the Government? There is a natural opposition regime in respect of complaints made by prisoners. Will the Minister confirm in his reply if it is good enough that over the past five years just one complaint has been made by the 15 prison visiting committees?

I receive regular complaints from prisoners in my constituency work. I communicate these complaints to the governor of the prison. I ask the Minister to tell the House the number of complaints he has received in the past five or ten years. If the answer is one complaint that is a shocking indictment and it undermines the very function of the visiting committees as set out in the 1925 legislation. It is time for change. I ask that the Minister consider this motion.

I note that the Leader has put down an amendment to the motion which supports the status quo. The current situation is unworkable because it undermines the principle enshrined in the 1925 Act and it is open to abuse. Substantial sums of money are being given out to people who simply go to a prison on a monthly basis, claim for their expenses and then go home. One could argue that a person on a prison visiting committee in Dublin could also do some shopping while they are here. I imagine this is the type of abuse that is taking place.

The Inspector of Prisons has a substantial number of staff at his disposal. What is the fundamental distinction between the work of the Inspector of Prisons and the work of the prison visiting committees? The office of Inspector of Prisons is not yet established on a statutory basis. If this office had a role throughout the prison system as a whole, there would be no need for the prison visiting committees. They are a vestige of the jobbery, abuse and hackery of the worst type in which all political parties have engaged. I would ask the Minister, on a cross-party basis, to begin to do something about it.

Prison visiting committees have allegedly been watchdogs for a number of years. As Senator Terry rightly pointed out, substantial sums of public money go into this. Of more than 180 members of the various prison visiting committees throughout the country, at least 60 are known party members – in effect, Government supporters – which is one third of the total membership. That is not good enough in a modern democracy. We need to reform this whole area. If the Minister wants to put his mind to it he can do so.

We are saying on this side of the House that there is cross-party support for this fundamental reform which, in essence, is an issue of prisoner welfare. As Senator Terry pointed out, many people would like to serve on prison visiting committees, including doctors, teachers, people involved in training and rehabilitation, people who have a real contribution to make, notwithstanding the contribution political appointees can make. However, we must get the balance right, which is the substance of the motion before the House tonight.

Mr. J. Walsh

I welcome the Minister to the House for this debate. Like Senator Brian Hayes, I extend to him, the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs my good wishes on their efforts during the recent talks on Northern Ireland. I have no doubt his commitment, and that of others, to the process will prove successful and lead to greater harmony and a much healthier situation on this island. He deserves the gratitude of everyone for that.

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Seanad Eireann" and to substitute the following:

"recognises the important role of Prison Visiting Committees in ensuring continuing high standards in prisons and the protection of prisoners' rights;

notes the value to Prison Visiting Committees of the diversity of background of their membership;

acknowledges the due consideration given by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in making new appointments to Prison Visiting Committees to all relevant factors, including background, interests and experience;

recognises the commitment of the Minister to the effective and efficient discharge by Prison Visiting Committees of their functions: and

welcomes the appointment of the Inspector of Prisons and Places of Detention as a further safeguard for the rights of prisoners."

There has been an effort to decry the work of the prison visiting committees, which is a pity. These people work on a voluntary basis and it is fair to say that if they were not imbued with such a sense of public service, they would not be involved in this work. They receive no remuneration, bar expenses, which would not compensate for the time and effort they put in.

Committees to which Senator Terry referred are appointed under the 1925 order. They meet on a monthly or bi-monthly basis and must have a minimum of six and a maximum of 12 members. They are an important plank and play an important role in the operation of our custodial system. They hear prisoners' complaints, report to the board, and assist in the selection of books for the libraries, which is important for the rehabilitation of prisoners. They also have powers to grant privileges, providing it does not compromise security. They have a special responsibility – this is referred to in the order – for prisoners who are about to be discharged in order to avoid a relapse into crime. Some of them take that role particularly seriously. They are involved in organising lectures and addresses for prisoners. They may give extra visitor rights to certain prisoners and they make an annual report to the Minister. This is important because it focuses on accommodation, catering, medicine, educational welfare and recreational facilities.

While doing research for the debate, I discovered that since 1998 they have established a committee of chairpersons to deal with matters of general relevance and treatment of prisoners generally. There are some good proposals and suggestions coming forward from that cross-fertilisation of ideas.

I read an annual report from Castlerea, which I am sure would echo like-minded reports from other committees. It indicates that the work of the committees is effective and worthwhile. It deals with drugs free policies and acknowledges that Castlerea is attempting to be a drugs free prison. It expresses satisfaction with drugs testing methods, which are carried out on a regular basis. As we know, the drugs problem in prisons throughout the world is causing difficulties, which are being addressed.

The report also deals with the dietary requirements and kitchen facilities for prisoners. It also comments on educational facilities. It is interesting that courses from junior certificate standard to leaving certificate standard, as well as Open University courses, are available in the prisons. It would be very unfair to denigrate the work these committees are doing.

They also have industrial workshops in carpentry, laundry, fabric moulds, leather crafts and so on. The reason is to encourage personal development so that when prisoners are released they will have better prospects of securing employment and not re-offending. It also gives a sense of value to individuals. If that type of self-esteem can be engendered while people are in prison, it may offer an inducement not to offend again.

Unfortunately, suicides in prisons have been a factor, some of them probably as a result of drug addiction and other reasons. The report comments on that problem. There was an unfortunate incident in Castlerea and it suggests that proper psychological counselling should be made available when this happens. It also suggests that new methods to monitor high risk offenders are needed. It refers to offender after care, including the availability of half-way houses or high support hostels to ensure people integrate back into society.

I contacted some members of the prison visiting committee, some of whom live adjacent to the prison. These people are very enthusiastic about the work which goes on and what they would like to see happening in order to improve the lot of prisoners, particularly after care for prisoners. There is a perception that, because of a feeling of disorientation from society generally, prisoners will come under the bad influences of the past. As a consequence, they will find themselves becoming involved in crime and going back into prison. They are suggesting that accommodation be provided. One member of the prison visiting committee is actively trying to identify accommodation to be made available in their own county in order to rehabilitate prisoners for a period to allow them to integrate into an environment where there are certain supports. Very often when prisoners are released, their families are alienated from them and they cannot reintegrate into society through the family, which would be the ideal situation. Consequently, there is an onus on us to try to provide alternative ways of doing this.

If properly handled, a certain percentage of prisoners will not recommit crime. Obviously, it is important to identify these people and to give them the necessary after care supports to avoid that happening. The Encounter project in Cork was mentioned. A range of activities is taking place in which the committee has taken an interest.

The motion indicates that very little homework was done in regard to what these committees do. While it has been recognised that there should be no objection to the appointment of political people to political positions, there is criticism of it. The criticism is partly motivated by virtue of the fact that politics in general is a numbers game. The Taoiseach is elected on the basis of the numbers returned to the Dáil. Government Ministers are appointed accordingly.

Unfortunately, when in Opposition, it is not possible to exert control. That is the purpose of the motion. It is ridiculous to imply that members of prison visiting committees should have a university education. If anything, prisoners would be more likely to empathise with those whom they would classify as ordinary people within their communities.

The role of prison visiting committees should not be undermined for political purposes. They do valuable and excellent work which should be recognised. The question of political affiliation or lack of it should not be a matter of concern to the House to which I commend the amendment.

Dr. Henry

I have visited prisons on many occasions. I first visited one approximately 20 years ago. One of Nuala Fennell's first visits as Minister of State with responsibility for women's affairs was to the women's prison at Mountjoy Prison. She was shocked by the conditions, especially the lack of medical care. She asked me to visit the prison with her to see what could be done about getting a woman doctor, a general practitioner who lived locally, to attend.

When I visited the prison I had never seen anything like it. It was like something out of a Dickens novel. There was a huge laundry where the girls congregated. The rattling and screaming were appalling. The first thing one notices on visiting the prison today is the lack of screaming. It is extraordinary how an improvement in the condition of inmates, in prison for similar type of crime, encourages them to behave in a different way. That taught me a huge lesson. If people are placed in conditions where they are more likely to be, and feel they are, treated better, their behaviour will greatly improve, both when in prison and, we hope, when they leave.

There is a need to consider the regrettably high rate of recidivism which I am sure the Government wants to reduce. In view of this I regret the amendment. We need to see how we can improve conditions in prisons, which regrettably now hold more than before. Very few members of the public get a chance to enter prisons unless they are visitors or work in them. In view of this we must rely on prison visiting committees to conduct matters on behalf of the public.

I am intrigued by how few politicians have visited prisons. The authorities are not reluctant to accept visitors, on the contrary. They are anxious to show the facilities and explain what is happening. I am also surprised at the small proportion of those in the legal profession, including judges, who have visited prisons. This has improved. I recently attended a lecture in the Law Society and was pleased to discover that it organises tours for students to visit prisons.

Our prisons have improved. While I would not wish to visit the prisons at Wheatfield or Clover Hill for a short holiday, improved facilities allow for a much more productive environment for prisoners and staff. I, therefore, applaud the efforts being made in this regard.

Every year Mountjoy Prison produces a play. Last year it produced "The Field" and this year it is producing "Moll". They are first class productions. Tickets should be booked in early April and I encourage Ministers and Senators to attend. It is well worthwhile because it enables visitors to get a feel for what is happening in the prison and what can be done for the inmates. When the production of plays first started, it was difficult to get anybody to audition for the parts and actors had to be employed. Today, there is a great demand to get a part. At the end of the play enthusiasm sags because there has been such enthusiasm about being involved in the production, including the staging, costumes and lighting.

Prison visiting committees were established under old legislation. One of their purposes is to hear the complaints of prisoners. Their annual reports must also offer policy suggestions to management, in this case the Government. The reports are not automatically published and in some instances it is difficult to access them. For many years I pressed for the early release of the reports of the inspector of mental hospitals and eventually they were published reasonably quickly. Visiting committee reports should likewise be published and made accessible as soon as possible.

Usually, a prison officer acts as secretary to the prison visiting committee and he or she sometimes writes the report. This is unsatisfactory. Traditionally, the officer is present when prisoners are interviewed, which is also unsatisfactory. It means that the prison authority and the committee are working together and prisoners feel they cannot make proper complaints. Mountjoy Prison has managed to stop this procedure but I am not sure about the position in other prisons. It should be easy to discourage this undesirable practice. Prisoners do not want the authorities to know about their complaints.

In recent years it appears to have become almost impossible to be appointed to a prison visiting committee unless one has a close political association with the party or parties in government. This is regrettable. It is also ridiculous and expensive to have members of committees travelling all over the country. While prisoners and committee members sometimes express concern that committees may be too closely associated with prisons in their area, it should be possible for them to visit prisons in adjacent or nearby areas, for example, visiting committees from Limerick should visit Cork and so on. The current system of visitation is very expensive and unproductive. While those with political affiliations should not be ruled out for membership of committees, many view committee members as supporters of the Minister. That is a mistake because it makes the Minister vulnerable to accusations of undue influence. It would be better if Ministers accepted criticism.

Membership of prison visiting committees should not be confined to those with a university education. The most practical appointments could be former prisoners as they could give an idea of the best way for a committee to proceed. Perhaps consideration should be given to this, especially the appointment of former prisoners who have done well after their release.

Visiting committee members should also receive training. Senator Terry pointed out the various areas they are supposed to investigate. In the United Kingdom, prison visiting committees do get training. The attitude here is not professional and the committees do not have a proper understanding of what they are supposed to be doing.

Prison visiting committee members should have a fixed term. Some people have been on committees for 20 years or more which is not a good idea and some are on two committees or more. It is hard to meet people who will criticise the system but it is worthwhile doing so. About ten years ago the visiting committee in Mountjoy Prison gave out hell about members of my profession and the medical treatment of prisoners. Treatment was transformed as a result. Criticism does work. It is depressing to hear from prisoners that they have little faith in the visiting committee and that they would prefer to complain to the chaplain.

The prison Bill is expected some time but we have the Criminal Insanity Bill and Members may have noticed the great excitement with which it was greeted. We should have the prison Bill here as soon as possible. It would be worthwhile discussing it because it has been a long time since it was reviewed as Senators Terry and Hayes have said. Prison visiting committees can be useful but we need reformation of the system.

Mr. Minihan

I too welcome the Minister to the House. He is mentioned so frequently here that he must have a permanent red ear.

I have some background knowledge of the prison system. I was not on a prison visiting committee nor was I a prison inmate but in my former career I spent some time working in prisons. Prison visiting committees are a necessary part of the prison structure and they play an active role. Having said that they do need to modernise their brief and remit. We now have a Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform who takes on board that challenge and commitment. He is a reforming Minister and we will see more of those reforms.

The legislation and the remit that prison visiting committees will have in the future need to be more reflective of our society. Some valid points have been made on the opposite side of the House. Mr. Justice Kinlen is undertaking a review at the moment of the whole prison area. In that context he will also review prison visiting committees. We should not be too quick to pre-empt the reform that is under way but should wait until the review comes forth. I am confident the Minister will bring reform before the House for implementation before long.

Ms Terry

We have waited almost a year.

Mr. Minihan

The Minister is only in office a short time. Mr. Justice Kinlen's brief was established in April 2002 and I am not aware of any interim report from him. The motion before us tonight is a little tongue in cheek in the sense that there is merit in it, but it is disingenuous in that there are political overtones coming from the other side of the House. Whereas I want to support necessary reform, I do not support the tone of the motion.

Ms Terry

The Senator should focus on the content.

Mr. Minihan

In the motion the Opposition is "recognising, concerned, deploring and demanding".

Ms Terry

They are suggestions.

Mr. Minihan

When looking for reform that type of phraseology smacks of speaking from both sides of the mouth. Members of visiting committees are unsalaried and unpaid but they do receive expense. Perhaps we should look at that area. I am sure it will be looked at as part of the review in progress at the moment. People can apply to be appointed to prison visiting committees.

Ms Terry

Positions are not advertised.

Mr. Minihan

People can apply for them under the legislation. We often hear from the other side of the House that it founded the State and set up all these things. Now it seems to have got this one wrong and wants to change it, albeit a long time later.

Mr. B. Hayes

We were putting most prisoners away in 1925.

Mr. J. Walsh

Who is best qualified to visit prisons?

Mr. Minihan

As politicians we should be careful not to add further to the erosion of politics by overstating political favouritism or by casting aspersions on people currently serving on these committees. I accept the need for modernisation. I have total confidence that this Minister will modernise the prisons service and the training programmes. There is no doubt but that it must move forward just as we must in many other areas for which we are responsible.

To pre-empt the reform would be a mistake. Fine Gael's motion has made some clear points which actually weaken the motion because while its members recognise the positive aspects of the visiting committees and are concerned at certain aspects, they are also deploring it and demanding more. We cannot have it every way. While I support certain aspects of the motion I cannot support the motion as currently constituted. I am happy to support the amended motion put forward by the Government.

Ms Tuffy

The Fine Gael motion is a good one which I and my Labour Party colleagues support. It is a good idea that those appointed to prison visiting committees should have relevant expertise such as legal, medical, trade union, employment or education expertise. I would make an even more extensive list of relevant experience than that proposed by Fine Gael.

In reply to Senator Walsh I point out that a committee member would not require a degree. The relevant section of the motion refers to skills. People do not require a business degree to have business skills. I agree with the requirement that people would be from the local area. The Labour Party has been looking for that reform for some time. We do not want prison visiting committee members to only serve on them for the expenses. In terms of expertise and what people can bring to the committee it would be better if the members were from the local area with local expertise and an interest in the locality. What happens in a prison in Clondalkin, for example, will be of more interest to a person living in the area. One restriction that could be imposed is that people should not be on a visiting committee outside of their province. Then we would not have someone from a county such as County Kerry coming to visit a prison in Dublin.

The idea of advertising vacancies for committees is important. It is more open and would encourage people to consider becoming involved in this area. It also gives the message that it is a positive aspect of voluntary work in which to become involved.

Comments have been made about Fine Gael's motivation in bringing forward the motion. The party is being upfront and not saying its track record is better than anyone else's in this regard.

Mr. B. Hayes

Correct. We are just being honest.

Mr. J. Walsh

One could not say that.

Ms Tuffy

Yes, to be honest. All of us in political parties have to accept that there are things we can improve in the voluntary political system and that we can reach a consensus on such matters.

Mr. J. Walsh

It is easy to get involved when one is in opposition.

Ms Tuffy

The Labour Party has a good—

Ms Terry

If we introduce reforms, they will be in place for the next Government.

Ms Tuffy

When the Labour Party was last in government it had a good record.

Mr. J. Walsh

What about the harbour boards?

Ms Tuffy

We are talking about—

Mr. J. Walsh

All the party activists were put on such boards.

Ms Tuffy

The point I made was that nobody was saying he or she was perfect. This would be a good reform. Everybody had the notion that the Minister would be a breath of fresh air, that he would be reforming and different from old-style politics. Why will he not take this on when he has the opportunity do so? I would have thought that this would be an issue close to his heart. This is an opportunity for the Minister to take the initiative. Although the suggestion has been made by Fine Gael, I do not see the reason the Minister cannot bring forward these new reforms.

I agree with the suggestion in the motion that it would be a good idea for the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights to be involved with the Minister in making these decisions. We should have an overall review of the system, in particular the value of prison visiting committees, to see how we can improve it.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. M. McDowell)

I thank Senator Terry and her colleagues for raising this important issue. I identify somewhat with Senator Minihan's point about the tone of the language used in the motion, which is slightly surprising in the factual matrix from which it emerges. If we get to the point of recognising, being concerned, deploring and making demands, the question is when did this moral insight suddenly strike with such forceful clarity that it requires such language to be used?

On the other hand, I accept that Senators speaking in support of the motion have, in general terms, been fair in their description of the matter and have not behaved like another individual whom I shall not name, for charity's sake only, who announced to the media that he would harry, pursue and humiliate me in public until his own letter writing indicated that he was very much a poacher turned gamekeeper at a very late stage in the whole enterprise. I will not say any more because I wish to be constructive and when we get into political point scoring, we do not do ourselves any good collectively.

I will begin by outlining the provenance of the 1925 legislation. It is interesting to note that it was introduced by the then Minister for Justice, Kevin O'Higgins, whose title was Minister for Home Affairs. He introduced it in circumstances which were quite interesting because, up to then, prison visiting committees provided for some jails and institutions were appointed by local authorities or grand juries, on the one hand, or directly politically, on the other.

The Minister justified the legislation to the Oireachtas at the time as a measure necessary because of the disappearance of certain institutions such as the grand jury. It is interesting to note that both the then leader of the Labour Party, Thomas Johnson, and the then Minister actually spoke strongly on the basis that existing and former Deputies and Senators would be eligible for appointment to these bodies. I say this lest anyone think that there was, in the dim and distant past, a highly apolitical system which has degraded in recent years into something radically different. This does not appear to be the case. The Act actually makes provision for Senators and Deputies to be appointed to the committees.

It is also interesting to note that in the debate at the time Thomas Johnson proposed that there should be at least two women, in the case of a women's prison, and a medical doctor, in the case of each institution, on every committee. For various reasons these proposals did not find favour. In fact, there were no women's prisons at the time as women were incarcerated in wings of men's prisons. The Minister of the day explained that most men would find it embarrassing to serve on a prison visiting committee because they might find themselves at variance with the prison doctor and in some professional embarrassment. It is also interesting to note that there was to be no remuneration – it was to be high-minded service not motivated by any more venial consideration.

Since being appointed Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, I have been concerned by the public perception that prison visiting committee appointments are made with a view to maximising tax free income for the recipients rather than on other criteria. As a consequence, whereas I have not engaged in a wholesale bloodletting in regard to the appointments that have come up for renewal, I have been careful to ensure that, of the appointments I have made afresh, that they come from the county in which the institution is located or an adjoining county.

I have, on occasion, though not in every case by any manner of means, reallocated members from more distant prisons to ones closer to them. The reason I do this is that in the spirit of the Act somebody should be available, not merely for monthly meetings, but also for random visits and that it should be the right and entitlement, as it clearly is under the statute and the rules made under it, of members to present themselves when they are not expected to make sure all is in order in the prison. It seems prima facie that the closer one is to a prison the better position one is in, subject to the remarks made about not being exposed to local embarrassment in carrying out one's duties. Subject to this and living in the kind of society we do, it seems the policy I have adopted in regard to the new persons I am appointing is correct and that it is desirable that persons should, in general terms, be appointed to prisons not too distant from their own homes.

Looking at the provisions of the Act in regard to reports, it does not seem that there is any basis on which they can or should be suppressed for any period of time or kept locked in a departmental drawer. It is required that they are made publicly available to anyone who wishes to see them, which is a good idea.

It has been suggested that prison visiting committees are somewhat of an anachronism bearing in mind that we now have a prisons' inspector, Mr. Justice Kinlen, the first person to be appointed to this position which currently has no statutory function. In the fullness of time, his position will require statutory underpinning, an issue to which I intend to give my attention as soon as the other very pressing matters in the justice portfolio allow me to do so.

In Britain, where a statutory inspectorate has existed for some time, prison visiting committees were not abolished and the two systems were left to operate in tandem. The mere fact that there is another way of appointing a prisons watchdog on behalf of the public does not mean we would have to get rid of the prison committee system in the future were we to give a statutory basis to the activities of the Inspector of Prisons, who at present is operating on a non-statutory basis.

Mr. Justice Kinlen wrote to me recently and indicated that he is concerned about racism in Irish prisons, an issue about which I am concerned and on which the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, through the prisons service, commissioned a report, which I hope to publish soon. I am concerned about this matter and I have replied to Mr. Justice Kinlen asking him to draw to my attention any instances of racism he comes across in the course of his duty. The most recently published report of the Irish Prisons Service, for the year 2001 – the report for 2002 should be available in the near future – shows that a significant number, approximately 14%, of prison occupants are non-EU nationals. If there is an indication of racism, it is something I take seriously.

Senators will be aware that Amnesty International recently asked for access to our prisons to carry out research. The reason I refused this request is that, having advertised for a project on this issue to be carried out by an independent body and having awarded the contract, I did not then propose to put in place a competing Amnesty International and Irish Penal Reform Trust study to simultaneously traverse the same territory. However, I have indicated to the Irish Penal Reform Trust that I will be quite happy for it to carry out a follow-up study in relation to the racism issue when the report is published and when we are in a position to act upon it.

We need a new statute for prisons. In case Members think I am delaying on this subject, there were proposals that the prisons service be put on a statutory basis and there was an internal debate as to whether the probation and welfare service should be set up as part of the same statutory series of bodies or be entirely separate. The view previously expressed was that the probation and welfare service should be separate. I am not so convinced about that. Regardless of how good are people's intentions, if one sets up bodies under statute and gives them functions, they are inclined to be careful about their own patch.

There is, to some extent, a public interest in welding the probation and welfare service with the prisons service, rather than making them into competing snouts at the Exchequer trough. When money is put into the general areas of rehabilitation, it should not be the subject of undue competition between two separate agencies which are not co-ordinating their activities to the best extent. This is not to say that I propose to subjugate the probation and welfare service to the prisons service, which is larger. It is merely to say that there is an argument to be made for looking at them as two bodies whose activities should be co-ordinated, with a common intelligence driving their activities, rather than having two separate organisational structures and two separate sets of policies, one for incarceration and the other devoted to rehabilitation in the aftermath of punishment.

I am not sure I am attracted to the notion of advertising for prison visiting committees. On the occasions when I have gone hunting for people to put on committees – this is not often necessary because one sometimes finds oneself inundated with people wanting to be appointed – I have found that many people who are offered positions are reluctant to take them because of the interference the duties will cause in their own lives. Advertising positions carries with it the implication that one would have to carefully assess everyone who applies and ask why they are doing so.

I am not sure it is a good idea that prison visitors should possess, as preconditions, skills in administration, law, criminology, human rights, social work, education and medicine. A criminologist who applies to be on a prison visiting board is, in some sense, using the prison board to test out his own ideas and to be an activist. Do we want people who have an agenda coming into prisons rather than people who have the statutory agenda, although this may need review, to do the best for the prisoners and to bring an ordinary person's common sense approach to the issues? Do we want people with pre-existing theories or a political or sociological agenda to apply?

As Senator Henry stated, there has been a dramatic improvement in the area of prison supervision. The picture she painted of the women's prison she visited is in dramatic contrast to the Dóchas centre that exists now. I have already visited a number of prisons and intend to see them all. No matter how one organises a prison, it is, by no means, as the more credulous readers of some newspapers are persuaded, a holiday camp. By the same token, in relation to such things as education, counselling, diet and occupational training, the transformation which is taking place in our prisons service deserves fair recognition. On the debit side, I confess that when I visited two prisons early in my tenure and discovered the real nature of the padded cells and their use, I was so taken aback by that experience that I immediately decided that they would have to end.

I have already taken action, although it will not have instant effect, to end the use of padded cells in prisons. There are other things on the debit side which people might find much more serious, For example, I have no hesitation in saying I found slopping out by prisoners, many of whom are occupying cells on a multiple basis, degrading. I am doing my best to ensure that, instead of waiting for some ultimate reform of the entire structure of our prisons over a period, every possible step is taken as a matter of urgency to introduce in-cell sanitation. Some Senators may be aware that when Mountjoy Prison was originally built, sanitation facilities were provided in every cell. It was not a very satisfactory system because it entailed having continuous running water through a privy in the corner of every cell. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that the Victorians could install a system of in-cell sanitation while in the beginning of the 21st century we are told there is a technological or financial barrier to putting modern sanitation into prison cells. That is a bad thing.

I welcome the fact that this motion has been tabled this evening. I echo Senator Minihan's question mark about its slightly ringing and declamatory tone bearing in mind that, as Senator Terry said, we were waiting 21 years. During much of that time parties who have spoken tonight in support of this motion were in office and did nothing to address the issue, not even to the modest extent that I have done in the few months I have been in office.

If there is a perception that these positions are to be held by people who ought to be tame, house-trained, unobservant and docile members of prison committees instead of independent members, I will not use the term "deplore" but I am unhappy with people feeling that is what is expected of them by me, as Minister. I want to see any criticism of our prisons service, that is reasonable, intelligent and constructive, and not agenda driven. I do not want to see anodyne reports furnished to me which do not even correspond with my own impressions of visiting a prison as Minister. I do not want to have less observant reports put in annually than I would make if I committed my own thoughts to writing in the course of a visit. It does not impress me. Just in case anybody listening to this debate is a member of a prison visiting committee it would not incline me to re-appoint a person who had been unobservant or convenient in their own mind or who lacked independence in relation to the work done. Therefore, if people want to be re-appointed – I am not inviting them to go wild with criticism or whatever – they do not do me any favour by being unduly docile.

Having said that I pay tribute to the people who serve on these committees. They do useful work. In our political system in Ireland, there are very few positions handed out on a discretionary basis by any Minister. Sometimes it is right to recognise the contribution people make to democratic life through party politics by not disqualifying them or being overly sensitive to the point of refusing to appoint them to bodies, purely because they are involved in the democratic political process.

Mr. B. Hayes

Does that include the Opposition?

Mr. M. McDowell

I am glad to see this motion recites the fact that participation in party politics should not be a bar to appointment. What amuses me most is that in the six to eight months that I have been the holder of this office not one Member of the Oireachtas, who is not a member of the Government parties, has bothered to suggest one person to me for appointment to a prison committee.

Mr. B. Hayes

It is "open sesame" now. We now have the invitation.

Mr. M. McDowell

It tells its own story that the culture being decried in this motion was well and truly ingrained and that nobody had any different expectation of me.

Mr. B. Hayes

Correct.

Mr. M. McDowell

If Members of the Oireachtas, in particular, wish to be appointed to a prison committee, because the Act envisages that, I would be quite happy to do that. I would like to see Members of the Oireachtas putting their money where their mouth is, so to speak, in terms of time and volunteering to be appointed to some of these bodies although I will not make them into committees of TDs. Bearing in mind that the statute permits Members of the Oireachtas to be appointed to these bodies I would like some volunteers.

Mr. Cummins

It might be classified as a dual mandate.

Mr. M. McDowell

Most people do not know these committees exist, but those who do and are concerned about them mainly belong to the political class or the journalistic class in our society and have a perception that these are effectively gravy trains for people who are appointed at a deliberately great distance from the prisons in question to maximise tax free expenses. I have put my mind to wondering how best that could be dealt with. One possibility would be to cap the amount of expenses anybody could get. Another possibility is to do what I am doing, that is, to ensure travelling expenses will be reduced because people tend to be clustered in institutions. A third possibility is to replace expenses completely and to pay a flat allowance, although the Revenue Commissioners would doubtless tax it if it is not seen as expenses. Nonetheless, there would be no incentive for people to seek appointment to institutions solely for the purpose of maximising their expenses. No doubt, there are other possibilities as to how it can be done but I share Senator Terry's view that at a time when there is financial pressure on the prisons service in every direction, it is not acceptable that valuable resources should be spent unnecessarily on travelling expenses. We do not live in circumstances where there is money for everything and there are huge financial constraints on what is being done. I think I can claim with some degree of credibility to be the first Minister to have taken some steps in the right direction. Therefore, I welcome the moral support which the Fine Gael Party is offering me on this matter.

Mr. B. Hayes

Will the Minister accept the motion?

Mr. M. McDowell

I prefer the terms and-—

Mr. B. Hayes

The tone.

Mr. M. McDowell

—the lack of hypocrisy in the Government amendment. The time should be gone when anybody would write to me and say, as one person did to one of my predecessors, a certain local authority member wanted a position as far away from the other end of the country as possible. I am not in the business of point scoring here this evening.

Mr. B. Hayes

No, no.

Mr. M. McDowell

When one is in the business of deploring, one should always search through one's letters.

Mr. B. Hayes

People in glass houses throwing stones.

Mr. M. McDowell

When one makes a public commitment to chase a Minister on the issue, one should take a quick scan through one's own letters file before making a complete idiot of oneself. The truth is this is serious business.

Mr. B. Hayes

Correct.

Mr. M. McDowell

It was a far-sighted idea that a group of people, whether drawn from the political class, Members of the Oireachtas, or wherever was envisaged in 1925, would be entitled to present themselves at any prison of which they were a visiting committee at any hour of day or night and be shown to any corner of that prison and speak to any prisoner. That is a remarkable provision for its time. I believe the committee system should be encouraged. Some of the prescribed activities for prisoners have largely been taken over by the probation and welfare service. One of the functions of the prison visiting committee was to arrange interesting lectures and entertainment. There are not many people who would like to undertake that obligation in relation to a large prison. Others are to ensure, for example, that people on release are introduced to prisoners' aid societies. While that was well intentioned it is now a high-minded way of dealing with matters. We should acknowledge that the probation and welfare service should carry out that kind of function as of right for every prisoner, rather than have it done by grace and favour of the members of a prison visiting committee. I do not want to throw out the baby with the bath water. There is some rather murky bath water in this particular tub. I do not want to get rid of the idea but I do not want to make it unduly complicated.

For example, I do not want hearings before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights on the suitability of any person. Who in their right mind would undergo such a process except somebody who is a zealot with a mission, which would make them suspect in the first place? Who would expose themselves to being torn apart or having their credentials and their party affiliations carefully questioned by a group of politicians if they were not going to be remunerated for the position? Most people with intelligence would not go through some ritual humiliation that is not required.

What we need are people with common sense and intellectual integrity and who are of independent spirit to become members of these bodies and report fairly about what they observe. There is no point going on one of these committees if one has wholly unreasonable expectations about what, bearing in mind the budgetary restrictions involved, the governor and the staff of a prison can do. There is no point turning one's committee into a participant in a civil war in public administration if the result is that people in my position and officials of the prisons service end up regarding the committee as the enemy rather than as something which is there to help. We must take a balanced approach.

The underlying inspiration of tonight's motion, if not its linguistic tone, is that prison visiting committees are a valuable resource and that this House, presumably through the Fine Gael motion or the Government amendment, is inviting me to strengthen and develop the system of prison visiting committees and to make them as effective as possible in discharging their functions and to avoid any tendency to make appointments which might discredit them. That is advice which I willingly take on board as representing the consensus of all the contributions made this evening. In that broad, liberal, cross-party spirit, I prefer the language of the Government amendment, although I do not entirely dispute some of the points made, even in such arched tones, by Fine Gael.

I understand the House wants me to return to discuss crime, which I will do. I apologise if, on this occasion, I am being unduly wet and non-combative. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that I only got three or four hours' sleep in the past 48 hours as a result of flying around the country. On that point, I thank the House very sincerely for the good wishes it sent to the Taoiseach, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, and me for the enterprise in which we are engaged. Without breaching any secrets or making any inappropriate remarks, the time spent at Hillsborough during the past 48 hours was time well spent.

I thank the Cathaoirleach for allowing me to address the House on this subject. Some of the points in this motion are well made, while others are better made in the Government amendment. In that cross-party spirit, I ask the House to support the Government amendment.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I thank the Minister. We work long hours in this House as well.

Mr. Cummins

I welcome the Minister and wish him well in his work on Northern Ireland, in particular. I am glad our good wishes were conveyed to him.

In the House last week, members of the Minister's party expressed concern and demanded better management systems and more financial accountability in the health service. I presume the same applies to the area of justice, particularly as the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is a member of the Progressive Democrats. On his appointment, he was cast in the role of a reforming Minister – a role he was glad to accept. He now has the opportunity to do something positive.

I welcome his contribution and the fact he has acknowledged that he is not prepared to stand over and is not satisfied with the figures and statistics so ably provided by Senator Terry in proposing this motion. The figures were certainly damning. Senator Terry also outlined what visiting committees should be doing. Are they performing the duties with which they are charged? The Minister did not address that issue.

We are not asking for university professors to be appointed, we are requesting that people with skills in the areas outlined in the motion be called upon. The Minister hit the nail on the head when he said we need decent, upright people with common sense. I was delighted to hear there is a difference between Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats.

Mr. B. Hayes

It is very evident.

Mr. Cummins

It was very evident this evening. For the first time in eight months, the Minister has come before the House and stated that he will not continue with the system whereby party hacks were appointed to visiting committees and—

Ms Feeney

That is the Government position.

Mr. Cummins

—people from Cahirciveen were appointed to the Castlerea visiting committee. I was delighted to hear the Minister state that, since his appointment, those appointed have come from counties adjacent to where prisons are situated. That is refreshing and it is completely different to what Senator Jim Walsh suggested, namely, that it is a numbers game and they will do whatever they want.

Mr. J. Walsh

Is the Senator familiar with the appointments to the harbour boards in 1997 by Labour, Fine Gael and the former Democratic Left?

Mr. Cummins

We have had enough of that type of politics. I am glad there is a Minister who, much to the disgust of some on the opposite side of the House, is prepared to move away from that situation. It will not be a numbers game anymore.

I listened with incredulity to Senator Minihan who asked why we could not wait for the report on reform before we tabled motions of this nature. Only yesterday we asked the Government side to wait for the Information Commissioner's report, which will be made available next week, before it rammed the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill through the House. We were forced to remain here until 3 a.m. to debate the legislation. The Senator said there was a danger that democracy and confidence in politics would be eroded by motions such as this. I suggest that what happened yesterday was a greater negation of democracy than anything else we have witnessed in this House for some time.

A number of excellent suggestions were made and I am glad the Minister is prepared to accept them and that he might even be prepared to appoint people from this side of the House.

Mr. Wilson

He only had four hours sleep in the past 48 hours.

Mr. B. Hayes

The numbers game.

Mr. Cummins

The numbers game is coming up again.

Mr. B. Hayes

The lottery.

Mr. Cummins

Will the Minister take on board Senator Henry's suggestion to appoint ex-prisoners who have done well since their release? I am glad we are discussing this motion which has obviously challenged the consciousness of the Progressive Democrats who have responded in a manner which its supporters would like to see them do more often in Government.

Mr. B. Hayes

Hear, hear.

Mr. Cummins

We will be pressing this motion, the tone of which the Minister said he could not accept.

Mr. Coghlan

He accepted its spirit.

Mr. Cummins

Yes.

Ms Feeney

No, I do not think he said that.

Mr. Cummins

I am glad he was not prepared to accept the Government motion as tabled. He accepted a great deal of what is contained in our motion. We are seeking reform. It is obvious from what the Minister stated earlier that he is of similar mind. We accept that.

Mr. Kett

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and join with my colleagues in wishing the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell well in his talks with the Taoiseach and Minister for Foreign Affairs.

I wish to second the amendment tabled by Senator Jim Walsh. The motion and amendment recognise that an excellent contribution has been made by the visiting committees regarding the welfare and protection of prisoners' rights throughout the State. I had the pleasure of serving on such a committee in the late 1970s. This motion contains an undertone – whether or not people on the other side accept it – that this is some type of gravy train. While I was working in the Mater Hospital and living in Drumcondra, I was appointed to St. Patrick's Institution. I am feeling somewhat cheated that no bonanza of expenses existed in those days.

I have always felt such committees are very worthwhile. I achieved a great deal of personal satisfaction in that one is seen as someone who can play a meaningful role in the lives of people who have fallen foul of the system. It was acknowledged and accepted that even though the committee was part of the bureaucracy of the prison system, it was still a body of people to whom prisoners could look for assistance. The committee was the catalyst which enabled people to convey their point of view.

The motion also seeks greater transparency regarding political appointments. I do not understand from where this has come given that Members stated in their contributions that they are happy with the Minister of the day making the judgment call on those appointed to such positions. I am sure he receives assistance and recommendations when making these appointments and that he takes into account the diversity of background of the people involved. That is the case in relation to some of the people already appointed to such positions.

A great deal of play is made of people from Kerry and Cork sitting on committees in Dublin. I do not think that is a dreadful thing. Not everybody in a prison in Dublin comes from Dublin, they come from all over the country. A prisoner from Galway grew very attached to me during my time on the visiting committee. I was a source of comfort to him. He saw me as someone who came from a similar background and latched on to me. I am not saying that is the case in all instances but there is a good chance that a prisoner from Kerry will find a way to make contact with a Kerry man serving on a visiting committee in Mountjoy Jail.

Mr. Cummins

The Minister does not agree with Senator Kett.

Mr. Kett

I am not suggesting that would be the case. Let us look at the appointments made by the Minister since taking office. Since the end of October, the Minister has appointed six people to Arbour Hill, three from Dublin and three from other regions. That is a 50% representation from the Dublin region. That, in my opinion, is a fair proportion. Great play was also made of the €600,000 expended in the first ten months of 2002. There are currently 200 people on visiting committees. If we take the €600,000 figure over 12 months, that works out at €3,300 per person. Some people are not claiming but most of them are. A sum of €3,300 per annum is not a massive amount to pay those who drive from all areas of the country using their own petrol and car having taken a day's leave from work and, perhaps, losing a day's pay. I am surprised, given those payments, that so many people put themselves forward for positions on such committees.

Mr. B. Hayes

Putting their hands out.

Mr. Kett

I am sure Members on the opposite side would not begrudge them such a measly payment for the excellent work which we all agree they are doing in a voluntary capacity. We are also told of the political bias in regard to such appointments. All parties do this. Senator Hayes was honest enough to admit it is something all parties do. It may not be the best way to do things but I am sure the Opposition has many good people it could appoint to such committees just as we have.

Mr. B. Hayes

We will send letters to the Minister tomorrow.

Mr. Coghlan

I know of two very good criminologists.

Mr. Kett

The best laugh of all and the Minister alluded to this was the statement made by a senior spokesperson who said that the system should be put under a microscope to see if money could be better spent. He also stated that many people were appointed not to committees of prisons geographically convenient to them but as far away as possible. The same person was reported in a letter in a newspaper as suggesting a good friend of his from west Cork might be appointed to a position in north Dublin or further north if possible. We are merely looking for consistency.

Mr. B. Hayes

The Stasi-like police in his Department leaked the letter.

A Senator

Freedom of information.

(Interruptions).

Mr. Kett

That was a dreadful inconsistency on his part.

The motion also suggests certain skills should be brought into play. That is an insult to the ordinary housewife and man on the street.

Ms Terry

There is no such thing as an ordinary housewife.

Mr. Kett

The positions should not only be open to people with degrees. Ordinary people make up juries. They are the ones who put many of the people into our prisons. Why then should they not be good enough to adjudicate on their welfare while they serve their sentence? I do not agree with that point. I welcome this debate. Debate is always good and if the system is reformed as a result of our contributions that, too, is good. I do not say everything about visiting committees is perfect, it is not. There will always be need for reform and strengthening of positions.

Mr. Finucane

I congratulate Senator Terry on tabling this opportune motion. I listened on my monitor to the Minister when he said he hoped this debate would be constructive and that there would not be point scoring. There must be a maturity in the Seanad which does not express itself in the Dáil. Having read the debate on the justice motion regarding alcohol tabled last week by Fine Gael I do not think the same constructive tenor applied. The Minister came across as arrogant, particularly in the way he admonished those from other parties, particularly younger Members, for expressing points of view. He used soundbites such as "Horlicks" while the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, used the words "Complan" and "crackers". The Minister was acting as a senior counsel and expressing himself as if he was in more hallowed places such as the Four Courts.

The Minister seems to be grappling with the issue of prison visiting committees, which is timely. It would be a measure of respect for the motion, which reflects much of the Government viewpoint, if Members opposite supported it. There is concern, in the House and among all political parties, that appointments to the committees seem to be made to maximise the distance members must travel to the prison they serve. With regard to Arbour Hill Prison, three of the 11 members of the committee live in County Dublin while eight live over 200 kilometres away. With regard to Cork Prison, three of the 11 members live in County Cork while six must travel more than 200 kilometres. With regard to the Curragh, two of the 11 members live in County Kildare while six must travel more than 200 kilometres, which is common because the famous Minister for zero tolerance, Deputy O'Donoghue, appointed probably the highest number of criminologists within the prison visiting service. He dispensed his largesse throughout County Kerry. South Kerry is 200 kilometres from many of the prisons involved.

Mr. J. Walsh

Nobody from County Kerry—

Mr. Finucane

I am not saying anybody from County Kerry would be involved. There are plenty of places closer to home such as Limerick Prison and Spike Island to accommodate them. As Senator Kett said, he was accommodated in a prison in Dublin, where he served.

In the year this measure was introduced, 1925, Stalin removed Trotsky from his power base in Russia, Tennessee banned the teaching of the theory of evolution, drink driving became an offence, the first traffic lights were erected in Piccadilly, William Butler Yeats sat in this Chamber, Hitler's Nazi Party disavowed violence and Germany signed the Locarno pact promising never to invade France. This issue was revisited in the Prison Visiting Committee Act 1972, some 31 years ago. The motion is, therefore, timely and constructive.

The Minister should look further. On 20 December 1998 the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, then Attorney General, made a scathing attack on the prisons service. He said prison officers were holding the State to ransom, overtime was out of control and the prison system was a scandal. He said only political determination would bring this to an end. He now has the opportunity to put this into effect. When will we have a new prisons Bill to deal with this area?

The Minister is eight months in office. Members know of the pre-election commitment for 2,000 extra gardaí on which we await developments. We would like more action from the Minister. I will not highlight other issues regarding the breakdown of law and order because they have been highlighted often in this House. However, much of the Minister's profile is based on chasing immigrants and Operation Hyphen. He is excellent with soundbites on issues such as these but, if he wants to prove himself in his position, he will need to do something more tangible to deal with crime. He has the opportunity which his experience as Attorney General will support.

An excessive amount of legislation passes through this House while the people are crying out for action from the Minister and the Government. I trust action will be taken. I do not want to return to points made by previous speakers with regard to justification as they were well made. This is a constructive motion. I hope some of the points made within it will be reflected in the Minister's future thinking. He has already started in that direction with his earlier comment that he is considering the appointment of prison visiting committees to which he is appointing people from adjoining geographical areas, which is a constructive move.

The other points made were well expressed in Senator Terry's motion which I call on the Government side of the House to support. I am confident that it will. Members opposite understand that it will help to spread respect for this Chamber.

A Senator mentioned harbour authorities. I know a lot about the one in my area.

Mr. J. Walsh

It was the Senator who mentioned the harbour authorities.

Mr. Finucane

I supported the merger of two ports because I felt it was for the overall benefit of the Shannon Estuary. At the time the then Minister for Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Fahey, seduced me to a degree with what he said.

A Senator

Did the Senator enjoy that?

Mr. Finucane

He said a lot of commercial and business people would be put on boards around the country. I hoped he would do so for Foynes. In fact, of the 12 members of the Shannon Foynes Port Company, six are Fianna Fáil councillors. Members need not talk to me about harbour boards.

Mr. B. Hayes

It is the numbers game.

A Senator

Intelligence is needed on boards.

Mr. Finucane

I know exactly what happens and will conclude on that point.

Ms Feeney

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, and thank the Minister, Deputy McDowell, for his presentation. Not alone will he be a reforming Minister but a dedicated one also. The Prison Visiting Committee Act was introduced in 1925 by the then Minister, Deputy Kevin O'Higgins. It was set up to be an independent prison watchdog on behalf of the public and a defender of offenders' rights. Senators Walsh and Kitt have outlined the areas covered by the Act and I am satisfied that the needs of prisoners are met and understood.

Prison visiting committees are to meet once per month. When I was carrying out research for this debate, I contacted some board members and asked when they would meet. I discovered that meetings were held midweek or early on a Saturday morning. I applaud the dedication of committee members. Civil Service rates for travel expenses are not great and I am not sure that I would leave a job midweek to travel to one of those boards, or get up early at the weekend. Committee members should be commended.

I am perplexed by the Fine Gael motion, although I am fond of Senator Terry. She and I have asked on several occasions on the Order of Business for the Minister to come to the House to discuss juvenile crime and the level of beatings and muggings of our youth. However, I do not understand the reasoning behind the motion. Fine Gael had a similar motion in the other House last week where Deputy Richard Bruton sought information. The party is, perhaps, trying to work very hard and point out inadequacies but I do not see any with regard to this motion. There must be very little wrong if Fine Gael is highlighting this aspect of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform's portfolio.

Senator Brian Hayes mentioned the appointment to prison visiting committees of people who live far from prisons and I was glad to hear the Minister's response. The Minister does not act on his own, but as part of a Cabinet which makes a collective decision. There are two parties in Government. Senator Hayes pointed out that one third of the members of prison visiting committees are political appointees.

Mr. B. Hayes

At least one third.

Ms Feeney

I accept that it is at least one third. Senators Terry, Henry and Tuffy have referred to political hacks criss-crossing the country to collect expenses. I would hate to think that the Senators would classify councillors as political hacks. All Senators know that councillors are the people who work hardest in the community. I do not need to remind Opposition Members that they are quick to defend councillors when they are criticised in this House.

Mr. B. Hayes

Not any of us.

Ms Feeney

I do not see why councillors should not sit on prison visiting boards.

Mr. B. Hayes

None of them are our councillors.

Ms Feeney

Senator Tuffy and other Opposition Senators asked why people with special expertise are not selected. The Minister has outlined why he would not like criminologists and similar people to be on the boards. The areas of education and medicine are covered by the prison service. We all know that prisoners can be very well educated after they have finished their prison sentences.

I would like to leave this motion aside for a moment to highlight some of the constructive areas that have been covered in the area of justice. Some 900 extra prison places have been created by this Government and its predecessor. When the former Minister, Nora Owen, was responsible for this area between 1995 and 1997—

Mr. B. Hayes

Does this relate to prison visiting committees?

Ms Feeney

—19% of prisoners were on temporary release. I refer to the coalition that was led by Fine Gael. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, might confirm that the relevant figure is now about 7%.

Mr. B. Hayes

Safety is breaking out.

Ms Feeney

I have probably strayed from the point.

Mr. Coonan

The Senator is not listening.

Ms Feeney

I have been listening and I appreciate that Senator Brian Hayes has asked me to return to the subject of this debate. Can I point out the importance of the visiting committees? They had an important role when Nora Owen was Minister, as they highlighted overcrowding and drug problems in the prisons. One does not hear of such problems today as a consequence of the good leadership of this Government. There would be an outcry from the Opposition if we were to abolish prison visiting committees in the morning.

Mr. B. Hayes

The Senator must be joking. Does she want to test us?

Ms Feeney

The Senators opposite would accuse us of trying to hide. My interpretation of the 1925 Act is that any person may apply for a place on a prison visiting committee. I cannot give names, but I assure the House that I know of one or two eminent people, who are not politicians and are not associated with any political party, who have served on such committees. It gives me great pleasure to support the Government's amendment to this motion.

Mr. McHugh

I would like to compliment Senator Terry on bringing forward this Private Members' motion. The Minister acknowledged that there are inadequacies in the system and that it needs to be reformed. Senator Feeney's attack on Senator Terry was out of line.

Ms Feeney

It was not an attack.

Mr. McHugh

Senator Feeney attacked my colleague for highlighting the inadequacies of our democratic system.

Ms Feeney

The word "attack" is too strong.

Mr. McHugh

The Senator undermined the motion before the House. This is the first time that the Minister has acknowledged that there are inadequacies – he put up his hands and said that reform is needed. In effect, he acknowledged Senator Terry's work. The Minister, Deputy McDowell, who is a member of the Progressive Democrats Party, has acknowledged that there are problems, but the Fianna Fáil Party has not accepted that. Perhaps this highlights a difference between the two parties in the Government.

Ms Feeney

The Minister accepted the amendment.

Mr. J. Walsh

Senator McHugh should read the first three lines of the amendment.

Ms Feeney

The Senator should have listened to the Minister's speech.

Mr. B. Hayes

The cracks are evident.

Dr. Mansergh

The Minister absolutely welcomed the amendment.

Ms Feeney

Senator McHugh was not here when the Minister spoke.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator McHugh, without interruption.

Mr. McHugh

The vivid cracks in the coalition between Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats were evident during last night's debate on the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill 2003 and are evident again today.

Dr. Mansergh

That is wishful thinking.

Mr. McHugh

Such differences are dangerous.

Ms Feeney

The Progressive Democrats support the amendment.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator McHugh, without interruption.

Mr. McHugh

I thank Senator Terry for introducing this motion and facilitating this timely debate. We should recognise her as the real reformer in this House.

Senators

Hear, hear.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I call Senator Terry.

Ms Feeney

Take a bow.

Mr. B. Hayes

The new Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

Ms Terry

I thank my colleague, Senator McHugh, for the wonderful compliment. I do not wish to boast about the reform that Fine Gael plans to introduce, but the purpose of this motion is to help to bring about such reform. I welcome the contribution of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell. I am happy with his speech, generally speaking, although I am disappointed that he instructed the Government parties to support the amendment to my party's motion.

Mr. J. Walsh

He asked all Senators, including Senator Terry, to support the amendment.

Ms Terry

He said he favours the Government amendment—

Ms Feeney

Rightly so, as it is better.

Ms Terry

—but I believe he favours the spirit of the Fine Gael motion in his heart. He certainly wants to bring about the reforms that we have suggested and I welcome that. As Senator McHugh has said, the differences between Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrats policies were obvious tonight.

Mr. B. Hayes

Hear, hear.

Ms Terry

It is obvious that times are changing. While I welcome a number of the points made by the Minister, I would like to raise some other issues. The Minister has said that he favours retaining the inspector and the visiting committees, but I am concerned that there may be some conflict between them if they are doing the same job. I asked the Minister if he does not trust the visiting committees to do the work they are supposed to do, but he did not answer. Why is an inspector needed if he trusts the committees? I welcome the fact that the inspector has pointed out to the Minister that there is a problem with racism in the prisons. We have heard that prisons have had to segregate prisoners because of racism. I wonder if the issue has been raised by any of the visiting committees? It is a serious indictment of the committees if this problem has not been raised.

Mr. B. Hayes

What are they doing?

Ms Terry

Perhaps I will have to rethink my position in relation to the inspector. The Minister has already taken the steps to implement some of the suggested reforms by appointing people from the county in which prisons are situated or from adjacent counties. That is a welcome development. I ask him to continue making such reforms and to publish the prisons service Bill that he states is necessary. It is inefficient and ineffective to have people criss-crossing the country. I am glad the Minister accepts that and is prepared to make the necessary change.

I fully support what Senator Henry said about the need for the visiting committees to publish their reports in order that we can peruse them. The Minister stated that they are available on request, but why not publish them? They should be published on an annual basis, or at least presented to the Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. I will be asking the Minister to supply them to me.

I welcome the fact that the Minister is open to receiving applications for positions on visiting committees.

Mr. J. Walsh

From Fine Gael.

Ms Terry

Again, he is accepting one of the reforms we are suggesting and opening up the process for people who wish to serve on the committees. These people will not have to be followers or supporters of the Government. If they were all Government supporters, a good service would not be delivered and the committees would be at one regarding how things work in the prisons.

The Minister called for the prisons service Bill to be published when he was a mere Deputy. Now that he is a Minister, I call on him to publish it as soon as possible because it is urgent and necessary in order to bring in the reforms we have outlined in our motion. I know he supports these reforms and I call on every Senator to support the motion.

Amendment put.

Tá

Bohan, Eddie.Brady, Cyprian.Brennan, Michael.Callanan, Peter.Daly, Brendan.Dardis, John.Dooley, Timmy.Feeney, Geraldine.Fitzgerald, Liam.Glynn, Camillus.Kenneally, Brendan.Kett, Tony.Kitt, Michael P.Leyden, Terry.

Lydon, Don.MacSharry, Marc.Mansergh, Martin.Minihan, John.Mooney, Paschal C.Moylan, Pat.O'Brien, Francis.O'Rourke, Mary.Ó Murchú, Labhrás.Ormonde, Ann.Phelan, Kieran.Scanlon, Eamon.Walsh, Jim.Wilson, Diarmuid.

Níl

Bannon, James.Bradford, Paul.Browne, Fergal.Burke, Paddy.Burke, Ulick.Coghlan, Paul.Coonan, Noel.Cummins, Maurice.Feighan, Frank.Finucane, Michael.Hayes, Brian.

Henry, Mary.Higgins, Jim.McCarthy, Michael.McHugh, Joe.Norris, David.O'Meara, Kathleen.Phelan, John.Ross, Shane.Ryan, Brendan.Terry, Sheila.Tuffy, Joanna.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Minihan and Moylan; Níl, Senators U. Burke and Finucane.

Amendment declared carried.

Motion, as amended, put and declared carried.