Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 27 Oct 2005

Vol. 181 No. 12

Prisons Bill 2005: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

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

I am pleased to have this opportunity to open the debate in the House on the Prisons Bill 2005. The purpose of the Bill is to provide for contracting out certain prisoner escort services; the closure of Mountjoy Prison, and prisoners participating in certain court hearings by means of a live television link from prison. The measures provided for in the Bill are intended to provide for a more efficient and effective running of the Prison Service.

Since becoming Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in June 2002, I have been committed to introducing measures to reform and modernise the prison system. While much has been achieved in recent years, we must continue to strive to ensure the State has a modern, humane and cost effective prison service that meets the highest international standards.

I recognised from the beginning that the target I had set for myself was ambitious. It would require major changes in how the prisons operated and significant capital expenditure. In seeking to modernise our prison system I have the full support of the Government in securing the necessary capital investment, for which I am grateful. I am satisfied that the modernisation programme completed and under way will serve us well into the future. It is never easy to bring about change. However, as legislators and policymakers, we must be prepared to look to what is in the overall national interest and beyond narrow local sectional interests.

On examining the prison system, one is confronted with two main challenges. These are the poor physical standards in some of our prisons, most notably Mountjoy and Cork, and the need to ensure our prisons are run efficiently and in a cost-effective manner. That said, I acknowledge other improvements in the prison system are also required and I will address these issues in a proactive way.

The rules governing our prisons date back to 1947. Successive Ministers with responsibility for justice chose to leave the substantive rules as they were. I was determined to ensure that, in tandem with improving and replacing our existing prison infrastructure, the governance of prisons would be set out in modern rules. To that end, last June I published draft prison rules on my Department's website. I intend to bring these rules into use at the earliest possible stage.

The House will be aware that the Government approved a series of measures in November 2003 in the event of failure to reach agreement with the Prison Officers Association on organisational change. Of these measures, the outsourcing of the prisoner escort service is relevant to this Bill. I stress that it has always been my preferred option that organisational change in the Prison Service be achieved through negotiation and with the co-operation of the Prison Officers Association. I am pleased that the proposal for organisational change has been accepted and is now being implemented, allowing for greater certainty in the allocation of resources. In previous years capital investment was curtailed by the constant drain on finances for overtime requirements. Following long and protracted negotiations, a comprehensive proposal for organisational change in the Prison Service was accepted in a second ballot of members of the Prison Officers Association last August. A majority of more than two to one favoured accepting the deal and I welcomed its acceptance. The revised working arrangements stand to benefit both management and staff.

The arrangements agreed in the revised proposal represent one of the most significant change programmes undertaken in the Prison Service in recent years, opening the way for greater flexibility, efficiency and cost effectiveness in every operational area of the State's prisons. Key measures agreed include the replacement of overtime with a new annual "additional hours" system which effectively caps the level of extra attendance costs in the service; the introduction of more efficient staffing and working arrangements backed by new agreed rosters; the establishment of a new Prison Service escort corps, PSEC, which will manage Prison Service escorts more efficiently and effectively through better co-ordination and the use of cellular vehicles; the rationalisation of prison stores and maintenance arrangements; the introduction of a new recruit prison officer grade with modified conditions of service and the elimination of static posts through the use of technology such as electronic gates and closed circuit television to allow the redeployment of staff.

The main benefits to the taxpayer will be greater control of costs, predictable future costs and a more effective service in the future. At the same time, staff will secure attractive, stable and predictable overall rates of remuneration. I am pleased to inform the House that the implementation of the agreed arrangements is proceeding apace. The timeframe for implementation is extremely challenging. Roll-out of the additional hours system which will replace the existing overtime system will begin next month and be completed by February 2006. A co-ordinated prisoner escort service utilising cellular vans will also be activated for all Dublin prisons by mid-November, extending across the service nationally early in the new year.

In accordance with the terms of the agreed proposal, phased payments to staff will be linked to progress on the change agenda. To date, progress has been sufficient to merit payment of an initial lump sum payment and progress is well advanced for the roll-out of the first phase of an annual hours system to replace overtime which will trigger payment of a new operational allowance to staff in the institutions concerned.

Provision has been made for a joint national monitoring and review committee, comprising representatives of management and staff with an agreed independent chairperson nominated by the Labour Relations Commission. It will decide, among other matters, on issues regarding the interpretation of the agreement where consensus cannot be reached. Local monitoring and review arrangements will also be put in place at each institution to oversee the work of the new system and address locally any difficulties that may arise, with recourse to the national committee if required.

Successful implementation of these measures will deliver savings to the Exchequer of €25 million per annum. I have made it clear on several occasions in this House and elsewhere that these savings are essential in bringing order to the cost base of our prisons. I am determined that these savings will be achieved as the roll-out of the change programme proceeds. The new working arrangements will take advantage of technological developments in prison design such as electronic locking systems. The use of video links is addressed in section 11 of the Bill, as well as in relation to visits for prisoners in the new prison rules.

Sections 2 to 7 of the Bill relate to the provision of prisoner escort services. When the Bill was published, it appeared that the proposal for organisational change would be rejected by prison officers. In those circumstances I would have had no choice but to contract out prisoner escort services if the Prison Service was ever to be viable. Fortunately, after further negotiations and a second ballot, we have now progressed to a stage where the proposal for organisational change has been accepted and it incorporates a co-ordinated prisoner escort service operated from within the Prison Service. As this is my preferred approach, I have no plans to contract out the service for the foreseeable future. Agreement is one thing; delivery is another matter. I, therefore, propose to retain sections 2 to 7 in the Bill, although I hope they will never have to be brought into force.

I will give the House a concise outline of the provisions dealing with the escort of prisoners. For the purpose of the Bill, a prisoner is a person in respect of whom an order of a court committing that person to prison is in force. It includes persons remanded in custody or sentenced to imprisonment from the moment the court has ordered their detention. Section 2 provides that the Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, enter into an agreement with a contractor to provide prisoner escort services. Such services would cover the transfer of prisoners to and from prison, their production in court and holding them in detention for those purposes. The service must be provided using persons certified by the Minister to be prisoner custody officers. Under section 3, an individual may apply for a certificate which will be granted only if the Minister is satisfied that the applicant is of good character, has been properly trained and is capable of performing the functions of the position. An applicant who is refused may appeal to the court against the refusal. Conditions may be attached to the issue of a certificate which will be valid for a period not exceeding five years.

Section 5 provides that a prisoner custody officer shall have the same powers as a prison officer, including the power to use reasonable force where necessary. Certain limitations on the power to search are imposed. Prisoner custody officers are obliged to prevent escapes, maintain order, comply with any court order relating to a prisoner and comply generally with the relevant prison rules.

Section 6 makes it an offence for a prisoner custody officer to disclose unauthorised information. Section 7 provides for the appointment of an officer to monitor the performance of contractors and submit a report to the Minister each year relating to the activities of the previous year. If the Minister is of the view that a particular individual, because of his or her behaviour or otherwise, is no longer fit to be a prisoner custody officer, the certificate may be revoked pursuant to section 4. A person who is not properly certified and purports to perform the functions of a prisoner custody officer shall be guilty of an offence.

In section 8 I am providing for the closure of Mountjoy Prison. This is linked to my plans to modernise the stock of prison accommodation. The section amends the Prisons Act 1933 by deleting the provision that excludes Mountjoy Male Prison and Mountjoy Female Prison from its scope. The effect will be to give the Minister the power to close Mountjoy Prison in the future by an order pursuant to section 2 of the Prisons Act 1933 which enabled the Minister to close a prison by order, but was expressed not to apply to Mountjoy Prison. While the effect and motive of this are not completely clear, one interpretation is that in 1933 there was no need to create a statutory power of closure in respect of Mountjoy Prison. Another interpretation is that under current law Mountjoy Prison cannot be closed. This amendment will remove any legal doubt as to whether that is possible. On its own, this measure might be regarded as almost a technical amendment but its importance relates to my determination to provide modern and humane prison facilities for all prisoners and staff.

Senators may be interested to note that Mountjoy Prison was the first purpose built prison in the State. Before its completion in 1850, prisons in Ireland were provided and operated by grand juries, the precursors to county councils. The Prisons Act 1933 originated from the need for legislation to validate an order made in November 1920 closing Tralee Prison. The Circuit Court found in 1932 that the legislative provisions available at the time under the Prisons (Ireland) Act 1877 were not sufficient to allow the prison to be closed and the premises transferred to Kerry County Council. The Prisons Act 1933 was to amend the statutory provisions governing the closing of local prisons and their subsequent disposal which had been contained in sections 30 and 31 of the 1877 Act. Difficulty had been experienced in the interpretation and application of these sections and as a result, there was considerable doubt as to the legal position of some closed prisons, portions of which were retransferred to county councils and others used for public purposes such as police barracks. These doubts were confirmed by a decision in 1932 in the High Court in relation to a prison in Kilkenny. The 1933 Act was to clarify the position for the future. Sections 30 and 31 of the Act of 1877 were repealed and replaced by more explicit provisions. The Attorney General of the time, introducing the Bill on Second Stage, specifically mentioned that Mountjoy Male Prison and Mountjoy Female Prison were excluded from the Bill as there was no reversionary interest in the prison vested in any local authority. The prison was exclusively State property.

Today we need new purpose built prison facilities to provide the range of facilities needed to cater for the type and range of prisoner population accommodated in, for example, the extended Mountjoy Prison campus. Today there are 855 inmates in the Mountjoy Prison complex divided between Mountjoy Male Prison with 499 inmates, St. Patrick's Institution with 184 and the Training Unit with 90, as well as 82 female inmates in the Dóchas Centre. The Mountjoy complex contains some 28% of the total national prison population.

It is neither operationally feasible nor economically sensible to redevelop the 20 acre site at Mountjoy at an estimated cost in excess of €400 million. New prisons will have reduced operational and maintenance costs. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, with the Prison Service and the OPW, set about acquiring a greenfield site in the greater Dublin area in an open and transparent manner. Up to 30 sites were offered and considered, averaging a per acre price of €200,000 with some sites having a price as high as €500,000 per acre. Despite the protestations of some, nobody has identified to me a 150 acre site within ten miles of Dublin city centre which is suitable for a prison site and which would be available to the Department at a lower price than that which has been agreed for the lands at Thornton near Dublin. Five acres of land with planning permission which formed part of the Thornton farm and which were retained by the owner have been priced at €1 million per acre by Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, the Fine Gael spokesperson on justice. Does anyone seriously suggest the remaining 150 acres could be purchased for €6 million? That suggestion has been made. A local estate agent confirmed recently on the RTE radio programme "Five Seven Live" that the price paid by the Department was what he would have expected.

Mr. Cummins

The Minister is clutching at straws.

Mr. M. McDowell

The development of the 150 acre Thornton site will produce a modern prison campus with the appropriate range of facilities and with room for future expansion. It will end the unacceptable practice of "slopping out" which the inmates of Mountjoy endure. It will prevent drugs being catapulted over the prison walls into the exercise yards. It will make it possible to have a drug-free prison system, which is very difficult at Mountjoy.

The sale of the valuable Mountjoy site, 20 acres abutting the Royal Canal site in Dublin, could bring in anything up to €100 million. It will go a substantial way towards delivering a modern new prison campus at Thornton. The north inner city will benefit from the redevelopment of the Mountjoy site. There is massive potential for the redevelopment and rejuvenation of this part of our capital city once the new prison campus is up and running.

I am also moving ahead with plans to develop a new modern prison for the Munster region on Spike Island. As with the Thornton development, the new prison will provide the range of facilities best suited to meet modern requirements. This prison building programme is aimed at moving us to a situation where, by and large, we will have single cell occupancy within the prison system. I am also extending capacity at the open prisons in Loughan House and Shelton Abbey. As many prisoners as possible should be accommodated in such institutions. I am extending the definition of "prison officer" in section 9 to allow for the definition to apply to a prisoner custody officer and I am providing for technical amendments in section 10 dealing with prison rules.

With regard to drugs, the replacement of the Mountjoy complex provides a long overdue opportunity to focus on designing drugs out of the prison environment. In line with the drugs policy for the Prison Service, which I will publish shortly, there will be an intensification of efforts in the prison system to prevent the availability of illicit drugs within prisons. This will involve the traditional means of effecting supply reduction and elimination — staff vigilance, physical searches and supervision of persons entering prisons — continuing to be reinforced by means of improved facilities and procedures for searches, as well as use of video surveillance and screening in visiting rooms, prison yards and other areas where drugs are likely to change hands.

I will bring forward legislative proposals through the Criminal Justice Bill, this Bill and the new prison rules which will underpin the physical structures being planned for the new prisons. Central to supporting future supply and demand reduction will be the introduction of mandatory drug testing as envisaged in the programme for Government. The new prison rules include specific provision for mandatory drug testing and, in this context, it is intended that later in the year, the Prison Service will commence implementation of a new strategy of mandatory drug testing, addiction counselling and treatment and increased measures to prevent drug usage to provide for a more complete system of rehabilitation.

Drugs in prison are a disaster. There is no point having people in prison if they have access to drugs, other than to protect the public from their presence on the street. There is no rehabilitation if hard drugs are present in prisons and no chance that people will go straight after prison if they emerge from prison with a hard drug usage problem. To those who suggest needle exchanges and sterilising fluid as part of the prison regime I respond with an emphatic "No". One can only stop drugs in prison by doing just that, not by tolerating them or having prison officers handing out needles to prisoners in the interests of the prisoners' health. That is confused thinking on a moral and practical plane. I wholly oppose it and will not countenance it.

The introduction of mandatory drug testing or MDT has a number of purposes, namely, to deter drug usage, to identify and treat those who misuse drugs and to provide information on the level and type of drug usage in prisons. That will demonstrate to governors their responsibility and performance targets. It is the responsibility of governors to ensure drugs are not in their prisons. It is a crime if there are drugs in a prison and it is an important part of the function of governors to keep their prisoners safe. Safe in this context means safe from drugs, not safe on drugs.

In January 2003, I established a committee on video conferencing, chaired by Mrs. Justice Susan Denham, to examine its potential for use for the conduct of trials. An interim report was completed in February 2004 and the final report became available in January 2005. In its interim report, the committee was of the view that the use of a live television link could be of value and that a number of pilot projects should be introduced. However, the committee was satisfied that legislation was required to enable the use of video conferencing facilities in the Irish criminal courts.

This legislation was prepared on the basis of the committee's interim report which only envisaged its use for pre-trial applications. As currently drafted, section 11 of the Bill provides that a court may direct that specified pre-trial hearings may proceed with the accused not physically present in the court but who may participate by means of a live television link to the prison where the accused is in custody. The court may not proceed with such televised hearings if it would be unfair to the accused or in certain other circumstances where it would not be appropriate, such as proper facilities not being available or issues being too complex.

The committee in its final report drew attention to the financial benefits of using video conferencing and also pointed to the advantages that had been identified in other jurisdictions, namely, the elimination of the security problems associated with prisoner transportation; the reduction in prisoner transportation costs; a reduction in tension at courtroom precincts by eliminating prisoner movement and waiting in holding cells; allowing prisoners to be released more quickly after a court hearing and the potential to improve the management of court hearings. In the final report the committee recommended that the scope for the use of video conferencing be expanded to include applications during a trial and after a trial.

The issue of the use of video conferencing in civil proceedings was also addressed in the final report. My officials are in consultation with the Attorney General's office on the additional matters raised in the final report and I intend to bring forward appropriate amendments to the Bill on Committee Stage to reflect those consultations. I wish to signal now, lest anyone thinks I am ignoring the final report of the Denham committee, that I will expand the terms of this Bill to take full account of it to the extent possible.

In conclusion, I wish to underline the importance I attach to the provision of modern and humane conditions for both prisoners and staff. For young men — and they are most frequently sent to prison — going to prison is a disaster in their lives. Incarceration should be a last resort and should only be used where no other way of dealing with an offender is practical, reasonable and consistent with the maintenance of the rule of law. However, with an expanding population there will be a requirement for a substantial prison estate in Ireland. There is no reason that it should not be of the highest quality. There should be, for example, athletics facilities, football pitches and the like so prisoners can have a rehabilitative experience. There should be space for educational facilities in our prisons. Prisons should not be Victorian hellholes but modern places which are, in so far as is consistent with security, uplifting and enlightening for inmates rather than depressing and dehumanising. If we put the necessary investment in place, we will achieve such standards.

This Bill, together with the new prison rules and the prison officers' agreement on revised work practices, are part of a huge reforming process. We will change the way prisons are run, where they are located and the results that are achieved from the point of view of prisoners. I look forward to hearing Senators' views on the Bill and will give careful consideration to the points raised in the debate. I look forward to any proposals in respect of amendments on Committee Stage.

Mr. Cummins

I welcome the Minister after his marathon here last night. There will be no objection from this side of the House to the provision of a modern and humane prison service. Many of our prisons urgently require demolition, which will happen in the case of Mountjoy.

I share the Minister's views on drug free prisons. However, there must be proper rehabilitation and modern medical facilities in the prisons. By all means let there be drug free prisons but the other facilities must also be put in place. There will not be a drug free prison unless that is done.

The Bill is short and has three objectives, namely, to privatise certain prison escort services, to provide for live video links for pre-trial hearings and to allow the State to close Mountjoy Prison. I am generally in agreement with the Minister on the provision of live video links for hearings. This measure is primarily designed to reduce the number of prisoner transfers to and from the courts, thereby reducing the cost to the State through the use of video conferencing for certain preliminary court hearings. Instead of being physically brought to court and incurring the necessary expense and security risks, a prisoner can interact with the court by video or television link. We support this provision.

The use of new technology, especially where it has a proven track record, is welcome. However, it is essential that the prisoner be able to interact with the court, that is, to hear and be heard and to consult confidentially with his lawyer. These matters must be catered for as well. This provision should result in significant cost savings, which is welcome.

That is more than can be said for the Minister's aim to privatise certain prison escort services. I am glad that agreement was reached eventually with the Prison Officers Association and that the deal incorporates a co-ordinated prisoner escort service, but the Minister's response to privatise the system in his row with the Prison Officers Association was the result of the high overtime bill. His answer was to reduce the prison officers' hours by outsourcing prisoner escort services. This has been done in other jurisdictions and no doubt it can save money — the Minister mentioned a figure of €25 million — but it could also cost more eventually. What the Minister was suggesting on outsourcing goes directly against the interdepartmental report on staffing and the operation review team, dated July 2002, which states that privatisation of these services will not save money. According to the remarks made by the Minister at the time of publication of the Bill, his motivation in bringing it before the Oireachtas was to allow for a more cost effective and efficient system within the Prison Service, but there is no basis for this belief and the opposite may happen. The bigger problem with this outsourcing and privatising is that the quality of service could decrease when a private company gets its hands on it. Profit will become the primary motive in a situation like that.

Sections 2 to 7, inclusive, deal with the provision of the prisoner escort service, the certification of prisoner custody officers and their functions, etc. I have grave reservations that the level of security could decrease if this ever happens. As we are dealing with the Bill, as published, we must speak about it. I wonder what will satisfy the Minister as regards the suitability and fitness of the prison custody officer to carry out his or her duties. What checks will be put in place to ensure these people are properly trained and have relevant experience? There is also the intention to issue a certificate of fitness for five years for a prison custody officer. Who is the arbiter on fitness, training, good character, etc.? Will the private contractor or the State be responsible if officers commit human rights violation? Not enough thought has been put into this system. If the Minister could not handle his fight with the Prison Officers Association, he should not have started it because the taxpayer should not have to pay for the high price solutions. If it comes to that, it could be a high price solution and it is of the Minister's making.

There is an inherent contradiction in the Minister's actions on the proposed move of Mountjoy Prison to north Dublin, where the prison will be further away from the courts and prisoner transfers will be more expensive and probably more dangerous. Is it intended to provide for a court building near the new prison? Would it make sense to provide for a court building adjacent to the new prison? That could possibly save money in the long run.

My party has consistently stated that the conditions in Mountjoy Prison are untenable and we have repeatedly called for something to be done about them, but the Minister's responses on the issue have been disjointed and inconsistent. The women's prison, which cost over €18 million and is a good facility, will be knocked down and the State will spend a fortune on Thornton Hall.

I could speak about Thornton Hall for the next half hour but I have no intention of doing so. The site at Thornton Hall was bought by the Department at considerable cost to the taxpayer. Serious questions were raised about the suitability of the site and the manner of the purchase thereof. The Minister has doggedly stuck to his decision — he did so again here today — to purchase this particular site despite the availability of potentially more suitable sites which would be less expensive. No matter what he states, that is the case.

Mr. M. McDowell

Where are they?

Mr. Cummins

He has also rejected a call for an investigation of the matter to be carried out by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Of what is he afraid? If he is so doggedly pursuing this and making statements like he did today, he should have nothing to fear from an investigation carried out by the Comptroller and Auditor General. We welcome the closure of Mountjoy because the conditions there are appalling but it is a pity that its proposed replacement should be shrouded in such controversy.

In general, we will be supporting the area of advances in technology and video conferencing. We have reservations about other areas, as I have outlined. I will not dwell any longer on the Thornton Hall issue because the Minister knows my party's position on that matter. We all are in favour of a more modern and humane prison system in the country and we will support the efforts of the Minister and the Government in that regard.

Mr. J. Walsh

I, too, welcome the Minister to the House. I am sure he will be relieved to hear that I am supporting the Bill here today.

Mr. Cummins

That is a change.

Mr. J. Walsh

It is a short Bill. While much more voluminous legislation has come before us, the Bill will make quite an impact due to the changes contained therein. The three issues, which have been outlined by the Minister and supported by Senator Cummins, will have a considerable impact on the operation of prison services.

The appointment of contractors, which has been discussed here previously, is a good idea. While the Minister has said he does not intend using this provision in the short term, nonetheless it should be in the Bill. In that regard, I note that it was prompted because of difficulties within the Prison Service.

I would take a different view from Senator Cummins. Within the public services there is an adherence to bad practice, which is often supported by the unions and which is totally at variance with what has happened in the private sector. Unions in the private sector, because of high unemployment and all that occurred during the 1970s and 1980s, in particular, saw that it was only through partnership, working together with companies, that they could ensure the long-term well-being, employment security and improvements in conditions and wages of their own members. Unfortunately, that has been slow in coming to the public service. As a consequence there are headline areas of bad practice. In fact, it is fairly endemic in the public service.

The Prison Service was one of those areas and I compliment the Minister on taking it on. It is not easy. Obviously the nature of politics is that the Minister has the Opposition criticising him for the fact that there is a problem when he is doing his best to ensure that future practice is founded on a more realistic and sensible basis than was the case in the past.

Undoubtedly the Prison Service had many such difficulties. In fairness to prison officers, who may have been sheltered because of this and may have been beneficiaries of bad practice, it takes a little courage and enlightenment on their part to recognise that and I welcome their support of the changes through the ballot, by two to one. In many ways, it is an example of what can be done in other sectors within the public sector.

The prison custody officers provision is a good innovation. I note that the Bill includes a provision that certification by the Minister is essential in order to engage people by contractors, who are authorised to do this work. That is a reasonable and prudent precaution. I am not convinced an applicant who is refused would take the appeal course through the courts as that might be too cumbersome. Will the Minister consider the possibility of an appeals officer rather than involve the courts? The courts trundle on and they are just as typical of outdated or bad practice. They need improvement and the removal of any extra workload from them is a step in the right direction.

The Minister intends that the functions would be in accord with those of prison officers, which makes sense. The person must be capable of performing the duties, undergo training and be a fit person. It is proper that he has built into the legislation a system whereby an officer will be appointed to monitor the contracting arrangements and how they function and to report annually to the Minister in this regard. The purpose of this is to make the system more cost effective. I hope the new procedures within the Prison Service will obviate the need to use this provision, but if it is more cost effective, it should be used.

It is good to see excessive levels of overtime removed and rationalisation of stores and maintenance arrangements. This is worthwhile and will achieve a saving of €25 million. The elimination of static posts through the use of technology which will allow the redeployment of staff is also welcome. In this regard, it is regrettable that recently our general practitioners, who are extremely well rewarded for spending in some cases just a matter of minutes with patients, obstructed the introduction of the new general practitioner-only medical cards. When the issue was resolved, the IMPACT trade union suggested that because of the increased workload the change involved, it should enter the fray to extract further moneys from taxpayers for its subscribers. That shows a level of detachment from the real world.

This economy would never have progressed were that type of mentality predominant. That attitude was with us in the private sector in the 1960s and 1970s, but it evaporated because people saw it was counterproductive. The same modern thinking must be introduced into the public service. It is extraordinary that after 16 or 17 years of partnership this has not happened. If it is not provided for in the next partnership arrangement, we should not enter into such an agreement. We must modernise public services and they must be productive. The provision of a computer or extra equipment is no reason for extra payment for public service workers. That does not happen in the private sector nor in any competitive economy.

Mr. Cummins

I am glad the Senator has changed his views in that regard.

Mr. J. Walsh

My views on this have been consistent throughout my political life.

Mr. Cummins

The Senator's party is not very consistent on it.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Jim Walsh, without interruption.

Mr. J. Walsh

I recall taking issue with a county manager of some standing 20 years ago with regard to reducing the level of expenditure within the county. I suggested a saving of £100,000 and identified and itemised how that could be done. He took me to task and said that the service to the community in the county would collapse as a consequence of my suggestions. The following year when Fianna Fáil came to power — when because of the profligacy of the Labour-Fine Gael Government of the time the country was almost bankrupt and the IMF was threatening to come in and take over — it took strong steps to reduce expenditure. That county council had its expenditure cut by £1 million. I did not have to make any suggestions then about where savings could be made as the county manager was quite happy to identify where they could be made, despite the fact that the previous year the £100,000 saving I suggested would have collapsed the whole service. This discipline must be imposed within the service because it is simply not there.

I welcome the provisions in the Bill that will lead to the probable and earliest possible closure of Mountjoy Prison. Without doubt, it is an outdated, Victorian institution which should not be part of our prison services. People should not be put into the type of situation where slopping-out is part of the daily environment. It is difficult to get people in such conditions to concentrate on rehabilitation. These conditions are demeaning. There is a stark contrast between visits to Mountjoy and visits to the Dóchas Centre, which is a fine modern institution for the retention of offenders.

I agree fully with the Minister that incarceration should be a last resort. Unfortunately, all too often we see people emerge from prisons, often after relatively minor offences, well equipped to progress to more serious crime. Within prison they have made contact with a network that brings them into a more serious crime regime. We must avoid this. Community service, fines, suspended sentences, restorative justice and court orders restricting movement are alternatives that should be used to make people recompense society and rehabilitate offenders. Prison should be a last resort. The amount of drugs available in prisons must also be counterproductive to achieving any success in rehabilitation of prisoners. The Minister recognises that and I am glad he intends to take more stringent steps in that regard. Hopefully, the construction of a new prison will assist that process.

I am glad that, arising from the most recent report, the Minister intends to extend the trial use of video links in pre-trial court hearings. I agree with him that video linking should be used to the maximum extent possible. I have some concern with regard to a construction in the Bill which states a court "may" direct, thereby making the provision discretionary. I fear interpretation of this by a court will err on the side of caution towards the prisoner. The idea that something is unfair to the accused could be widely interpreted. Will the Minister consider tightening that provision as the Bill proceeds? In a situation where video linking could prejudice the defence of the prisoner, there is sufficient reason it should not be used. If, however, a prisoner just wants to be able to eyeball or intimidate a witness, it is not necessary that he or she is present in the court and a video link would suffice.

There are accompanying costs to the presence of prisoners in court, for example, Garda time. We have had much debate here on Garda resources. Any local superintendent can tell us that on court days large numbers of gardaí are tied up with the courts. Also, because of the inefficiencies within the court system and how it operates, gardaí can be tied up indefinitely and may have to go back on a second day on the same case. This is wasteful of manpower and something must be done in this regard. I compliment the Minister because the use of video-link evidence in trials is a step in the right direction. However, it may not be utilised to its proper extent so I believe that the avoidance of its use should be the exception rather than the rule. Video-link evidence can lead to considerable savings and has been used successfully in other countries.

I welcome the provisions of the Bill, which will have an impact. The Bill is another step in the essential task of improving the operation, efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the Prison Service.

Dr. Henry

I welcome the Minister to the House. This Bill is very interesting. I, like Senator Cummins, will start by examining the use of video-link evidence, which comprises the final part of the Bill. I have witnessed the operation of video-link evidence and read the interim report of Mrs. Justice Susan Denham in respect thereof. I have not read the final report but I believe video-link evidence could be extremely useful.

Many people have a consultation with their legal advisers before their court appearance. Will these prisoners be able to receive visits from their legal advisers at the prison before giving evidence via video-link? The Minister is nodding.

Mr. M. McDowell

Teleconferencing visits will also be allowed.

Dr. Henry

The physical presence of a legal adviser at the prison where the video-link evidence is to be given is very important. I am not happy with the scenario of the solicitor sitting in his or her office consulting via video-link with the prisoner in prison. Will it entail a considerable amount of travelling by the legal profession? Will lawyers, as opposed to prisoners, be forced to spend a considerable amount of time travelling around the country in vans? I am sure this matter can be sorted out.

Mr. Cummins

I cannot see the legal profession travelling in vans.

Dr. Henry

I am sure the Minister will explain when he replies.

Mr. M. McDowell

If Senator Cummins had his way, many lawyers might be forced to travel in vans.

Dr. Henry

It is very important that prisoners are able to talk to their legal advisers in person before they give evidence by video link because face-to-face communication is not the same as talking to someone via video link. It is certainly not the same when one is having a medical consultation with someone. I am sure the Minister will give us further information.

I have no problem, in principle, with private firms running prison escort services but I am anxious that we do not do so simply because it is cheaper. A large proportion of prisoners are violent and dangerous individuals. One prisoner escaped from a hospital at gunpoint recently. The general public should not be put in danger by plans to cut the costs of the prison escort service. Under the new system proposed in the Bill, prison custody officers are to receive training, the amount of which has not been specified. However, we know that prison officers' training is not very long. I would like more details regarding the kind of training prison custody officers will receive because they will be involved with violent and dangerous individuals. They will rarely escort those accused of petty crimes.

Under the terms of the Bill, prisoners can be escorted to places other than prison so violent, dangerous and psychotic prisoners could be escorted to the Central Mental Hospital or other hospitals. Will there be any gradation in cases of which prison officers or prison custody officers will be in charge? It appears from the Bill that both groups will do the same kind of work. There should be a thorough examination of the kind of people prison custody officers will be escorting because I am sure the Minister does not wish to see the public put in danger.

I can understand the Minister's reason for moving Mountjoy Prison; it is very valuable property. The prisoners will be moved to a site that has been likened to outer Mongolia by some people. I am sure a better prison will be built on the new site; it could not be worse than the current prison. I recently brought some Italian visitors around the current prison and nearly died of shame when we visited the basement. I have visited Italian prisons and one would not see anything like Mountjoy Prison in the Italian system, apart from the oldest prisons which are kept as ancient monuments. It is a disgraceful prison. I will not address the rights or wrongs of the property that has been acquired for the new prison because I know little about real estate.

There is a severe shortage of hostels for people released from prison. People frequently object when released prisoners are given houses in their areas. In light of the very large proportion of prisoners incarcerated in Mountjoy Prison, will the Minister promise to build a few hostels for both men and women near the site of the new prison? Some people leave prison and have nowhere to go but the streets. I see that I am making progress on this Bill.

Under the terms of the Bill, Loughan House and Shelton Abbey will apparently become private prisons. I am not sure if Spike Island will be reopened as a private institution. I was concerned about a report by the prisons inspectorate which recommended privatising some prisons. I do not have a deep-rooted objection to privatising prisons; it would be excellent if it was the better option. However, I have never read a piece of good academic research which examined the merits of private and public prisons thoroughly. Private prisons must be run for profit and it is very difficult when one is looking at the cost per prisoner to find out whether the prisoners were in the same category, given the same treatment or had a lower or higher recidivism rate.

I am grateful to the Irish Penal Reform Trust for supplying me with information and my researcher, Kasey Cleary, who has carried out research into the US prison service. We must discover the best course of action before we start privatising prisons. If one looks at the US prison service, where there is a considerable amount of privatisation, the costs of running private and public prisons in Iowa are much higher than those in Colorado. One then discovers that pay rates are lower in Colorado and that medical facilities in the state's private prisons are not licensed by the state's Department of Public Health and the Environment. None of us wants to end up with substandard prisons simply because they are cheaper.

The Minister is aware from my contributions to other debates that I am less than enthusiastic about expanding the Prison Service, which is incredibly costly and has a recidivism rate of nearly 90%. At the same time, our probation and welfare service is pathetically starved of funds. A ridiculous state of affairs exists whereby people are repeatedly given very short prison sentences, which only seem to train them for their return to prison. I query the value of building more prisons. We would be better off using international developments in restorative justice and drugs courts, both of which have been successful in Ireland, rather than developing an enthusiasm for building very expensive prisons. It makes no difference if they are public or private prisons because private operators must be given subsidies to build prisons so the money must come from the public purse. Public prisons are built directly by the State. I have little enthusiasm for further prison building.

The technological improvements in prisons like Cloverhill, such as electronic locking and the use of handprints to facilitate access, have helped to improve the conditions of prison staff. I am glad the Minister came to an agreement with the prison officers, who do a job, especially in Mountjoy Prison, that would not be the choice of many people. I agree with the Minister that the conditions in Mountjoy Prison are outrageous. It is extraordinary to think there was in-cell sanitation in the prison until the 1930s, when someone decided it should be taken away as part of an economy drive. We should be careful when deciding to pursue economy drives. The Minister spoke earlier about confused moral thinking about drug-free prisons. I am sure I was being paranoid when I thought the Minister was looking at me when he made those remarks.

Mr. M. McDowell

I was not referring to the Senator.

Dr. Henry

The level of drug abuse in prisons is outrageous. On several occasions, prisoners or their relations have spoken to me about prisoners who did not have any involvement in drug abuse until they went to jail, which is really terrible. I have visited drug-free prisons in other countries, including Maiano Prison in Spoleto, the highest security prison in Italy. Some of the prisoners in that jail have been given sentences of 25 or 30 years. I did not ask what they are in prison for because I did not want to find out. The Minister has placed great emphasis on surveillance and mandatory drug testing, which is all very well, but I am informed that diversion programmes are the most successful way of keeping prisoners away from drugs. I wish the Minister had mentioned education, which is terribly important, in that context. The Minister, for whose support I am grateful, is aware that I am an enthusiastic advocate of the dramatic productions which take place in Mountjoy Prison. Prisoners are keen to point out that those who are involved in such productions, including those who have a history of drug-taking, do not take drugs. We can help to reduce the level of drug-taking in our prisons by getting prisoners involved in more diversionary programmes.

The last time I visited Mountjoy Prison, prisoners were using machines to sew towels and jeans, etc. We have not returned to the days of sewing mail bags by hand. The prisoners improved their sewing skills when they completed the big project of making 85,000 flags for the Special Olympics World Summer Games in 2003. If one talks to prisoners, most of whom are so young it is pathetic, they will tell one they would do anything to get out of their prison cells. They are happy to do any kind of work or participate in any form of education. If one goes around the back of the prison, one will see prisoners making paving stones. If one goes to the metal workshop, one will see prisoners working on various metal appliances, such as the frames for park benches. It is somewhat facile, which is a dreadful word to use, simply to talk about mandatory urine testing and surveillance, etc. It is extremely important to encourage prisoners to want to stop taking drugs. Prisoners will give up drugs if they are told they cannot help out with the play, which all of them want to do, if they continue to take drugs. Carrots are frequently more effective than sticks in such circumstances.

I wish the Minister, Deputy McDowell, well with his proposals in this Bill. It is regrettable that our prisons have been sorely neglected for so long. I do not think the best thing to do is to build more prisons so that we have more prison places. The experience of other jurisdictions should teach us that no matter how many prison spaces are provided, they will get filled. I would like far more money to be invested in the probation and welfare service. I urge caution in respect of some of the Minister's proposals which may mean that things are cheaper, as we have to ensure that things are safer as well. I am sure the Minister would not wish to make any progress without taking safety considerations into account.

Mr. Kett

I welcome the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to the House. Like my colleague, Senator Jim Walsh, I assure the Minister that I support his proposals in this legislation. Senator Walsh did not mention that we can hold him responsible in many ways for what happened last night because his substitute during that debate was Senator Cox.

I welcome the practical Bill that is before the House. As Senator Cummins said, there are three main planks to the legislation. The Minister has chosen to contract out the prison escort service. I applaud the position taken by the Minister on that issue throughout the discussions with the prison officers. He tackled the immoral and unsustainable system that meant that a small number of prison officers could accrue overtime earnings which were greater than their gross pay. I agree that contracting out the escort service to reduce overtime payments is the best way forward. I am sure it will lead to severe cost reductions, thereby benefitting taxpayers. I agree with the Minister's decision to allow for the possible sale of the Mountjoy Prison complex, as provided for in this Bill. The introduction of video conferencing is another laudable and desirable development that will save the taxpayer considerable amounts of money. It is right that it will entitle prisoners to participate in an orderly way in a decent and humane situation, to develop their potential while they are in prison and to prepare to return to society.

Mountjoy Prison is located in a part of Dublin that I represented for 17 years on Dublin City Council. My former colleague in this house, Deputy Costello, who also represents that part of Dublin, is an ardent supporter and defender of prisoners' rights. When I listened to the Dáil debate on this issue, I was slightly confused to hear Deputy Costello trying to lambaste the Minister. Nobody succeeds in lambasting Deputy McDowell. I found it hard to reconcile Deputy Costello's comments on the possible sale of Mountjoy Prison with his reputation. He spoke about possible archaeological finds as a means of preventing the sale of the prison. I found it odd that the Deputy, who has defended prisoners over the years, was trying to block the Minister's attempts to develop state-of-the-art facilities for prisoners in Thornton Hall. That is the way I looked at it, in any event, and that is the way it came across. Nobody can make a legitimate case against the Minister's proposal to sell Mountjoy Prison, which is an outdated Victorian complex, as the Minister and Senator Jim Walsh have said. The ability of the prison to serve the purpose for which it is used has passed. It is overcrowded and in poor condition. It is badly equipped to deal with the problems which need to be addressed in the prisons system. Anyone who has visited Mountjoy Prison recently will agree that it is depressing and inhumane. I am sure people will argue that the Minister is throwing good money after bad because some necessary improvements have been made to it.

The people of this country, which has a young population, have much more money in their pockets than ever before. They encounter many opportunities to end up on the wrong side of the law. The Government is dealing with the problems in the justice system by putting more gardaí on the streets and by offering those who end up on the wrong side of the law the humanity of serving their time in decent surroundings. Mountjoy Prison has been criticised by the Council of Europe's Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment and by the Inspector of Prisons and Places of Detention. People are slopping out in Mountjoy Prison, just as people in ordinary houses had to do at the start of the 20th century.

Anyone who visits Mountjoy Prison is aware that drugs are freely available there. There are many ways and means of getting drugs into the complex. Prisoners can use their mobile telephones to arrange for drugs to be thrown over the wall of the prison, which is set right against the street. People do not have to use cars or buses to get to the prison, as they will have to do, more or less, when the prisoners move to their new surroundings, so they can walk to the prison to supply drugs to prisoners. The people of the area around Mountjoy Prison have grown up and lived with the prison without having too many problems with it. The worst thing to happen in the locality was probably the shooting of a prisoner earlier this year.

A young man was released from prison and shot half an hour later in broad daylight in front of shopkeepers and members of the public going about their business.

However, by and large, for a complex set in a built-up area in the heart of the city, there were few problems. This should be some comfort to the residents of the Thornton Hall area because few people live close to the site. Its sale will bring about a regeneration of the area which I represented and of which I am very fond. I hope that when the planners develop and regenerate that area, they allow for the building of fewer of the skyscrapers that have begun to appear throughout the city. I am sure Senator Brady, who also represents the area, will be shoulder to shoulder with me in ensuring this does not happen.

The Mountjoy Prison complex is incapable of serving as a centre of rehabilitation — it probably never was. Prisoners should no longer have to put up with the conditions there. No more money should be spent on it because that would be financial suicide and the Minister could rightly be held up to ridicule if he did so. The idea of moving the prison makes good sense.

I understand the concerns of local residents at Thornton Hall. Members have experienced similar local objections in inner cities in regard to the opening of drugs rehabilitation centres by the health boards. We have all attended public meetings at which residents threw their hands in the air and cried wolf. However, they eventually settled down despite the centres being located closer to their homes than the Thornton site will be to residents there. Local residents came around and in the end became quite friendly with some of the individuals being rehabilitated.

Video conferencing is a terrific idea, so much so that on reading the explanatory information on it, I wondered why it had taken so long to happen. If video conferencing works to an optimum level, it will almost render the first element of the Bill unnecessary, which would be wonderful. I realise it will not be possible to video conference on all occasions and that it will be necessary to take some people to court. However, it will remove the security element, the financial element and other elements that remain a cause of concern.

This is a fine, practical Bill and I look forward to its implementation.

Mr. P. Burke

I welcome the Minister to the House and wish him well with the Bill. Like Senator Cummins, I will raise several issues which I hope the Minister will clarify.

Why does the Minister not envisage court services being provided at the proposed site at Thornton Hall? It is a large, 150 acre site with much room for expansion. I would have thought court services would be provided to alleviate some of the issues with regard to the escort of prisoners to and from courthouses that will no doubt arise when the Bill is enacted.

Will the Minister expand on the contracting out of prisoner escort services? He stated:

The proposal for organisational change has been accepted and it incorporates a co-ordinated prisoner escort service operated from within the Prison Service. As this is my preferred approach, I have no plans to contract out the service for the foreseeable future.

However, the Minister proposes to retain sections 2 to 7 of the Bill in case there is a problem. I presume this is in case the Prison Service falls down in its duty and is unable to undertake the service, in which case it would be contracted out. What would happen in the meantime given that prisoners would still have to be taken to court? Would the Garda Síochána have to take over the service? From my reading of the Bill, I thought contracts would be awarded and that we would have competition for this service. It is clear there will be no competition and that the service will be carried out within the Prison Service. Many prison officers who do not wish to work overtime must do so at present. This will be another function for the Prison Service and additional prison officers will have to be employed to carry it out.

I agree with the Minister that there is no place for drugs in prisons. Some years ago, the Minister attacked a former Minister for Justice, Mrs. Nora Owen, when he stated she should be able to rid prisons of drugs within six weeks and that if he took over as Minister, he would achieve this within six weeks.

Mr. Cummins

He did not achieve it in six years.

Dr. Mansergh

At least he is trying to do it.

Mr. P. Burke

Since that time, the Minister served a five-year period as Attorney General.

Mr. M. McDowell

I did not serve as Attorney General for five years.

Mr. P. Burke

Since then, he has served as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform for three and half years. I presume that as the Minister gets more familiar with the north side of Dublin, he has come to understand it is not easy to get rid of drugs, particularly from Mountjoy Prison. Nonetheless, I agree with the Minister that there should be no drugs in prisons. He would have the full backing of almost all persons in the State in his efforts to achieve this end. I would like the Minister to clarify the points I have made.

Mr. Brady

I welcome the Minister to the House and welcome the publication of the Bill, which, as Senator Kett noted, has been awaited for some time in our area. I welcome the proposed contracting out of prisoner escorts. Anyone who has visited the accident and emergency unit in the Mater Hospital will know that prisoners being escorted in and out of the hospital in handcuffs and chains are a regular sight. This can be quite intimidating for members of the public, particularly children. I welcome the savings that will accrue from this change, which I hope will come into operation.

It is in everybody's interest, including that of prisoners, that video conferencing is introduced because it will provide a clear record. I realise that certain questions remain as to its legality but it will certainly be in the interests of the courts, lawyers in particular, because it will save much time and energy which is wasted at present. With the courts and prisons in close proximity in my area, droves of prison officers and gardaí are regularly seen travelling to and from the courts when they could be on other duties. It is a serious waste of Garda time but it also takes two or three prison officers to escort one prisoner for what might be a ten-minute or a full day hearing. Video conferencing is to be greatly welcomed.

I remember the first time I visited Mountjoy Prison. The atmosphere made it the most intimidating place in which I had ever been. All Members will agree that it was a good idea when it was built in the 1800s. Unfortunately, it has not kept up with the times. Prisoners are still slopping out and padded cells continue to be in use.

Whatever about the prison's historical element, for many Dublin people it has a sentimental value. Most mornings I meet a man in Drumcondra who tells me about his cousin who is buried in Mountjoy and what he had done in the Rising and the Civil War. However, there are others who will be glad to see the back of it, including its clients. The transfer can be achieved if it is handled sensitively and planned properly.

Hangman's house has a particular historical significance. Yet many who remember it are passing on and the connections are being lost. In Dublin, there is a strong tradition of handing down stories and family history. As Senator Kett said, Mountjoy Prison plays a large part in the Dublin Central constituency, whether it is through local business, staff using local facilities, vans coming and going or people who attend our clinics visiting relatives there.

I have visited Mountjoy Prison many times and have several friends on the staff. The work done there is exceptional but much of it goes unrecognised. For example, through the training unit, the inmates supply the children in Temple Street Hospital and others with top quality toys every Christmas. I had the pleasure of seeing a garden for senior citizens produced by the community working parties in a nursing home on the Navan Road. These are the activities we do not hear about. Many of the staff are dedicated to the welfare of their clients. It will be good if this can be maintained in the transfer of the prison. The ethos that has emerged in Mountjoy over the years under many governors, particularly Mr. Lonergan, must be maintained and nurtured.

I have met the St. Margaret's-Rolestown Action Group and I am aware of the legal and other issues about the proposed site. The group has valid concerns but, if it is dealt with sensitively, the site chosen will be ideal. Some consideration must be given to the location of the mental hospital on the site and the other facilities to be put on the prison campus. The immediate residents have some concerns but with proper and rational consultation these can be addressed.

We have been anticipating the Bill's publication. As Senator Kett said, it is of particular significance for those of us from the Dublin Central constituency. The Minister and his officials have put much work into properly framing the Bill. If it needs to be tweaked here and there, it can be done on Committee Stage. I wish it every success.

Dr. Mansergh

I welcome the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Bill to the House. His predecessor, the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy O'Donoghue, began a modernisation programme for prisons and got so far. I am glad the Minister is carrying it forward and is determined to establish humane and modern conditions in our prisons. No Member wants prisoners living in Victorian institutions which, every year, are criticised by prison visiting committees as being substandard. This programme is part of an important reform process.

Until I heard the Minister's speech, I had reservations about the Bill. I would not have been happy if prisoner escorts were to be outsourced and not done by the Prison Service. However, the Minister said his negotiations, although long and protracted, with the Prison Officers Association have been successfully concluded and it is not his intention to activate that provision, provided agreements are carried out in the future.

The Minister has grasped the nettle of prison officers' work practices, conditions, and overtime pay. It was necessary and I am glad that, with the tacit support of most parties in this House, he has brought this to a successful conclusion. It is more efficient for short hearings to be done by video conferencing without the paraphernalia associated with bringing people under escort from Portlaoise for a several minute hearing in Dublin. This obviously uses up an enormous amount of resources. For proper court hearings such escorts are necessary but they are not for brief formal hearings.

I applaud the Minister's aspiration to remove drugs from prisons while accepting the practicality of such an exercise will be extremely difficult. There are two attitudes to this question. I pick up, subliminally, an attitude that there should be a liberal tolerance towards drugs in prisons. I am not of that view and agree with the Minister. We have been somewhat lax on this matter over several years, allowing the problem to grow. This matter is part of the justification for a greenfield site.

I endorse Senator Brady's comments on ensuring the historical dimensions of Mountjoy Prison are catered for. One of the greatest visitor attractions in Dublin is Kilmainham Gaol, a well run site. I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that Spike Island also has significant historical connotations. A few pages in John Mitchel's Jail Journal are given over to it. I ask him to ensure its historic parts are preserved in some way.

The only regrettable thing about the move away from Mountjoy is that there is a modern women's prison there which cost a significant amount in Government funding. I am sure the Minister and the Government have taken this into account in making a balanced decision to move to a new site. The value of the land is such that the State will not lose money in real terms but it is a matter of some regret that a modern facility built so recently may be discarded.

There has been much controversy involving the Minister and RTE about the value of the new site being €30 million for 260 acres.

Mr. M. McDowell

It is 150 acres.

Dr. Mansergh

I accept that is the market value. I question more generally how we have got ourselves into the position where we have to pay such vast compensation for farmland, be it for a prison or any other public purpose, over and above its normal agricultural value. I was equally shocked that the Railway Procurement Agency had to pay €3 million acquiring back gardens along the southern Luas line. We have a remarkably skewed interpretation of Article 43 of the Constitution, which acknowledges the right to private property, but also states: "The State recognises, however, that the exercise of the rights mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this Article ought, in civil society, to be regulated by the principles of social justice." It goes on: "The State, accordingly, may as occasion requires delimit by law the exercise of the said rights with a view to reconciling their exercise with the exigencies of the common good."

Land values 30, 40 or 50 years ago were not remotely what they are today but there was a much more robust interpretation by the State of the public good and social justice. We all remember the Land Commission, which bought good agricultural land in return for land bonds. Some questioned the justice of that policy but I defend it as it represented social justice at the time. If land was required for roads, bog development or agricultural cottages the landowner in question certainly would not have made a profit on it. If anything he would make a loss.

The courts have got us into a position where having once had a robust notion of the relationship between private property and the social good, we now have an almost unlimited worship of property to the extent that if something is wanted for a public purpose it is worth tens if not hundreds of millions of euro. There is something wrong with these huge windfall profits, and I probably do not represent the views of my would-be constituents on this matter. The Government and the legal profession need to examine this as the balance has shifted dramatically. The Minister has encountered some criticism because we have pushed the rights of private property beyond all notions of sanity and we need to return to a saner view of the public good.

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

I agree with Senator Mansergh that private property is sometimes put on a pedestal and the rights of private property are sometimes given too much weight over the public good. As Attorney General I fought over the constitutionality of the social and affordable housing provision in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court made it clear that the rights of private property were not sacrosanct. There were other rights as well and the Constitution clearly authorised a balanced view on these matters to be taken.

I could have sent people out to bid at the back of a hall to purchase suitable farms on the sly for the prison I wanted to build. If I had done that I would immediately have been assailed by the community having a prison visited on them for not looking at or asking for anywhere else, instead sending a man in a dirty mackintosh to raise his newspaper at the back of an auction room. The Department impressed upon me that I had to go through a public procurement process, which altered the terms of trade against me.

It has been argued that I could have come before this House and the other House and given myself compulsory purchase powers, in which case I would have been able to identify a piece of land somewhere near Dublin and serve notice in a newspaper that I was taking it. Let us remember the political realities. It is bad enough to visit a prison on a community but worse still to knock on the door of some farmer in north Dublin and tell him to leave because, in a year's time, I would come and take his farm, his lifestyle and his home in the public interest. If I had gone down that road I would have provoked immense hostility on behalf of a family being thrown out with their possessions on the road saying they were getting agricultural prices for a property I was going to use for non-agricultural purposes, namely, to build a prison.

Mr. Brady

They would have to go to the south side.

Mr. M. McDowell

It would not be easy to do. I wish to put on the record of this House that of all the land that was offered in that process and adjudged suitable the cheapest was bought. Whatever way one looks at it that is the case although different impressions have been given. If another option had been chosen would this House have congratulated me for saving a lot of money by putting a farming family out on the side of the road by a CPO process? Would this House have congratulated me if I came in here and declared that the only reason I was building a prison in a particular community was that the land came up at the right time for the official I sent out in disguise to purchase it on the sly? Would I have received brownie points for that?

I was recently in Belfield for a PSNI students Gaelic football match and I reflected on the money that my distinguished uncle by marriage, Mr. Michael Tierney, put into the acquisition of that site. It was a significant sum at the time. The campus in UCD was built and the money spent on it seems worthwhile when one looks at it now. Similarly, the Irish Embassy in Paris on the Avenue Foch is a beautiful building in which I have been lucky enough to stay a few nights. There was an outcry when the building was purchased, although it is worth many multiples of its purchase value now.

Dr. Mansergh

It should not be so.

Mr. M. McDowell

I aspire to staying a few more nights there at some stage. I agree with Senator Mansergh in that it is a pity that public procurement of land, especially when there is no CPO power attached to it, and even when there is, ends up with the taxpayer paying top dollar. That is the society in which we live. There is no easy alternative way of doing business without causing much reaction.

The Dóchas Centre is a fine prison building but is already overcrowded. As Minister, I know people are being released early because there is a lack of space. All medical bays, etc., are being used by prisoners already there. Some rooms not intended for the accommodation of prisoners are already being used. The building is too small. Unfortunately, drugs are introduced into the Dóchas Centre over the wall. As enlightened as the building's architecture may be, its location allows drugs to be thrown over the wall into fine open spaces.

Mr. Cummins

That is another example of bad planning.

Mr. M. McDowell

I hope whatever replaces the prison will be of an equivalent if not better architectural standard. Those who lament the building's demolition should remember that what I propose to have built in north Dublin at Thornton Hall will be of a similar standard for both men and women, and young people currently in St. Patrick's Institution. That is good news.

Senator Brady mentioned padded cells. Regardless of what detention facilities are being kept, a programme has been put in place to replace padded cells with modern observation units. By the end of March 2006 padded cells will be eliminated. I have not spoken on this issue in public before, but I witnessed a padded cell on my first visit to an Irish prison. The cell is about four ft. by four ft. or five ft. by five ft., dark and with grey rubber lining and matting on the floor. A pink light gives subdued lighting. In this instance an adult in his 40s was lying in the foetal position wearing only underpants in the cell. The only other item in the room was a plastic pot. The prisoner had been in the position for days as an argument occurred over whether he should be transferred to Dundrum.

It was a shocking sight to behold. The committee on torture has warned us many times of how wrong these cases are, and I am pleased that such occurrences will be eliminated by March of next year, even in Mountjoy Prison. I am allocating extra funding to that prison to ensure these cells are phased out. No matter what occurs with Thornton Hall, Mountjoy Prison will remain for a number of years yet. No human being should be kept in padded cell conditions.

Historical points were raised by Senators Brady and Mansergh with regard to Spike Island and Mountjoy Prisons. I am conscious of these matters. Some features of Mountjoy Prison are well worth preserving in an architectural treatment. There are some fine examples of stonework which could enhance a replacement development. The execution shed, colloquially known as the hang house, is a national monument in my opinion even though it is not designated as such. Many of our patriots died on those gallows, and I intend to have them removed to Kilmainham Gaol where they can be erected again and preserved. They are examples of places where people paid the supreme sacrifice for Irish freedom, and they should not be forgotten or discarded as part of prison modernisation. We recently removed some bodies of the 1916 to 1921 period from Mountjoy Prison to Glasnevin, but remaining graves and monuments will have to be dealt with appropriately.

The same conditions will apply to Spike Island, which has a graveyard also. It was a place for transportation, and the journals of John Mitchel describe it. A magnificent fortress exists in the centre of the island with impressive architectural features, and there are some interesting Second World War gun emplacements and passageways. There is a range of buildings inside the fortress, some of which have become derelict and roofless, and these must be restored as part of a regeneration project for Spike Island.

The issue of drugs was briefly mentioned and I thank Senators for their comments. There is a notion abroad, although it is rarely articulated, that prisons are easier to run if a certain amount of drug abuse is tolerated. This is very wrong. New policy in this area will be announced in the near future.

With regard to escorts, my preference is for a continuation of the present situation, that is, that prison officers as public servants should carry it out. If this becomes economically impossible I must be in a position to provide a legal alternative means. As Senator Mansergh stated, I will put this proposal forward in Bill form while hoping that I will not be forced to use it and that it will be economically viable to provide prisoner transport using public servants.

We should use CCTV as much as possible. I will not delay the House with the details as we all have a weekend to prepare for, but there is an elaborate plan for a CCTV network. This will involve soundproof cells for consultations between lawyers and clients, and locations from which people can testify and take in what is occurring in court. It makes sense that if a surgeon in Dublin, for example, was required to testify in a personal injuries case in Cork or vice versa, he or she should be able to appear via a televised link to testify before a judge and jury in another place, provided that the interests of justice are properly looked after.

Such a system will be an essential part of how we develop the criminal justice system. It will also minimise costs from transporting people unnecessarily. For example, a remand prisoner in Portlaoise Prison who is a high security risk might be transported from Portlaoise to Green Street in Dublin, along with a large escort, for a hearing that lasts a short time. If he is remanded for another three weeks, he is driven back, with a colossal amount of money having been spent on the operation. It does not have to be spent.

I agree with the point by Senator Cummins that there should be a courthouse at the new campus. The courthouse in Cloverhill deals with many procedural cases. One very frequently comes across cases where a prisoner who may be serving two years for burglary, for example, may be in court for unauthorised interference with a mechanically propelled vehicle. Such a person must go with prison officers to the local District Court where the case is pending for a remand hearing, an adjournment or whatever. As that is not a good way in which to do business, it makes sense to bring the courts system to the prisoners for such applications, in so far as possible. As I noted earlier, there is such a facility at Cloverhill Prison.

I want to thank all the Members for their thoughtful and eloquent contributions to this debate. As far as the comments of Senators Brady and Kett concerning north inner city Dublin are concerned, I believe the end of Mountjoy as a prison facility provides an enormous opportunity. Twenty acres of prime land will become available for a landmark development which will improve north inner city Dublin dramatically. Given the possibility of installing water features on the site which will connect directly to the Royal Canal, architects will drool at the possibilities of developing it. One must also remember that the site value will be colossal compared to the money spent at Thornton.

Senator Jim Walsh raised the procedure regarding the certification of contractors as suitable people and queried whether the appeals procedure should be conducted through the courts. While an appeal to the courts is a cumbersome method to achieve a result, if one denies people their livelihoods, under the European Convention on Human Rights and as a matter of justice, one must have some form of appeal system. I agree that loading extra work onto the courts system is undesirable. However, we must have some form of independent appeal for people whose livelihoods might be at risk.

As for the points raised by Senator Henry, I want to assure her that I was not looking in her direction when I raised the point about moral confusion. I take it as certain that someone of the Senator's professional background would regard prisoners having easy access to hard drugs as a complete catastrophe. It is an unspeakable proposition. Whatever the purpose of prison may be, it is not to have people entering the system without a drug habit but emerging with one. That is certainly not one of society's goals for its prison system.

I share the view strongly expressed by a number of Members that we must always regard imprisonment as a last resort — in particular, because in the main, it is visited upon marginalised young men in our society. As Governor Lonergan has noted, one can examine their postal addresses and almost predict where they will end up from childhood, because of their family circumstances, educational difficulties, bad luck and the like. It behoves us to have a criminal justice system in which, if possible, people are not sent for short periods into a system which consequently brands them as being unsuitable for many jobs and puts them on the back foot for the rest of their lives. However, we have an expanding population and within 30 years, between 6 and 8 million people will live on this island again, as they did before the Famine. It is naive to believe that we can cut back on our current number of prison spaces.

The revolving door was a cause of enormous public concern when it existed in the mid-1990s. I accept the Judiciary must play its part in ensuring that people are not inappropriately imprisoned and society must be willing to fund the alternatives, such as probation, supervision, restorative justice, community service and the like. Nevertheless, once public sentiment comes to the point, as it did in the mid-1990s, where it no longer believes that people serve sentences imposed by the courts due to incompetence on the State's part and an unwillingness to run a decent service, the people's sense of well-being implodes. Once the subliminal attitude that people walk out of prison without serving their sentences because of a lack of space takes hold of public opinion, there is enormous cynicism, a sense of desperation and a complete lack of faith in the rule of law as an end in itself.

I thank the Members for their thoughtful contributions to today's debate. I look forward to Committee Stage, when undoubtedly, this Bill will be improved by a careful line by line analysis.

Question put and agreed to.

Acting Chairman (Dr. Henry)

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Mr. J. Walsh

Dé Céadaoin seo chugainn.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 2 November 2005.

Acting Chairman

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. J. Walsh

Ar 2.30 p.m., Dé Céadaoin seo chugainn.