I will be as speedy as I can, Chairman, because I believe members understand what is involved here.
Estimates for Public Services, 2000.
Vote 19 - Office of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
Vote 22 - Prisons Service.
Thank you.
When I was last before the committee on 22 June I dealt with the Estimates for my Department's group of Votes. It is now necessary for me to request the provision of further funding for Votes 19 and 22.
With regard to Vote 19, £1,000 is required for the office of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. It is a token Supplementary Estimate in respect of subhead C - Criminal and Legal Aid. Members will be aware that we examined possible ways of improving the criminal justice system. We do this on a regular basis. I asked the criminal legal aid review committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Buchanan to review the situation whereby legal aid is not available for consultations between detained persons and solicitors in Garda stations. The committee presented me with an interim report and recommended that where a person is detained in a Garda station for the purpose of the investigation of an offence, consultations with solicitors should be paid for by the State in certain circumstances.
On receipt of the report of the committee my Department engaged in consultations with the Law Society and as a result, the implementation of a scheme to provide legal advice to persons detained in Garda stations has now been agreed. The scheme provides that where a person is detained in a Garda station for the purpose of the investigation of an offence under the provisions of the Offences against the State Act, 1939, as amended, or the Criminal Justice Act, 1984, or the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Act, 1996, consultations with a solicitor will be paid for by the State in circumstances where the person's means are insufficient to enable him or her to pay for them. In so far as the questions of means is concerned, the scheme applies to persons who are in receipt of a social welfare benefit or assistance or persons whose annual earnings are less than £16,000 per annum. In other cases we can expect the person concerned to pay for him or herself.
Will a P.60 be required?
No. The scheme supports the primary right of a detainee for reasonable access to a solicitor and it is designed to make reasonable provisions for persons who are able to pay for a solicitor. It will act as a counter balancing measure to existing detention provisions and any proposed detention provisions. I propose it will operate on an administrative basis before being placed on a statutory footing, that it will be subject to regular review and will be formally reviewed in the first year after establishment. It is expected that the scheme will commence early in the new year at a cost of £1 million.
With regard to Vote 21, the Supplementary Estimate sought is much higher, at £43,159,000. I will briefly outline the main areas where expenditure was greater than the budget provision. The additional requirement under subhead A1, which relates to salaries, wages and allowances, is £13,958,000, covering the overtime part of the subhead.
Members will be aware that the high level of overtime expenditure under the Prisons Service Vote has been a serious problem for many years. Overtime arises in the first instance from the necessity to ensure adequate coverage at all institutions 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, not to mention leap years. During 2000, the opening of new institutions, increases in the prisoner population and pay increases under national agreements have also been contributory factors.
Members will be aware that my Department and the Prisons Service have been following a long-term strategy to achieve what I would describe as a sustainable solution to the problem. The first phase of that strategy, a prison by prison examination and review of the staff levels needed to deliver agreed regime activities, is due to finish before the end of this year.
Is it an internal review?
No, it has been undertaken at my request. A retired member of the British police service, Mr. Gordon Lakes, was involved. The examination followed a strategy recommended in 1996 by the Prisons Operating Cost Review Group and was carried out by a dedicated staffing and operations review group team, SORT. The team has completed reports on all of the prisons and places of detention and a global report, setting out the overall conclusions of the project and containing recommendations service-wide, will be completed shortly.
In partnership with the Prison Officers' Association we are now moving to commence the design and implementation phase of the SORT reports' recommendations, including the intended complete elimination of all overtime payments in the service in due course. It is proposed to establish a three person working group to work with three people from the staff side - a change implementation team - to initially concentrate on the technical aspects of implementing the SORT reports and setting up roster/attendance systems which will, in time, completely eliminate overtime payments. The long-term aim would be to develop a blueprint for a modem and effective service that would never again be dependent in any respect on overtime. This would be a service which in all its regimes would enhance the professional role of the prison officer through his or her front line involvement in prisoner programmes. The change process will involve changes to work processes, for example, the introduction of technology to replace static posts, etc. When the technical aspects of the discussions are concluded, a negotiation team will then concentrate on the methods of implementation and the issues that would arise from a staff perspective.
Given the necessity to ensure the new arrangements can be delivered successfully, there will be full involvement and sign off by all governors. It would take some time to prepare and implement the fundamental changes that would be involved. On the management side, it is proposed to establish a steering group to manage the process and to ensure that the negotiating team is in a position to follow a coherent strategy. This will include the director general and personnel officer of the Prisons Service and a senior policy representative of the Department. It is anticipated that the Department of Finance will be represented on this group. To back up the design and implementation team, the services of human resource experts and change management consultants will be retained on an occasional advisory basis. It is my intention that the joint change implementation team would commence work in January 2001.
Certain measures have already been taken, under the terms of the flexibility provisions of the 1997 PCW agreement to reduce overtime. The main ones being pursued are as follows: First, the environment allowance was ceased in Limerick Prison with effect from the date of the agreement, leading to an annual saving of £205,000.
What kind of allowance is it?
I propose to finish my submission and then answer questions. The second measure is the civilianisation of clerical work. The management survey to be carried out under the terms of the PCW agreement in relation to the civilianisation of clerical work was completed earlier this year and has been discussed with the staff side. The purpose of the survey was to establish a clearly identifiable role and reporting structures for civilian clerical staff. However, given the Civil and Public Services Union's claim for equal pay, currently before the Equality Authority, it is not possible to make any progress on this at present.
The third measure is the elimination of use of prison service staff in staff canteens. Following a survey of the canteens in the closed prisons by CERT, the operation of the canteens is being put out to tender. This will eliminate the use of Prisons Service staff in staff canteens. It is hoped to have a contract in place by early 2001. The annual overtime saving is estimated at £1.5 million.
A number of issues are involved in the use of technology. The first is the automation of gates. The new prisons - Castlerea, Cloverhill and Midlands - make extensive use of automated gates with an annual saving estimated at £2 million. In the context of the completed SORT reports, Governors have been asked to submit details of the gates which can be automated in the existing prisons.
The second issue is computerisation. The first phase of the new time and attendance system for prison officers has been installed in all closed institutions. The full three phases, including an electronic transfer of pay details to my Department's finance division in Killarney, will be fully installed by early next year. The full impact on overtime in the clerical area will only be felt from then. It is difficult to put a figure on potential savings in 2000 as, in the initial phase there is pressure for extra attendance by clerical staff to assist the set-up and for training.
The new financial system project for the Prisons Service has, with the agreement of the programme board, been restructured into a cross-Vote project led by the finance division in Killarney. New business processes have been recommended by internal working groups, including a proposed central purchasing unit combined with delegation of budgets and authority to spend to governors. Ultimately, this system should impact significantly on the overtime requirements in the clerical and stores areas.
The additional requirement in relation to subhead A2, Travel and Subsistence, is £696,000. The growth of the Prisons Service in 2000 has led to an increase in the number of inter-prison and court escort of prisoners. This impacts on this subhead as escorting staff are paid subsistence payments for their time away from their regular place of work. There has also been extensive travel throughout the service's nationwide network of institutions by service personnel to commission new institutions and a number of multi-stage staff promotion competitions have involved significant numbers of staff travelling to central locations.
There has also been extensive travel throughout the service's nationwide network of institutions by service personnel to commission new institutions and a number of multi-stage staff promotion competitions which have involved significant numbers of staff travelling to central locations.
The next item is office machinery and other office supplies. The additional requirement under subhead A5 - Office Machinery and other Office Supplies - relates to expenditure on the new computerisation projects, about which I have already spoken, and amounts to £1.671 million. The overspend occurred due to the necessity to employ IT consultants to carry out development of the prisons IT system in the absence of in-house staff.
Regarding buildings and equipment, the additional requirement under subhead B - Buildings and Equipment - is £33.955 million. This sum is needed to allow for the buy-out of the capital debt on the Midlands Prison at a cost of £39.5 million which will be offset by a saving elsewhere in the subhead of £5.545 million. Negotiations with the contractor are in train and, in the event that agreement is reached, the funds will be required to be available at short notice to be expended within this financial year.
This new prison will provide an additional 515 places when in full operation. The investment here will ensure that the scandal of the unjustified early releases from custody, with which we lived for so long, will have been brought to a halt for good. The overall percentage of sentenced prisoners on temporary release, as a result of the Government's building programme to date, has been reduced from 19% in 1997 to about 5% today. It is important to bear in mind also that almost all prisoners on early release at present are on structured programmes, in many cases under the direct supervision of the Probation and Welfare Service. The balance have been temporarily released for valid compassionate reasons, ill health or family related circumstances.
We now have a situation where, for the first time in 25 years, we can accommodate all those sentenced by the courts for the full duration of their sentences. The impact of this cut in unplanned temporary releases on the level of indictable crime in this jurisdiction is clear and irrefutable. The whole edifice of justice, including the architecture of community sanctions, depends on the custodial places being available to guarantee offenders that the sanction of last resort is there for them if they do not avail of the other lawful options open to them.
It is also vital to recognise that prisoner rehabilitation programmes are almost impossible to deliver in overcrowded chaotic settings. In such situations, positive prisoner motivation cannot be generated. In overcrowded prisons, staff and inmates alike adopt coping mechanisms to survive from one end of the day to the other. Long-term personal development is an unaffordable luxury in such circumstances. I could go on about that but I will not because I am sure the Deputies know the position in that regard.
As regards compensation, the amount required under subhead 1 is £940,000 and relates to both compensation awards for accidental injuries to staff and prisoners and to awards under the prison officers criminal injuries compensation scheme. This is a notoriously difficult area to estimate and the growth of the level of awards reflects trends which are in line with society as a whole.
The total estimated overspend outlined under the subheads above have been partly offset by savings amounting to £13.6 million, including the capital saving of £5.545 million already mentioned, across a range of subheads, primarily on the following. The savings under the prisoner services subhead, which includes provision for such items as clothing, food and heating is £2.9 million. This arose because the new accommodation at Cloverhill remand centre and the Midlands Prison came on stream later than anticipated and, consequently, the growth in prisoner numbers was slower than estimated.
The overall saving under subheads E1, E2, E3 and F, the probation and welfare and community services scheme, is £3.066 million. This is primarily due to the difficulties experienced by my Department in recruiting probation and welfare officers for the service which is very disappointing. This is caused by a number of factors, including relocation, the necessity to give notice to current employers, personal circumstances which mean that candidates are not in a position to take up posts immediately the offers are made, competitiveness between agencies including non-governmental organisations and the numbers leaving the public service.
While these circumstances, which are a symptom of a general shortage in the labour market, are disappointing, I remain committed, in the case of those offenders whom the courts deem suitable for sanctions other than custody, to facilitating the use of community supervision and sanctions. There are at present about 4,600 people under the supervision of the Probation and Welfare Service. Since 1998, I have approved funding for 12 additional projects under the guidance of the service. There are now approximately 50 such projects in operation around the country, all of which are community-based dealing with areas such as drugs aftercare, alcohol treatment for offenders before the courts, youth service projects, community reparation and offender-victim mediation.
As regards the proposed new IT system for the service, my Department recently met the Centre for Management and Organisation Development, a branch of the Department of Finance, for assistance to further develop the system, and it has assigned a staff member to help to examine the project implementation. In addition, a computer analyst from the Civil Service Commission panel was recently assigned to the Probation and Welfare Service and he will also assist with the implementation. While we await the implementation work to be completed, the system development has not proceeded beyond cabling and purchase of equipment.
In the case of refurbishment and renovation works, these have only recently commenced in regard to the Candle Community Trust and Coolmine Lodge projects, and the work will be finalised in early 2001. Other projects, which were approved for funding in 2000, will only commence in 2001.
The need for the supplementary allocation arises because of additional expenditure in areas of the criminal legal aid scheme. The additional expenditure involved arises out of events which unfolded during the year and, therefore, could not have been foreseen at the time of framing the Estimate.
I hope in the short time available, I have set out the background to the requirement for the Supplementary Estimates and their importance in ensuring the Department's objectives continue to be met. I will, as I said earlier to Deputies Howlin and Shatter, be glad to answer any queries which they have and I will elaborate on any matter I can.
I will make a few brief comments. I have heard what the Minister said and I note the need for the Supplementary Estimate as brought forward. I wish to raise three issues. The Minister referred to the difficulties in recruiting people to the Probation and Welfare Service. A sufficiently flexible employment approach is not taken in the context of filling positions in the service and ensuring the service required is provided.
I had evidence of that during the past 12 months when I had occasion to write to the Department about a fully qualified social worker with some 20 years' experience who, I recall, worked in England in social work and had done part-time evening work of a probation and welfare variety. I understand he is now in full-time employment in the Eastern Regional Health Authority area, finishes work at 5 p.m. and is interested in undertaking evening work for the Probation and Welfare Service where he would be available to do some of the work necessary on a part-time basis over three or four evenings a week for a few hours each day. When I raised this I received a standard response from the Department about the general rules applicable to the recruitment of probation and welfare officers.
As has happened in nursing and other services, if we are to recruit everyone we require to the Probation and Welfare Service, we need to examine new working methods, conditions and arrangements which enable appropriately qualified people to take up positions to fill the gap. We should move away from a view that everyone employed in the Probation and Welfare Service must be in full-time employment and that that is the sole employment they have. There are people in the community qualified to undertake probation and welfare work who seek part-time or evening work which would fit into supervising community service orders, prisoners on early release or people on probation. Perhaps the Minister will respond to this. Existing structures have not changed radically in the manner they need to.
On the second issue, the Minister referred to the early release system and it being, by and large, structured, but not all of it is. There are two issues to which perhaps the Minister will respond. The first derives from the question of day release. We have had a stark and tragic illustration in the context of the death of Nancy Nolan of where day release can go wrong. The person responsible for her death was sentenced to a second term of life imprisonment by the courts this week. In that context, I find it inexplicable that a person who was sentenced to life imprisonment, who was put on early release in 1998, who committed a sexual offence while on release, and who was sentenced to a further period of six months' imprisonment and had the early release cancelled could be out on day release 18 months after the most recent offence and, when he was on day release, perpetrated murder.
Something more needs to be done than simply issuing bland statements by the Department on behalf of the Minister saying we must ensure this does not happen again. Of course we must ensure this does not happen again, but the Nolan family are entitled to have the background to the day release arrangement fully investigated. Members and the public are entitled to a report on how this occurred, which should be debated in the Dáil. I call on the Minister to confirm there will be a full investigation into the circumstances surrounding the day release of this prisoner and that systems will be put in place to ensure there is not a repetition of such a tragic event. In the context of the report being prepared, I understand the prisoner, prior to the day of the murder, may have had previous contact with his former teacher whom he murdered. The Nolan family, in the context of a report being prepared, should be consulted to ensure the fullest information is available.
I am not saying we should not have early release or day release, and I am not suggesting a Minister can in the context of every early or day release give a 100% guarantee that some difficulty will not arise. The alternative would be never to release anybody. In this case I do not understand why there was an unsupervised day release within 18 months of a prisoner having been recommitted for committing an offence and having been sentenced a second time by the courts. We are due, and the public is entitled to, an explanation.
This is another issue relevant to the tragic death of Nancy Nolan and which is also relevant as a result of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The Director of Public Prosecutions v. Padraig Finn. As the Minister is aware, it has been the practice of the courts, and certainly the Central Criminal Court for more than 20 years when passing sentence, for trial judges to adopt the practice of saying that after one, two or three years of having served a sentence the judge will review the remainder of the sentence with a view to ascertaining whether someone should have a sentence suspended and be released. Only one statutory provision allows for this, namely in the context of certain drug offences, but the approach has been adopted by the Judiciary across a broad range of areas. It has facilitated the release from prison of many who would otherwise have been detained in prison for a longer period and it has also been seen by the Judiciary as a protection against early release of prisoners.
The Supreme Court has said this system is no longer constitutional and cannot operate and has clearly indicated it is time for the Government and Legislature to enact legislation. Judge Dunne in the Circuit Court, in a case on Monday or Tuesday of this week, urged that legislation be enacted to provide for a parole board. There is a Law Reform Commission report on sentencing which was published in 1996, but little contained in it has yet been implemented. I would like the Minister to indicate where things now stand in this context. It seems the Judiciary can no longer provide for review of sentences and the Finn judgment has cast serious question marks on the constitutionality of suspending sentences as there is no statutory mechanism for so doing. The Law Reform Commission highlighted this in 1996.
There is now a sea change regarding the manner in which the Judiciary in the District Court, Circuit Court, Central Criminal Court and Special Criminal Court can impose sentences and the extent to which they can provide for sentence review. There is a major constitutional doubt over the capacity of the Judiciary, having passed a sentence, to suspend it because it has no legislative authority to do so. This should not be put on the long finger. There is a need for urgent legislation. In reality, it will take a minimum of two years before a board is functioning given the length of time involved in enacting legislation and the time it will take following enactment to establish such a board, recruit people to it and get it up and running. In those circumstances there may be a need to introduce emergency legislation to provide for specific statutory provisions to apply to other types of criminal offences which replicate the legislation currently in place relating to drug offences and which allow the courts in particular instances to review sentences. The Supreme Court clearly has no constitutional difficulty with the provisions which currently exist concerning drug offences. In the medium term it may be desirable that early, day and temporary releases and sentence reviews are conducted in a uniform way by a parole board which applies similar principles to all prisoners based on established guidelines. In the meantime there may be a need to introduce legislation which replicates the provisions in the Criminal Justice Act, 1999, as they apply to the misuse of drugs legislation of 1977 which allow the courts in certain instances to provide for sentence review. What are the Minister's proposals to tackle this very real problem which will impact on the administration of criminal justice through the courts?
The first issue I wish to raise is overtime payments in the prison service, a contentious issue for a long time. It is dismaying that an additional requirement of £14 million is being sought despite the declarations of the Government and promises by the Minister that the issue would be tackled. I am not very impressed that a review of the type indicated by the Minister will have the impact desired by us all. I have asked a management consultant to look at the response given to me by the Minister in relation to the net cost of putting additional gardaí into what is a continuous production process, to use industry jargon, i.e a 24 hour, 365 day a year service. The requirement of a production manager would be less than the figures provided to me by the Department in relation An Garda Síochána, and the same would be true in the prison service.
We must move beyond paying lip service to the issue. Workers in the system, be they prison officers or other staff, are entitled to have reasonable time off without having a constant requirement to work overtime. Similarly, it is important there is not a hefty overtime bill to be constantly met by the Exchequer. Full time vacancies, if they exist, should be filled. We should examine how the service is structured so we can address the issue properly. I welcome the initiatives indicated by the Minister in relation to using civilians in some areas of the service, but a much more structured, rigorous and thorough review is required.
Regarding the building programme, the Minister, in a change of policy, is proposing a capital allocation of £34 million to buy out the asset of the midland prison.
The prison building, which is very recent, was a design build structure to be paid for over a period of 20 years by the State. That is all changed by the proposal. The financing of it, if paid by way of hard cash up-front, would probably be quite different. Can the Minister make information available to me on the additional costs to be borne by the Exchequer by way of the change of policy from design build and repayment over a 20 year period to a single capital pay-off proposed at this time? It is clear that the State is now more flush than was envisaged when the prison was first provided. That policy change must have a cost implication and I would like to know what this is.
Compensation payment is a worrying aspect. An additional £940,000 is sought, bringing the revised Estimate to £2.37 million. How many claims were made against the prison service? I presume Subhead I deals exclusively with the prison service. What is the break-down of the claims? How many claims were made by prisoners and how many claims were made by staff? What was the range of payments that make up the £2.37 million during the course of the year? It seems an inordinately high sum.
I refer to the savings listed in the revised Estimate. Like Deputy Shatter, I am very concerned about the unpaid money to the probation and welfare service which was described earlier this year as the Cinderella of the justice system by a probation and welfare officer. This was covered in the national media. In fact, it was suggested by another that the probation and welfare service is in a shambles. While I do not wish to over-state this matter, instances where a single probation and welfare officer is responsible for up to 100 individuals is not satisfactory. I do not believe the Minister would pretend it is satisfactory.
The Minister has indicated that there are difficulties. However, they are not resource difficulties since the resources exist and can be spent, therefore, there must be difficulties of a different nature such as recruitment. Deputy Shatter suggested one mechanism for a more flexible approach to recruitment. We need to go well beyond that. Perhaps the Minister will outline his thoughts on greatly improving the probation and welfare service. This becomes all the more relevant in the context of the Finn judgment, referred to by Deputy Shatter. This makes the necessity of a parole board all the more urgent and, if there is to be a parole board allowing people to either have day release or some sort of controlled release before the completion of their full sentence, they obviously must be monitored. The gravity and seriousness of this situation is underscored by the awful Nolan murder.
The Minister cannot proceed with the promise of legislation to establish a statutory parole board without first putting in place a more effective probation and welfare system than is currently in place. The Minister would not gainsay that. The unspent money in the probation and welfare service is a matter of great concern. I ask the Minister to urgently tackle this issue to ensure there is a properly structured probation and welfare service so that he can advance quickly to establishing a parole board. There is a significant defect in our criminal justice system where there is no review of sentences permitted under the Finn judgment. This is a matter of great urgency for the Minister.
My last point relates to the whole family law area. The Minister responded to two Parliamentary Questions of mine on 6 December. These basically outlined the case of the family courts in my own area where one day last week a Circuit Court judge had to sit until 11.50 p.m. - the Parliamentary Question said 11.15 p.m. - to hear family law cases. The Minister said the duration of a sitting is entirely a matter for the judge and it would be inappropriate for him to respond. I suppose that is a standard enough answer. However, he has a responsibility to respond. I, as opposition spokesman, say that it is not good practice for a judge to have to sit listening to family law cases from 10.30 a.m. until virtually midnight. This is not good for those directly involved, the legal advisers or anyone else. It is a long, tedious and difficult day. Given the explosion in the numbers of family law cases now coming before the courts for a variety of reasons, we need to structure the courts to deal with this. Will the Minister consider establishing a family law court simpliciter? That would be a great benefit whereby one could train judges specifically in this specialist and delicate area. Perhaps the eminent judge here would lead the way. He certainly would be among the specialists in the area if he could take a cut in salary. This would be an interesting area.
I am after Úna Claffey's job.
This aspect is worthy of more than the response the Minister has given, that is, a committee of the courts service board, which is welcome, to review the procedure and manner in which family law cases are dealt with, including the whole issue of reporting of family law cases which is a big issue. I do not propose to go into that matter now but it is worthy of investigation. However, the issue of the taking of cases is more substantial, given that the Minister in his reply said there are areas throughout the country where there is a delay of 12 months before family law cases are heard. That is not good. It means that cases are squeezed in as part of a Circuit Court sitting, depending on the exigencies of other Circuit Court pressures. There is a compelling case to establish a family courts system with designated family court circuit judges even on a pilot basis. I do not propose having a category of judges who would become family court judges for ever, but people might serve for approximately five years in the Circuit Court. I do not propose "ghetto-ising" anyone in one division of the law, but I believe this would be useful and I would welcome the Minister's views on the issue.
If one commits a serious crime one will get five years on the bench listening to family law cases?
Like my colleagues, I welcome some of the initiatives in the Supplementary Estimate.
On ensuring that consultations with a solicitor will be paid for by the State in relation to prisoners who are detained, will people be made aware that this service is available to them?
We can ensure it is in the guidelines.
They may be equipped with other things but I doubt if they will be equipped with their P60.
Will there be a panel of solicitors or will they have to rely on the fact that someone will be available to them?
I support the issue in relation to family courts, which is very important. Deputy Shatter has a great deal of knowledge in this field. It is a matter of real concern that there be monitoring and public knowledge of what is happening within the family courts as a matter of urgency.
The Minister hopes to see an improvement in prisoner rehabilitation programmes, extra prison spaces and more support for drugs and alcohol after care treatment centres within the community. There is an urgent need for more access to drug rehabilitation programmes. Because of the length of waiting lists for treatment centres, families are taking it upon themselves to initiate drug treatment programmes within their own homes. Bishop Pat Buckley highlighted this problem on Marian Finucane's radio programme when he said he intended to treat a drug addict in his own house. Other families communicated with the programme to say that, out of desperation, they were attempting to do the same thing. This is neither the safest nor the healthiest way to deal with this problem. I am delighted to see funding going to this area.
We need more community based and community supported units which can respond quickly to families who need rehabilitation programmes for a family member. If a person who wishes to come off drugs has to go on a waiting list for a place on a rehabilitation programme, the initiative is often lost and the person goes beyond the point of recovery. In our buoyant economy we should be able to increase this funding.
I am delighted to see that IT systems and training for those systems are being set up. Do IT systems help with surveillance of prisoners within prisons? Do they alleviate the work load and are they used for networking between prisons? Is there a networking system between prisons here and in Britain? Am I attributing more importance to prison IT systems than they have? This facility could help, not only the services with prisons but also networking within the prison service and between prisons and the outside community. A link between prisons and the wider community might have an application for the supervision of prisoners on day release, for example. The Garda PULSE computer system might have a use in this area.
I welcome the fact that more space in prisons allows for greater rehabilitation programmes. What progress can be made with rehabilitation and training programmes for prisoners, particularly for sex offenders? Only a limited number of places is available in Arbour Hill and in similar units. Will there be an extension of rehabilitation programmes of that sort, both inside prisons and in the community, for prisoners who have been released?
I thank Deputies Howlin, Shatter and Barnes for their contributions. Deputy Howlin raised the matter of the environment allowance. This was paid to staff in Limerick and Portlaoise prisons for the management of subversive prisoners. Subversive prisoners ceased to be held in Limerick Prison in 1997.
Why was it called the environment allowance?
Well, I suppose they had to call it something. That is as good an answer as I can give. In Portlaoise Prison the circumstances have not changed.
The environment has not improved.
The allowance is still paid in Portlaoise but it is gone in Limerick.
How many subversive prisoners are in Portlaoise?
There are 55 altogether. There are 33 Provisional IRA, 23 Real IRA, five Continuity IRA, four INLA and 12 non-aligned. The number is low, in comparative terms.
With regard to the case of Mr. Thomas Murray, I join Deputies in extending my sympathy to the Nolan family. Mr. Murray was sentenced to penal servitude for life on 22 February 1982 for murder. He was released on renewable temporary release in March 1995. This was following a recommendation from the sentence review group. At that point he had served 13 years. Strict conditions applied to his release, including a curfew. His temporary release was suspended in September 1996 because he breached the curfew. There was a number of breaches. He was re-released in April 1997 and the strict conditions continued to apply to his release. He was returned to custody on 31 July, 1998 in view of further charges which were brought against him and he was subsequently sentenced to six months imprisonment for indecent exposure on 7 September 1998. That sentence expired on 20 January 1999. Mr. Murray has been held in custody since then, pursuant to the original life sentence. Meanwhile he had been encouraged to work with the probation and welfare service in connection with his offending behaviour. As an integral part of his therapeutic work with the probation and welfare service he was granted temporary release on several occasions, accompanied by either the prison chaplain or the prison probation and welfare officer, between February and October 1999. Mr. Murray then progressed to periodic unaccompanied morning to evening temporary releases, collected from and returned to the prison by his father. He was interviewed by the Garda on 18 February 2000 in connection with Mrs. Nolan's murder and his programme of temporary release was suspended. Subsequently he pleaded guilty to the murder of Mrs. Nolan and received a life sentence.
Mr. Murray's situation was monitored and managed throughout. The Supreme Court has made it known that the whole issue of sentence review is a matter for the Executive. That is my interpretation of the judgment. In those circumstances, a parole board is necessary. Legislation to establish an independent prisons authority is being drafted and in the context of that legislation, a parole board which will be independent in its operation will take over and expand the role currently undertaken by the sentence review group which examines cases of offenders in custody for more than seven years. Normally, the opinion of the Sentence Review Group is taken seriously and implemented.
I appreciate that, following the Supreme Court judgment, there is a need for me to act. It is an issue upon which I was going to act because it is right and proper that we should have a parole board. This is an important and complex matter and I am determined to get it right. On my instructions, my officials have been looking at the parole systems in operation in other jurisdictions. I am committed, as is the Government, to the establishment of a parole authority. Deputy Shatter is correct that legislation would take a considerable period of time and the question is what will we do in the meantime. I have decided to establish a parole board on an administrative basis pending the introduction next year of the legislation to underpin a statutory parole authority. I have asked my officials to prepare the way for this. I anticipate that the composition and terms of reference of an interim board will be announced within the next few weeks. This is as good a response as I can give on this very important matter.
Deputies Shatter and Howlin referred to the probation and welfare service. I am well aware that the probation and welfare service is under-resourced and I, therefore, asked a review group to look at the entire situation in regard to the service. It produced two reports which I have examined. One of its recommendations was obvious enough, that is, we need additional staff. We have secured 39 additional staff posts. We advertised extensively in Ireland and overseas and held a recruitment competition. Offers of appointment as probation and welfare officers will issue to successful candidates shortly. Recruitment will continue until all vacancies and the new posts sanctioned for the service have been filled.
The delays in recruiting staff to the probation and welfare service are related to issues such as relocation, the necessity to give notice to current employers, personal circumstances, competitiveness between agencies, including between non-Government organisations, and the numbers leaving the public service. This is very disappointing. I was interested in Deputy Shatter's point about the possibility of taking in people on a part-time basis and being more flexible in relation to the employment approach. Recruitment is through the Civil Service Commission and we do not take on people on a part-time basis in the probation and welfare service. However, this is an issue we will have to look at. Incidentally, there are people working part-time as community sessional supervisors who supervise people on community service at all times of the day. There is no reason there would not be a precedent in this.
The issue of overtime is a hardy annual, which we are tackling seriously. I would go so far as to say that we are tackling it seriously for the first time in the sense that I appointed Mr. Lakes and a group with considerable expertise to look at the issue on a prison by prison basis and then to issue a global report. To be fair, they have made considerable progress. I accept that the question of overtime is not sustainable and it is of great concern to me both from an operational view point and from the point of view of the health and safety of the officers. This issue is being addressed in a strategic way through the work of a dedicated staffing and operations review team. The team is examining the staffing requirements at each institution and has produced eight reports to date. A detailed strategy for the implementation of the findings of the reports is being developed. The ultimate aim is to have an attendance system for the prison service which does not rely on overtime to meet its operational needs.
What was the highest single overtime payment last year?
The highest payment for 1999 was £44,881.96. That is the gross amount paid in overtime. It is the top amount paid in overtime. This has implications for the officers concerned in terms of their health and safety. This is a matter which has to be dealt with and is being dealt with.
The problem arises in the first instance from the necessity to ensure adequate coverage in all institutions 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It should be said that our regime is liberal compared with other jurisdictions in terms of out-of-cell time for prisoners. This makes immediate demands on maintaining safe levels of staff outside of the standard 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. shift. There is no question but that this is a contributing factor.
Is the overtime voluntary or is there an element of compulsory overtime?
It is a voluntary scheme for the most part in the sense that the capacity to earn high sums in overtime arises from the preference of the prison management and staff to operate that kind of scheme. It is a voluntary overtime system. Certain staff continuously make themselves available for what I would describe as unpopular and unsocial shifts. This is accepted as it reduces the need to compel other officers to work overtime.
The next stage of the process is the establishment of an implementation team and the commencement of negotiations with the Prison Officers' Association. Incidentally, that will be a major undertaking and will require the team to be dedicated to the task over several months. The team will be established as part of the provision of additional staff for the Independent Prisons Authority in due course.
Deputy Howlin asked about the new prisons building programme and, specifically, the new midlands prison. It is true that the midlands prison was tendered on a part design build finance basis. The part design reflected the preliminary work and sketch drawings of the Office of Public Works agreed by our Department to ensure that the building was constructed to a design which reflected the requirements of a remand prison. The prison started life as a 400 place prison and then we found that we could have 515 places, which was the economically sensible thing to do. This is precisely what we did. We obtained the additional 115 places at what I would describe as a very competitive price. It was in the interests of the taxpayer to do this.
The reason we are now talking about buying-out the prison is that the option is attractive in the light of the continuing favourable economic climate. We also sought professional advice, which recommended that the State should buy-out the option to redeem the loan. We are in discussion with the contractors on this matter. By redeeming the loan at this stage, taking the interest rate at 1 December 2000, and by making the repayment out of budget surplus it is reasonable to expect that the saving to the Exchequer may be in the region of £17 million to £22 million depending on the prevailing interest rates over the remaining 18 life years of the loan. It makes sense to move in this direction, as everyone will agree.
Deputy Howlin asked about compensation claims made by members of the prison service last year. The number of claims made by members of the prison service in 1999 was 13. The total number of claims made by inmates and civilians was 44. That is not bad when one considers there are 3,000 people working in a potentially hazardous environment.
Some £2.37 million.
Expenditure on compensation during 1999 for prisoners and prison service staff was £980,882 and expenditure in 2000 is estimated to be £1.1 million.
Under subhead I there is a figure of £2.37 million.
I am stating the amount paid in compensation.
The Minister is looking for an additional Vote of £940,000 on the £1.4 million we have already voted for this year, 2000.
Last year I paid out £989,882.
It has more than doubled.
We must take criminal injuries and costs into account.
And paying lawyers.
They have to be paid.
Deputy Barnes asked about persons who are detained and if solicitors are told. Persons detained will be told of their entitlement to a solicitor and to consult with their solicitor. Whether their consultations will be paid by the State depends on their means. The scheme has been agreed with the Law Society. They will not need to bring their P60 forms because they will be asked to complete a claim form setting out their means——
Truthfully.
Put down all ones assets for the past year and state where one got them.
And the tax paid on them.
Any person earning £16,000 or less and anyone receiving social welfare will be automatically entitled to the free services of a solicitor.
If one has an income of £16,000 but has not earned it——
I must rely on people to fill out the forms. I cannot get inside their heads.
There could be other charges pending as a result of the filling out of the form.
If people are detained and are not guilty of anything but fill out the form falsely they will have committed an offence after they were detained. That is another day's work. Solicitors who provide the service will not have to be on the criminal legal aid panel. There is an immediate issue that will be involved and that is the right of an individual to consult his or her solicitor, be it on the telephone or whatever. It is being established on the basis that any solicitor may provide the advice to the person detained. There will be a rate for solicitors which will be based on attendance and, in addition, there will be a rate for unsocial hours at weekends or late at night. The standard rate for solicitors will be £69.87.
A minute.
My understanding is that only applies to barristers. Unsocial hours will be defined and the rate will be £95, that is evenings, weekends and bank holidays. A telephone consultation will be £30 and travelling expenses will be 60p per mile. Everyone will agree that is a fair scheme.
With regard to family law cases, which was raised by Deputy Howlin and Deputy Barnes, I asked the Court Service Board to examine proposals made in the working group on the courts commission in relation to this matter. As we know, the courts have been changed considerably as a result of the formation of the Court Service Board and tremendous work has been done by Mrs. Justice Denham and her group whom I compliment. The Court Service strategic plan 2000-2003 contained commitments to look at the family law area and make recommendations on how such cases could be dealt with more speedily. I understand the Court Service has engaged a legal practitioner to examine the whole area of family law sittings including the in camera rule. I expect this research will assist in developing policy on how family law sittings should be organised in the future.
Does the Minister know how soon that might be?
I do not know exactly. With regard to drug treatment, all those who are committed at present who misuse drugs are offered a 14 day detoxification programme. There are ongoing addiction counselling and education programmes. Community based agencies visit prisons to provide support services and information, including individual counselling as required. Each institution has a local committee providing information services to prisoners, including inter alia information on drug issues and the risks posed by communicable diseases. A detoxification and drug free unit is in operation in Mountjoy since 1996 and an intensive drug free therapy programme co-ordinated by the probation and welfare service is in place. A second detoxification programme began in Mountjoy early in 2000.
Recently I went to St. Patrick's institution and inaugurated, so to speak, a programme there which was very successful with young offenders. That is something we will continue to try to assist with. From 9 January we will launch a drugs court pilot initiative in the north inner city of Dublin so that non-violent offenders who agree to submit to a drug treatment programme can be remanded to that by the judge in the court rather than going to prison. Obviously the person concerned will be subject to regular reviews. There will be an analysis of the individual's urine to ascertain if he or she is still drug free. If the person breaches the agreement reached with the court, a custodial sentence can be imposed in place of the treatment programme. I intend to have that monitored over an 18 month period, which is the period left in the life of the Government and after that period has been completed I hope to see the court extended to other parts of the country so that we will have a new concept in the justice system which will be of enormous benefit to many young addicts.
Deputy Barnes asked about information technology. The programme has taken prisons from being almost computer free to a position where high quality operation and resource management systems will impact on almost every area of prison administration. The telecommunications infrastructure is almost completed. Several of the main operational systems are already live and the full programme is expected to be completed by the end of the next year. I remember being frustrated about this when in Opposition. Statistics and information, which was not otherwise available to Deputies, should be available in the future because of these new systems.
Deputy Barnes asked about sex offenders. Treatment is available in Irish prisons. The intensive offence focused programme, which is currently available in Arbour Hill, is operational in the Curragh prison since last week. That programme takes ten months to complete and ten prisons can participate in it at a time. That is an extension of what has been operating in Arbour Hill over a period. It is not the only programme. There is individual counselling, thinking skills, group work programmes and the intervention of the psychiatric service, which provides extensive support to prisoners in this category.
I have dealt with all the points raised.
That was comprehensive. Thank you, Minister.
There is a correction regarding numbers of subversives. It surprised me when I saw 33 written down. There are 13 provisional IRA members in custody, not 33.
In relation to the proposed legislation on parole boards, I hope the committee will be able to assist the Minister in that matter. We will put the examination and comparison of the types of systems in operation in other jurisdictions on our work programme.