Amendments Nos. 13, 25, 27 and 28 form a composite proposal and amendment No. 7 is consequential. Amendments Nos. 7, 13, 25, 27 and 28 may be discussed together.
SECTION 9.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 9, subsection (1) (d), line 2, to delete "Schedule" and substitute "First Schedule".
Amendment No. 7 is consequential on amendment No. 27 which inserts a new Schedule. Amendment No. 13 enables the Minister for Justice to make prison rules dealing with the management of prisons and the treatment of prisoners. The provision will replace provisions set in legislation dating back 120 years. Draft new prison rules have been prepared by the Department of Justice and in 1994 were published in the policy document, The Management of Offenders—A Five Year Plan. This provision is required to avoid possible complications relating to the Minister’s power to make these rules.
The policy document, A Government of Renewal, states that the proposed new prison regulations shall be referred to the Select Committee on Legislation and Security. The new rules, when implemented, will replace the 1947 rules for the government of prisons which are to a large extent obsolete. They will reflect the practical requirements of a modern prison system and will benefit both prison management and prisoners. The amendment also creates new statutory powers which will be provided for in the draft rules — for example, a power for the visiting committees to hear appeals from a decision by a governor to impose a penalty on a person detained in a prison and to enable the Minister to make rules for taking finger prints by electronic means. When the provision is in place it will be possible for the Department of Justice, in consultation with the Attorney General's office, to prepare a revised draft of the prison rules which will then be referred to this committee for discussion. That is the commitment given by this Government.
Amendment No. 25 relates to the existing powers to make prison rules which will be repealed because of the revised statutory power given to the Minister for Justice to make prison rules. Amendment No. 27 inserts a new table and amendment No. 7 is consequential on it. It provides for the new statutory basis for making prison rules. An amendment to the Long Title, amendment No. 28 is consequential on these amendments. It is important to note that amendment No. 27 inserts a new Schedule. This necessitates a change in page 12 where "Schedule" will be changed to "First Schedule". This change can be made without a formal amendment. Amendment No. 13 necessitates a change in the Long Title.
These amendments are grouped together to clarify the power of a Minister for Justice to make prison rules and to ensure they cannot be challenged. Once these amendments are passed, I will be in a position to finalise the draft rules and to give them to the committee for examination. I will take note of anything said at that stage.
I welcome these prison rules being put on a new statutory basis by the Minister. The prison service and the management of prisons has been subjected to much critical analysis, particularly by my party and by many members of the public who are dissatisfied with the poor administration revealed by the Comptroller and Auditor General's report and the many persons who have absconded from open prisons, 197 in the first few months of this year.
With respect to amendment No. 13 governing the power and duties and conduct of the governor and officers of a prison, I believe it to be true that a governor does not currently have the power to discipline members of staff. Will this section cover this inadequacy?
Why does the power to deal with the issues involved in prison rules contain nothing indicating any review of the operation of our open prisons? What are the criteria for transferring persons to them? Over 700 have been transferred this year. It is a legitimate question as open prisons are very lax, based on trust and, as experience has shown, easy to escape from. What criteria and safeguards are used by prison management to select persons for transfer to open prisons, given that there has been absconding from open prisons, posing a risk to the public?
In relation to subsection (d), "the provision of facilities and services to persons detained in prison, including educational facilities, medical services and services relating to the moral and physical welfare of such persons", the Minister will recall that the Mountjoy Visiting Committee report was so damning of the facilities provided, particularly the medical services, that it could not be published fully. Has the Minister resolved the contractual manpower problem in relation to the provision of medical services to persons in Mountjoy? This was highlighted by the Visiting Committee and has been the subject of negotiations between the Department and the persons and union involved. What progress has been made to date and can the Minster give us a status report, in particular relating to the provision of medical services to inmates in Mountjoy? That problem is in urgent need of sorting out. It has been dogging the provision of medical services which have been stated to be inadequate. Can the Minister report on that particular matter since it has been ongoing for two or three years?
The list of subsections does not deal with the regulation of temporary release. This is a matter which has caused great concern. It is not listed in (a) to (g) as one of the items which will be governed by prison rules. Is there any resolve or political intention to introduce changes to the use and abuse of temporary release which is causing so much injustice?
I stated on Second Stage that this Bill could have been used as a mechanism to meaningfully reform our criminal law, but that the opportunity was squandered. This Bill is a hotch potch or Irish stew of minuscule changes and is minimalist legislation. Nothing buttresses that viewpoint more than the amendments the Minister has put forward. When it comes to changing prison rules, the public are not interested in enabling provisions. They are interested in seeing a change in our prison system to ensure that an individual sentenced by a court will serve that sentence in prison to repay his debt to society and be made an example of to others who may be of like mind. The public know well that this is not the case. If anyone was in doubt, the comment by a district justice in recent weeks that he could not be bothered giving a person charged with burglary a custodial sentence because they would be released back into the community in a short space of time and would be laughing at the system would dispel any doubts as to what is happening within the system. It is clear that the prison system needs reform and needs new rules. It does not need aspirations but firm action.
We had the spectacle of a convicted kidnapper in an open prison going to town for a few drinks. The criteria for the transfer of a person to an open prison, which Deputy O'Donnell referred to, are clear. The length of the sentence, the nature of the offence and the prisoner's circumstances are taken into account by the Sentence Review Group. When the stage has been reached where these criteria allow for a convicted kidnapper to transfer to an open prison and go to town for a few drinks, the public are entitled to ask questions about such a system. The revolving door, which has to a large extent been the hallmark of the Minister for Justice's reign, has been replaced by an open prison door. That much has been clearly established. When a court judge says it is his duty to impose a custodial sentence and that he cannot do so, it must be indicative of a system which is in a chaotic state of collapse. Who in this Government of openness, transparency and accountability will accept accountability for this? Who will accept responsibility for it? Who will say it is their fault, that they accept that the system is in chaos and they have done nothing over the last two years to remedy it? That is the question people want answered.
It is regrettable that the opportunity was not taken in the body of this Bill to provide for an independent inspectorate of prisons. In the context of the forthcoming bail referendum, which we have called for so often, there is a need for a remand centre. The Minister for Justice will know that she has often been pressed on that in the Dáil. Rules will make no difference unless prison places are provided of which there is a clear insufficiency. Through no fault of the Garda authorities or prison officers, the penal system has become a laughing stock because of temporary release — people released on the sole criteria of insufficient places — and the obligation on the Sentence Review Group to transfer prisoners to open prisons on the criterion that there are insufficient places in the closed prisons. It has become a laughing stock because there is massive overcrowding and because nothing has been done to address those problems.
While I have no reason to disagree with your ruling, Chairman, the linking of these amendments puts me at a disadvantage. I have just been handed the amendments — I do not want to labour this point — and I therefore find it difficult to comment in detail on them. I do not have a legal mind. Proposals like this should be made available to committee members well in advance. I cannot even say these amendments seem to me to be a patchwork because patchwork usually fits together. Perhaps it is because of my own inabilities and my poor legal perception that I cannot see this fitting together.
The Deputy can compensate for that by winding up the political drum from time to time.
I wish to comment very briefly on aspects of the amendments. I welcome, as others have done, an attempt to update prison rules and regulations and to enact legislation to ensure prisons are governed properly and that powers are available to prison management and staff to do so. If recent experience has shown anything, it has shown the public that it has more reason to be cynical, disillusioned, angry and frustrated with Government than it has to have confidence in the ability of Government and prisons to follow through on the judgment of the courts in relation to offenders.
The fact that the temporary release system and the revolving door syndrome are one and the same has already been commented on. That problem must be urgently addressed and one of the ways in which this must be done is by way of prison accommodation. I am not going to repeat what has been said so often in recent times in relation to the decision to cancel, or defer, as others would assert, the building of another prison. There is massive overcrowding in prisons, the conditions are unacceptable and as a result this temporary mechanism is used to ensure that numbers are reasonably contained.
From a cursory reading of these amendments it appears there is no clearly defined policy or philosophy in relation to the overall management of prisons. The Minister says she will bring prison regulations, which she will draw up subsequent to the enactment of this Bill, before this committee, but there are a number of serious omissions in the legislation, to which both Deputy O'Donoghue and Deputy O'Donnell have referred.
Before the Minister seeks to lay the proposals for rules and regulations before this committee, a more holistic approach to the management of prisons should be looked at. I do not advocate this simply because of recent experiences. We all remember clearly what has been happening, with rapists, kidnappers and others enjoying privileges they were not sent to prison to enjoy. Not alone are they sipping pints, they are going to films and to the theatre. They are no sooner in prison than they are going to places of entertainment. The welfare services and the rehabilitation services are not wrong in doing this, but the manner in which prisoners seem to be able to abuse privileges handed to them within days of being confined to prison sends an unacceptable signal to the law abiding public. If this is how criminals are treated, why should we resist the temptation to be criminals? This is a serious problem. The way our prisons are managed poses a huge challenge.
I ask the Minister to think again about taking the most comprehensive approach possible to enabling prison management and staff do their jobs. I will not rush to the barricades to criticise them. As a result of my visits to prisons as a member of the vocational education committee in the 1980s I know the kinds of conditions under which staff in prisons have to work. They should be enabled, facilitated and guided. Legislation should be enacted to ensure prisons do the job they are intended to do by virtue of court decisions in accordance with our law. The legislation should also inspire confidence in the public that prisons are places where criminals can be dealt with effectively in the interests of society.
This section gives the Minister for Justice enabling powers to make prison rules. It does not set out the rules. It is an enabling power which is necessary because members sitting opposite me who were in Government for years allowed elements of law to fall into disrepute and did not modernise them.
I thank Deputy O'Donoghue for recognising that the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1996 is a mixture of items. That is precisely what I want it to be. It is a miscellaneous Bill which will make necessary changes. It is not comprehensive. Many outdated practices and legislation on the Statute Book have not been changed but I am endeavouring to change them through other legislation that is before the Oireachtas.
I did not claim this is a comprehensive checklist of everything that needs to be done. Members opposite have given a full outline of their lack of action for many years, action that is now being taken by this Government.
Deputy Fitzgerald should not confuse the two detention systems. The case he highlighted — it is always good for a headline — is a case of a young person in a Department of Education facility and I do not intend to deal with it. The young person who was at the pictures absconded from a Department of Education facility. He was not only three or four days in that detention centre, he had been there for a year and a half. He had, however, just been convicted. The Deputy can raise that matter with the Minister for Education.
We do not know who is responsible.
That is where the holistic approach comes in.
If the Deputy does not know who is responsible for children under 16, it is time he spoke to Deputy Martin. I have accepted responsibility for our prison system. This is clearly an enabling provision. Deputies would perhaps like to spend the rest of the time debating the prison system. I have already indicated that when I have the power to complete the prison rules I will send them to this committee and we can then spend days and weeks discussing all the issues related to the rules. We are not enacting rules today by this provision, but my advice from the Attorney General is that I must put in an enabling provision in this legislation because I want to finalise the prison rules.
A number of members talked about the lack of power of the governor to deal with disciplinary matters, prison staff and so on. That matter has also been under discussion. Since 1969 attempts have been made to create a disciplinary code for prison officers and I am glad the Minister is bringing this to finality. The Prison Officers' Association is finalising its examination of the proposals and we hope to have such a code in place within a matter of weeks, after years of debate.
I will not take the blame or accept responsibility for the years it has taken to bring some of these matters to fruition. I will take responsibility for the things I am doing and on which I am now able to deliver, such as including this enabling provision to create a system where we know we can make prison rules and deal with the issues that have rightly been raised by Members.
I am sorry if I appear exercised by this, but Ministers can also be exercised and frustrated. To listen to the Deputies opposite one would think that the revolving doors or the availability of temporary release was something I introduced on 14 December 1994. Members of the committee are aware that this is not the case and I can show from quotations from Dáil debates and elsewhere where the revolving door system existed for a number of years.
By the time our prison building programme is in place the Government will have provided 800 extra places for the system.
When?
We have already opened approximately 70 and another 25 are ready to be opened at Castlerea in approximately four weeks. I will invite Members to the opening. Another 68 will be available at the Curragh camp by the end of November. The planning for the major part of Castlerea has already been expedited and work will commence early next year. The plans for the refurbishment of a wing at Limerick Prison have already been drawn up and work will commence by the beginning of next year. Not a single prison space was provided since my party was last in Government in 1986-7 when the decision was made on Wheatfield.
Gerry Collins made that decision.
It was not Gerry Collins.
It goes to back to Deputy O'Malley.
The extra places which this Government has approved represents a massive investment. I will not accept the rubbish spoken every time we discuss prisons. For example, regarding the allegation that Castlerea was cancelled, it was merely deferred and is now back on stream. The first 25 places are almost ready to open which would not have been the case if Fianna Fáil had continued in Government. With regard to the Progressive Democrats, not a single mention of a prison place was made when the party was in Government. It was not even mentioned in the party's programme for Government, nor in its policy document. The party probably did not want anybody in prison as it considered it to be a waste of money or considered the money should have been spent on something else.
It is extraordinary how, in an enabling provision such as this, which is a positive step, there is not even the slightest effort by members to deal with what we are considering today. They should acknowledge that at last we are getting to the point where we can make effective prison rules and deal with the issues that Deputy O'Donnell and others have raised.
There is severe criticism of the medical services at Mountjoy Prison. We have been attempting to agree contracts with the Medical Council. When the medical doctors were put into the prisons in the 1970s they were put in without proper contracts. I was not responsible for that, nor was any Member here. I doubt if even Deputy Woods was a Member of the Dáil at that stage. It should not have happened and it will not happen again. Any doctors employed in the prisons to deal with my new drug treatment facility are being brought in on proper contracts so that we will know where we stand regarding the kind of work expected of them. Good work has been done by doctors at Mountjoy Prison, but it is not adequate. I have said before that sufficient medical services have not been available for the scale of the prison difficulties we have and for the kind of people in our prisons. I will not hide anything.
What has the Minister done about it?
I have sought to have contracts agreed with the Medical Council. I am still talking to the council, which must agree them. I do not have the power to get rid of people who have been in the service for 20 years or more. If I had the power I could perhaps operate under it, although the committee would be among the first to take the side of any such personnel, whether they be doctors or otherwise, who would find themselves dismissed after a certain number of years, even if they did not have contracts.
I have been as frustrated as Members of the committee and will continue to scream and shout at people in my Department and in the Medical Council who have not made decisions on this matter. However, it is being handled at present and we have already greatly improved the facilities regarding the drugs treatment section in my Department.
While I will accept full responsibilities for the services provided and to be provided in the State under my Department I will not accept the blame for the things my predecessors — the colleagues of the Members opposite — did not do when they were in office. I suggest they fight with them if they are not satisfied with what was not done in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s before I took up office. I will take the blame and the credit for whatever has been done during my stewardship of the Department of Justice.
I understood that this would be an enabling provision to allow us move on and make the rules so that the committee can debate it properly. I also understand that it will always be used as a political hammer with which to beat the Minister of the day. However, I will fight back because the Government has committed many millions of pounds to a prison building programme,——
Facts are facts.
——to a drug treatment centre in Mountjoy Prison and to a proper drug health care unit in the prison. At least three or four of our prisons are now almost totally drug free. Many changes have been made in the 18 months since I became Minister and I will continue to implement changes to our prison system.
I will not defend the prison system where it is indefensible, but I am disappointed that Members use words such as "maladministration". The Governors and prison staff of our prisons do an excellent job under very difficult circumstances. Of course there are problems, and there will always be one or two bad eggs in any staff grouping. Dealing with the criminals in our society is probably one of the most difficult jobs in the State. I say this to counter the impression I get from some Members that, somehow, the blame lies fully with governors and administrations, as suggested by the word "maladministration". There is no maladministration by my Department, the governors or the prison officers.
Our prison population has grown. I was preparing a reply to a parliamentary question for this afternoon, perhaps from one of the Deputies here, which makes clear that in 1976 there were 19 sex offenders in our prison system, while in 1996 there are almost 300. These kinds of figures mean that the prison system is now bulging at the seams. It is not today or yesterday that such increased figures should have got the kind of reaction they are now getting from me and from the Government. I hope the amendments will be agreed so that Members can have another long debate on the prison system.
I must bring Members back to the amendments under consideration and ask them to address their comments through the Chair. We are dealing with important amendments and have had a considerable debate. I hope we can leave some of the political baggage outside for the remainder of the meeting. I call Deputy O'Donoghue.
Whenever confronted with her responsibilities, it would appear that the Minister comes back with a refrain which is now as familiar as the old song entitled "By a Lonely Prison Wall". The prison developments at Castlerea and Mountjoy were cancelled by the Minister for Finance in the absence of the Minister in 1995. When the Minister returned to the country she defended his decision. If she had not done so we would be well on the way to providing a sufficiency of spaces in the country. The Minister will never have to pay for the Revenue costs of these prisons places. As far as the Minister is concerned, the cheque appears forever to be in the post.
The Minister for Justice says she is not responsible for the revolving prison door and that it was operating before she arrived. That is correct and that is why in the autumn of 1994 the Fianna Fáil led Administration provided in the published Estimates a projected increase in public expenditure of 4.5 per cent for the building of two prisons at Castlerea and Mountjoy. This Government increased public expenditure by approximately 11 per cent in 1995 and cancelled the prisons. While the Minister is not responsible for the creation of the revolving prison door, she is responsible for the open prison door because of the radical increase in the prison population to which she referred.
The Minister drew an interesting comparison in the course of her address to this committee. She stated that the Minister for Education was responsible for the youth who was convicted of rape and escaped from a cinema some weeks after his conviction.
I said it was a Department of Education facility. Deputy Liam Fitzgerald was trying to link it with one of our open prisons.
The Minister said the Minister for Education was responsible for that, although the latter has not rushed to the barricades to say so. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, who cancelled the prisons in the Minister's absence and whom she subsequently defended for having done so, introduced the Criminal Assets Bureau Bill, 1996, in July, although such legislation is appropriate to the Department of Justice and refers to the powers of the Minister for Justice. The reason the Minister for Finance wanted to do that was to show that there was some activity in the Labour Party on the crime issue and that he was trying to replace his frozen indifference and inactivity over a considerable period of time by a semblance of activity. While the Labour Party was willing to accept praise for that measure, which should have been the Minister's Bill, it was not willing to accept responsibility for the escape of the young person from the cinema. Until such time as somebody in this Government, whether it is the Minister for Justice, the Minister for Education or the Taoiseach, says they are accountable and responsible, we will go nowhere.
I feel I have been short-changed as regards my point on the District Court, given this debate on the prisons.
Is the Deputy saying his party is out of order?
The Minister discussed this topic fairly widely.
I did so in response to the Deputy.
That is what Committee Stage is for. As regards the power to make prison rules, the Minister mentioned some areas which will be covered. She said that she will bring the draft regulations to the committee for discussion. I cannot see any provision in the Bill to allow for such consultation. Will she table an amendment to this effect or is it just a goodwill gesture? If it is worth doing, it is worth doing well. She should table an amendment stating this is normal procedure. Perhaps the Minister could clarify the situation.
I trust Deputy Woods is not doubting my word in the spirit of openness and transparency. A commitment was given in A Government of Renewal that the new prison rules would be discussed with this committee. I have reiterated that commitment. It is not necessary to include it in the legislation. I trust that if the opposition parties get into Government again, they will take note of such openness and transparency. The committee system was modified so that a number of issues could be discussed, so I do not see any technical need to table an amendment to this section. I cannot bring these rules to the committee until this amendment is passed. The Deputy is demanding to know what will be in the rules. I cannot give the Deputy that information until I am given the power to do so, which has not been given to any previous Government. The power which exists is 120 years old. If I sound frustrated it is because I am trying to explain that I want to include this provision in order to be open and transparent about the rules of management of prisons.
I remind Deputy O'Donoghue that the Government's decision on Castlerea was deferred for six months, but it is now back on stream. Not a single prison place would have been opened in Castlerea if the Fianna Fáil-Labour Government had remained in office because the patients were still in the hospital building which is to be used as a prison. The last patient left in August this year. How can the Deputy square that circle? Fianna Fáil continued with a funny money budget because it knew in November 1994 it would not be continuing in Government as a single party. Its budget had no more credibility than a fairy story and it included £4 million which it knew could not be spent because it did not get access to the building it wanted to turn into a prison. Deputy O'Donoghue continues to repeat this fiction every time he mentions Castlerea because he either closes his ears or refuses to hear what I am saying. I have clarified the position now.
I am not happy with the Minister's reply. We are dealing with legislation, not a personal attack on the Minister. It is good that the rules to be brought before the committee because it will reassure people that this is being done in their interest and to rehabilitate the prisoners. I am sure there would be widespread support for that approach. This amendment asks us to give the Minister for Justice power to make rules for the regulation and good government of prisons. Regulations are often laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas or they may be subject to a voting procedure, depending on their nature. The Minister may say these regulations will be laid before the Houses or that a Minister for Justice will discuss the regulations with the committee. It will be a once-off discussion as soon as the Minister receives these regulations, but we are making legislation for the long term. Will the Minster consider for Report Stage whether such regulations should be laid on the table of the House or whether there should be a commitment, which the Minister seems happy to make, to return to the Committee and discuss the amendments?
In response to the Minister's routine flight from accountability——
That is an imputation that I am being dishonest. I dispute that. It is not a flight from accountability. I am accountable for anything I do during my term of office.
Since the Minster has accepted she is accountable for her Department and for the operation of the prison service, will she take political responsibility for the fact that nine persons have escaped from closed institutions already this year and that 197 persons have absconded from open institutions during the first eight months of this year?
I accept responsibility for what happens in our prisons.
Does the Minister accept political responsibility, because there has not been acceptance of responsibility for the many escapes in the first months of this year? Of the 197 escapees 53 persons are still at large, as are two of the nine who escaped from closed institutions. If the Minster accepts responsibility for that, how does she propose to deal with that accountability to Dáil Éireann?
Does the Minster accept responsibility for the fact that the manpower contractual problem which has been sitting on her desk since she came into office has not yet been resolved, leading to an inadequate medical service in Mountjoy jail which is not in the public interest? Does she accept total political responsibility for that fact and that it puts lives at risk in Mountjoy? There is an inadequate medical service for the grievously sick inmates in Mountjoy and they are not receiving proper medical care.
Does she accept accountability for the fact that there is no strategic direction in the management of the £16 million overtime? Targets are consistently blown every year in the prison service. Does she accept that the problem has not been tackled?
Can she accept responsibility for the promised 400 remand places in Wheatfield that have not yet come on stream and which could have been built by the private sector and up and running by the end of this year had she accepted tenders from the private sector? What is happening? What is the delay in the building of Wheatfield?
We are accused of living in the past but every time the Minister speaks on Question Time or a debate on legislation, she invites us to go on a historical excursion. The one we had today related to a period prior to the day she took office.
Deputies O'Donoghue, O'Donnell and Woods asked the Minster about accountability. What is accountability? What does it mean? If it means the Minister and Government have to be dragged by the scruff of the neck to produce legislation for a referendum on bail, 18 months after the Minister recognised the need to address this and made a public statement for which she was subsequently and speedily carpeted by her partners, then my literal interpretation of the English language has gone very much askew.
Each time the Minister talks of prisons and prison places her arithmetic does not add up. On my figures the places only add up to 140 places. She talked of 800 places before she left office. I am baffled about her figures. She referred to Castlerea. The wall there was almost completed when the Government, without the Minister's knowledge, cancelled the programme. In talking about accountability in Government, it is up to the Minister to address the problems associated with the placement of prisoners and so on.
The Minister seemed to suggest that I had no right to refer to the case of a rapist convicted of involvement in a multiple rape of a woman when I discussed the management of our prisons. I reject that and would remind her that during the 1980s I served on the Committee which brought in the Child Care Act, 1991. It might be worth her while reading the text of all debates during that time, because her party and Deputy Howlin as spokesman for health were most vociferous in calling for a more holistic approach to the management of criminals. The concern was that there should be an overall structure of responsibility and accountability. It serves no purpose now to try to shift responsibility. There should be an overall management structure for the custodial care of criminals, be they in an open, semi-open or closed institution. The ordinary, decent and law-abiding citizens tell us we have failed to address the challenges posed by criminals and it does not matter to them whether the criminals are aged ten, 12 or 100. That is one of the most essential issues. I ask the Minister to think again.
I understand the legislation on the referendum on bail will soon be published. It too is an example of what would be charitably and mildly called tardiness.
The Deputy is aware that we will have that legislation before this Committee. What the Deputy said about the child care committee is correct. I too was a member of that Committee. However, the Deputy will concede that there have been improvements in co-ordination between the Departments of Health, Education and Justice. There is an interdepartmental group examining that and much progress has been made.
The question of prison rules concerns me. I acknowledge that remission for good conduct is well founded in law although that is easily forgotten when listening to contributions from Members. However, it is important that consideration would be given by the prison authorities to inform the Garda where that prisoner is from, that he or she is on early or temporary release. It has often been brought to my attention that prisoners can return to a community and live in close proximity to a victim without that victim being informed that the prisoner is about to be — or has been — released. It is particularly important to tell the victim in cases where acts of violence were perpetrated against the victim It is important that the Garda make contact with the victim and inform him or her that the prisoner is coming home, whether for a weekend or permanently. This is not a difficult undertaking, having regard to the Garda network but it is important and might perhaps be addressed.
I ask the Minister to respond on those points. I will not ask her to refer to Castlerea as we will not get agreement on it. However, it behoves us all as legislators to ensure that Castlerea is up and running at the earliest opportunity.
I will try to keep my remarks as temperate as I can. Despite the provocation and the stimulation I have received from the very limited number of Members at the committee, we have still managed to have an extremely robust and lively discussion.
(Interruptions.)
One can see how much tension the Opposition has created. I did not say anything pejorative. I said that despite the small number of people here we have managed to have an extremely robust and comprehensive debate on what I thought was an enabling provision.
I will not answer all the detailed questions which have been raised here because, as I said to Deputy Woods earlier on, this is an enabling provision. I did not come with every piece of information I wanted on the prison system with me. I will bring this information when I am coming to discuss prison rules with the committee. I am relying on my memory and knowledge of the system as I have learned it since I became Minister for Justice and as I knew it before taking up office.
I did not simply take up this Department and let everything run the way it had been running. If I had done so, none of the changes now being made to the system would have taken place. I accept responsibility for the Department of Justice and the agencies under that Department. All the issues Deputy O'Donnell raised are being dealt with at the moment, they were not dealt with for many years. Planning for the 400 place remand prison in Wheatfield is now at an advanced stage. The Deputy is wrong in saying that if we had just accepted any tender, the prison would be built by Christmas. That is utter rubbish and she clearly does not understand what is involved.
The Minister never got the brief.
I got all the briefs in this regard.
There was no reply to the correspondence.
The person who sits on the committee which is made up of Office of Public Works and the Department of Justice and the Department of Finance is here. Those Departments work closely with my Department to make sure the prison places the Government has approved will be delivered as close to the deadline as possible. Some of them are already in place, including those in St. Patrick's institution and the health care unit in Mountjoy prison. The 25 place unit in Castlerea will be ready within one month. The new women's prison is well advanced in its planning as is Castlerea main prison and the 400 place Wheatfield prison. We hope to get a further 80 places by reorganisation in Portlaoise prison. Some of those places are contingent on the peace process, but we are also carrying out other modifications to the prison to allow us to use the existing spaces more effectively. The first major trawl of our prison system was done after I took up office.
I do not accept that I have to be responsible for the lack of action by previous Governments. I will take responsibility for my own actions, such as the action with regard to the doctors in Mountjoy. I share Deputies' frustrations. I cannot order anything more than for the Medical Council to reach an agreement with my Department. I have asked what happened in that regard almost on a weekly basis. I would have taken stronger action if I could, but I am precluded because of fair procedures and so on. If one of those doctors came to Deputy O'Donnell lobbying about unfair procedures, she would probably be the first to write to me in this regard.
Which is more important, individual doctors' interests or the public interest?
The interests of the prisoners are important. I wish to deny something Deputy O'Donnell said. I do not have any evidence that lives have been put at risk because of the medical services in Mountjoy prison.
There have been suicides.
No suicides that I know of have been directly related to the responsibility of the two doctors there. I do not want to get into this issue in any detail.
The committee should not discuss this issue at present.
Many things are not being done that I would like to see done and I am putting many things in place that should have been put in place a long time ago. Deputies can judge at the end of my tenure of office whether I have delivered on these. I accept responsibility, I do not know what the point of the Deputy's question was unless it was the usual old cry of "resign". It is always good for a headline.
Is the Minister offering to resign?
I am most certainly not offering my resignation.
That is a pity. I thought I would leave the decision to her.
I am not offering my resignation because I believe the job I am doing is far too important to play dirty politics with it.
Some 197 people are absconding from open prisons.
There are always escapes from open prisons. I have already put mechanisms in place to try to cut those down. I will be honest with the committee, however. Fences are being built and gates are being installed, but these are open prisons which have been a proper part of this penal system for the last 30 years. I do not welcome the fact that people abscond from them and I hope we will be able to stop them, but I cannot put my hand on my heart and say that by the time the next Minister for Justice comes into office, people will no longer be trying to abscond. There is no foolproof way I know of to prevent them unless we turn our open prisons into full secure prisons.
We have not had an escape from a prison. The nine escapes from our secure prisons took place when people were outside the prison system. The last escape from within a prison wall was about 11 years ago during somebody else's term of office. I do not know the details of that. We have not had that kind of escape from our prisons since then.
Many comments have been made here today and I fully accept many of the criticisms of the system, but I have already taken action in a number of these areas to make changes in it. Actions are continuing to be taken to change the system. I will stand judged on how effective those actions are at the end of my tenure in office. Many of the actions I have taken since becoming Minister have yielded beneficial changes to our prison system. I hope that at the end of all this Members will be generous enough to agree to these amendments so I can make the prison rules in which Deputies are so interested and have much to contribute.
The Chairman made a case for notifying victims when prisoners are being released. I know that, within reason, efforts are made to notify the Garda when people are let out on temporary and early release. There is no adequate system in place to allow the Garda to let victims know in the way this should be done. I have had discussions with Victim Support on this issue and when we discuss prison rules I will be happy to consider it and to see what co-operation I can get to make that available.
There is, and there has been for many years, constant movement within our prisons which is nothing to do with the revolving door, as it is referred to. This movement is to do with the general management of sentences and people going out to classes and to training and that sort of thing, including perhaps going for drinks in local pubs. This is now under investigation and a prison officer is under suspension because of that case. This is as much as I can say until after the investigation. Deputy O'Donnell is aware that there must be fair procedures when somebody is accused of an action to ensure the person's right to a defence. I will take whatever action is required at the end of the investigation.
Deputy Woods made a valid suggestion which I will look at before Report Stage. There is not a subsection in this extra section to the Bill that requires prison rules to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. There have not been prison rules since 1947. I want to get them right so that we will not have to amend them every year.
I am not arguing with the Minister.
I hope the intention of the debate is not to thwart my power to make these prison rules, but rather to highlight aspects of the prisons which members find fault with and which will engage and inform the debate on the rules.
Is the Minister aware that Leinster House has removed the revolving door for today, replacing it by an open door? I hope this is not a bad omen for her.
This courtesy to Chancellor Kohl has always been the practice for visiting leaders. I hope the Deputy recognised it had nothing to do with me. Perhaps he would speak to the Captain of the Guard or the Ceann Comhairle. I will pass on his comments to the Cabinet.
The revolving door will be back in place tomorrow morning.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 9, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
This is an especially important section, one which, among others, I have requested for some time. The Garda Síochána has had great difficulty in this area, especially with regard to search warrants cases of incest, rape and sexual offences of different kinds. The difficulties gardaí have had include, in cases such as rape, their restriction from entering premises soon enough.
This section gives a major new power which will be welcomed. Nevertheless it represents a major change in our law. Section 9(6) states: ". . . "place" includes a dwelling.". In addition it states: ". . . "commission" in relation to an offence, includes an attempt to commit such offence;. . .". This major change in the law will allow an inspector, accompanied by a named person — another member of the Garda — to enter and search for information on the suspicion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that evidence may be there, for example clothing evidence following a sexual assault.
It is important that people understand the reasons these actions are taken. The measure will help gardaí in the pursuit of these cases. It is not made lightly and I presume it was not made in the past because of the general concern about the invasion of the privacy of the home. However, in the case of sexual assault and rape it will now be possible to enter a premises or a home given the mechanism where a judge of the District Court can grant the authority to an inspector or somebody of higher rank to enter a premises speedily and acquire vital evidence. It also applies in cases where weapons are used. It will add considerably to the work of the gardaí in prosecuting cases.
This is a new power and I introduce it here on the basis that a lacuna has existed in our law for some time in that gardaí cannot search premises for evidence of serious sexual offences. Judicial protection is provided in that a garda of at least inspector rank must apply to a District Court judge after giving evidence. The judge can then decide that a search warrant should be issued. There must be reasonable grounds that evidence of an offence specified will be found.
Searching for guns is covered under firearms legislation, but this increased power regarding a search warrant will allow the gardaí to search for a knife or an implement that may have been used in a sexual offence which contains evidence that can be used to convict a person.
It is a power that we may not have needed to grant to the Garda Síochána years ago but it is appropriate today because, sadly, there is an increase in these kinds of sexual offences in our society, as in most societies.
I hope the section will be welcomed by all. I have included it in the legislation following deep discussion with the Garda Síochána whose members have told me that this gap in the law prevents them from undertaking as much investigation as they need to do in these kinds of cases. It is a power that will be effective in the fight against this kind of crime. I hope members will accept the inclusion of the section.
Question put and agreed to.
It is proposed to adjourn and to resume at 4 o'clock. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The Select Committee on Social Affairs is meeting at 4 o'clock to consider another Bill and I will not be able to return here at that time.
Sitting suspended at 1.40 p.m. and resumed at 4 p.m.
NEW SECTIONS.
We are resuming on the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1996. We have dealt with section 9 and we are now moving to amendment No. 8 to section 10. Amendment No. 9 is related to amendment No. 8 and both may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 9, before section 10, to insert the following new section:
10.—(1) A power under any enactment, whether passed before or after the passing of this Act, to take the fingerprints or palmprints of any person shall include the power to record an image of that person's fingerprints or palmprints by electronic means or in any other manner.
(2) A photograph, or an image of any fingerprint or palmprint attached to or contained in a certificate purporting to be signed by the member who took such photograph or recorded such image and stating that—
(a) the said photograph is that of a specified person, or
(b) the said image is that of the fingerprint or palmprint, as the case may be, of a specified person,
and was taken or recorded, as the case may be, by the said member, shall, unless the contrary is proved, be evidence of the matters stated in the certificate.".
The purpose of amendment No. 8 is to remove any doubt which may exist about taking fingerprints or palmprints by electronic means. The new computerised fingerprint system known as AFIS, which I formally inaugurated earlier this year, is a major part of the Garda technology plan. Early results from that system show that a threefold increase in fingerprint identification has been possible since the new AFIS system was installed. AFIS stands for automated fingerprinting service. The new technology will ensure a rapid and comprehensive service for the Garda. Fingerprints submitted from all crime scenes will be assessed for examination against the complete national fingerprint database, leading to the identification of a greater number of criminal suspects. The old manual system involved 500 hours of search to identify some fingerprints. The new system is capable of doing that in ten minutes. This amendment seeks to remove any doubt which may exist, however remote — there are always good lawyers who will find holes in some of our legislation — about taking fingerprints or palmprints by electronic means and using them as evidence. When the law on fingerprints was written, these electronic methods were not available.
The new proposed section also provides that a photograph, a fingerprint or palmprint certified by the member of the force who took it shall be evidence of matters stated in the certificate, unless the contrary is proved. The effect of this is that it will not be necessary for the garda who took the photograph to give oral evidence in court that the photograph is that of a particular person. When the garda who took the photograph certifies it, that should be sufficient.
The purpose of amendment No. 9 is to replace section 28 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984, with a new section. The proposed section provides for the taking of palmprints and photographs by the Garda following the conviction of a person. Section 28 of the 1984 Act provides for the taking of fingerprints only, not photographs, following conviction. The new provision will be of assistance to gardaí, for example, in a case where a person reoffends and leaves a palmprint but not a fingerprint at the scene of the crime.
Since section 28 of the 1984 Act is deficient in that it only allows for the taking of fingerprints, I propose to remedy that by extending the section to allow the taking of palmprints and photographs of convicted persons. The Garda should have as complete a profile as possible of a convicted person so that they can be quickly identified if they reoffend.
There are a number of other small differences between the new section 28 and the section it replaces. For example, the Garda will be empowered to require a person to attend, within seven days of being convicted, at a named Garda station for the purposes of having their fingerprints, palmprints or photograph taken. The fine for failing to comply with the requirement under that section is being increased from £1,000 to £1,500. The powers of the Garda, where persons have made it impracticable to have their prints or photographs taken, are also set out in more detail.
This is essentially a modernising section to take into account the improved technology available. It was assumed in the 1984 Act that the only means of identification were fingerprints as opposed to palmprints or photographs. I trust members will see this as an important and appropriate tool to be made available to the Garda. I recommend the amendments.
I welcome the amendments as they reflect improvements in technology. I hope it marks the beginning of a trend where modern technology will be used to a greater extent in the criminal justice system. It will enable the gathering and dissemination of information which Deputies are unable to obtain on the floor of the Dáil at present.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 9, before section 10, to insert the following new section:
11.—The Criminal Justice Act, 1984, is hereby amended by the substitution of the following section for section 28:
28.—(1) Where a person, on being prosecuted for an indictable offence, is the subject of an order under subsection (1) or (2) of section 1 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, or is convicted and otherwise dealt with, a member of the Garda Síochána may—
(a) at any convenient place, take the fingerprints, palmprints or photograph of that person, within 7 days of the making of such order or his being convicted, or
(b) require, in writing, that person to attend, within 7 days of the making of such order or his being convicted, at a named Garda Síochána station for the purpose of having his fingerprints, palmprints or photograph taken:
Provided that where a person has made it impracticable for his fingerprints, palmprints or photograph to be taken within the said period of 7 days, a member of the Garda Síochána may require (or in the case of a person attending a Garda Síochána station pursuant to a requirement under this section, further require) in writing, that person to attend at a named Garda Síochána station on a specified day for the purpose of having his fingerprints, palmprints or photograph taken.
(2) A member of the Garda Síochána may take the fingerprints, palmprints or photograph of a person on his attendance at a Garda Síochána station pursuant to a requirement under this section.
(3) The provisions of section 8 shall apply to fingerprints, palmprints or photographs taken pursuant to this section of a person who is the subject of an order under subsection (1) or (2) of section 1 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, as they apply to fingerprints, palmprints or photographs taken in pursuance of the powers conferred by section 6.
(4) Any person who refuses to comply with a requirement under this section or to allow his fingerprints, palmprints or photograph to be taken pursuant to this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 10 agreed to.