asked the Minister for Justice the institutions of penal servitude which still have wood-yards; if it is intended to phase out these and, if so, when.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Penal Servitude Institutions.
5.
There are wood-yards in Mountjoy Prison, Limerick Prison and St. Patrick's Institution.
An extensive programme of prison building and redevelopment is in progress at present and an important part of this is the provision of new workshops and the development of new industries and work activities. The cutting and splitting of timber in wood-yards is decreasing according as suitable alternative activities become available. It must be said, however, that the wood-yards have been useful in providing employment for offenders serving sentences of such short duration or whose aptitutes and interests are such that it is not feasible to provide work with a training content for them. The need to provide unskilled work for some persons in custody is expected to remain.
Considerable advances have been made over the past few years in providing employment and training for those in custody. Already a wide range of employment activities has been introduced custody. Already a wide range of employment activities has been introduced and developed to suit various abilities and interests. Activities such as printing, joinery and gardening provide a commercial standard of product and give valuable training opportunities for the people working at them. In the Training Unit at Glengarriff Parade the courses are equivalent to those available at the AnCO training centres and in addition, offenders are helped to develop social skills.
Some form of work training is now available to any offender serving a sentence of 12 months or more who shows reasonable interest and who appears to have the aptitude to benefit from it.
Plans for further developments in this area are now well advanced. On the employment side there will be an expansion predominantly in the engineering, timber and textile activities. In the industrial training area courses in construction and catering will be introduced. These developments will take place in all of the prisons and places of detention.
When does the Minister expect that the wood-yards will cease operation? Will the Minister confirm that he is aware not just that there are problems relating to the question of the usefulness of such work or toil but that there are risks to inmates and staff arising out of the kind of implements used in those wood-yards? They have been the focal point of many problems in the past and I should like the Minister to tell us when we are likely to see the back of them.
I appreciate that the Deputy understands well the problem we are discussing and I should like to tell him that considerable progress was made by my predecessors and myself in bringing about an expansion of facilities needed to provide outlets for the people in prison. I cannot give the Deputy a date, as to when I will say that from that date onwards wood-yards will not be available. If I am allowed to build the new prison at Wheatfield in County Dublin—that is another problem for another day—that will be a step closer to the day when, as far as St. Patricks is concerned, wood-yards will no longer be a part of it. There are many problems over which I do not have any control that would affect ultimately the type of time schedule the Deputy has asked me to impose.
But the Minister is phasing them out?
I am.
6.
asked the Minister for Justice if the inquiry into recent disturbances in St. Patrick's Institution has been completed and if it is proposed to publish the report.
I presume the Deputy is referring to the disturbance which occurred in St. Patrick's Institution on 31 October 1978 which is over a year ago.
I gave the House an account of these disturbances, based on the facts then known, in reply to a parliamentary question on 1 November 1978. A more detailed internal inquiry was subsequently carried out. It is not the practice to publish the results of such inquiries—and I am satisfied that there are good reasons for this practice, mainly the fact that the facts are more likely to be revealed on that basis—but I can say that the inquiry did not disclose anything that was either inconsistent with or that added materially to the account I gave the House already.
I should also add that allegations were made that, while dealing with the disturbance and, even more so, after the disturbance had been quelled, prison officers seriously assulted a number of prisoners by way of retaliation. As such allegations amount to allegations of criminal offences on the part of the prison officers concerned, the Garda Síochána were asked to carry out a separate investigation. They did so and submitted their report, which includes the statements of the persons who made the allegations as well as those of prison officers, to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The director found that there was no evidence to warrant a prosecution.
Will there be any changes in the system of administration in St. Patrick's arising out of those inquiries? Will they have any concrete effect? Will the Minister reconsider the general attitude to the publication of the whole or part of such reports in order to quell sometimes unnecessary concern in the public mind, sometimes justified, and remove the cloud of suspicion which on occasions hangs for a long time in the wake of such instances? Will the Minister consider a more open approach to the idea of publishing such reports which ultimately are paid for out of the public purse?
I cannot say what the findings of that report were. However, the findings did not bring about any change in the statement I referred to, which was issued on 1 November 1978. It is not the practice in this House to comment on matters such as changes within the prison administration.
An affirmative would suffice.
I cannot say. I would need separate notice of that question so that I could consider the implications of it. With regard to the idea of making available reports of Garda or other inquiries to quell unnecessary concern, I do not believe that all the concern that is being voiced is necessary or genuine, as the Deputy thinks. The Deputy mentioned an organisation this morning which my predecessor and I have had difficulty with. We will have an opportunity during the course of the debate on the Vote for the prisons to thrash that out. I agree that there is concern but not the great concern the Deputy speaks of.
The Minister admits that there is some concern. I am not asking the Minister to consider publishing a verbatim report of an internal inquiry but he should consider publishing a statement, as comprehensive as possible, making allowances for questions of libel and confidentiality, which would help to clarify the matter in the public mind.
I issued a comprehensive statement on 1 November dealing with the matter.
Subsequent to the inquiry?
I am telling the Deputy that what came out in the inquiry did not make any difference to the facts outlined by me in that statement.
I take it that the Minister is not in favour of publishing those reports in any shape or form?
We have devoted sufficient time to this matter and I am calling the next question.
7.
asked the Minister for Justice the reasons for the deterioration in the situation in St. Patrick's Institution which has led to requests by the prison officers to have the institution closed and if his reply to questions earlier this year on conditions in St. Patrick's Institution are consistent with recent reports.
I am not aware of any deterioration in conditions in St. Patrick's Institution in the last 12 months. On the contrary, work has been proceeding in St. Patrick's on the provision of additional facilities, for example, the extension of the educational unit, the adaptation of workshop areas and the planning of a replacement kitchen. These measures are, of course, interim ones.
I am on record as saying that I do not consider St. Patrick's Institution as a suitable place to accommodate juveniles and I have never said anything inconsistent with that. Planning is well advanced for two new institutions, one in Dublin and one in Cork, to replace St. Patrick's. At a recent meeting with the Prison Officers' Association, policy in regard to the eventual closure of St. Patrick's was clearly explained. The Deputy's question suggests that what I have said is inconsistent with recent statements made in an article in the association's magazine. I accept that it is inconsistent with that article. However, what I have said is factually and provably correct.
Would the Minister address his mind momentarily to the inconsistency between what was said by his Minister of State on 27 June in the House in reply to my questions and what he has said now? The Minister of State indicated then that there was complete harmony, light and reason, and all kinds of hope that peace and stability would prevail in this institution but within a matter of a few months the prison's officers requested that the place be closed. The Minister publicly acceded to that request.
It is not my intention to give the Deputy a lesson or anything like that but he is incorrect in his facts. I made known to the association who represent prison officers my views on St. Patrick's and my plans for it a long time before there was any call for its closure.
Will the Minister comment on the clear difference of opinion between him and his Minister of State as expressed on 27 June?
I do not have a copy of what the Minister of State said on that occasion.
That does not arise now; it is a separate question.
That question is essential.
I did not envisage that this matter would be raised on this question but I am prepared to deal with it later.
I will table a question about this matter later when I obtain a copy of what the Minister of State said.