Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 21 May 1985

Vol. 358 No. 8

Adjournment Debate. - Security at Loughan House.

I thank the Chair for providing me with an opportunity for raising this matter on the Adjournment. I would have been more grateful had I got the Chair's permission earlier when I raised it and before this became a matter of public comment in the Press. My main reason for raising the matter last week, hoping to be given permission to raise it on the Adjournment, is that for some considerable time I have been getting strong representations — one could say it amounted to pressure — as a result of what was happening. The House will be familiar with the background to this story and will remember that Loughan House was chosen as a place of detention for young people originally. The House will recall that it attracted an amount of ignorant criticism at that time. I had occasion then to point out that that house was a fine building and that its location was one of great beauty, beside Lough Macnean on the Cavan-Fermanagh border. It is an amenity area and a famous place. In fact when John Behan the sculptor was asked to execute a piece of sculpture to commemorate Cathal Buí Mac Giolla Gunna he fell in love with the area and purchased a small house there. Obviously, he was taken, as many people are, by the beauty of an area which contains Lough Macnean, the Glangevlin Gap, the Shannon Pot and so on.

The whole prison experience was in an area of great beauty which up to then was practically crime free. The local people, when Loughan House was first used as a place of detention, set about making it as successful and humane as possible. People whom I know, including a priest who is now in Africa, did their level best to welcome the young people. They organised sports and football matches between groups from outside and those in Loughan House. Generally, they tried by developing a community spirit to help and educate them and make them useful members of society afterwards.

The people feel a bit aggrieved that, despite this effort at togetherness which was the order of the day when the young offenders were in Loughan House, the area is being subjected to very severe pressure from escapees from Loughan House. In all instances I shall mention I do not suppose a definite connection between escapees and the crimes committed can be established in a strictly legal sense but in some instances the connection has been very obviously established.

The presbytery and the church have been broken into. The safe in the church was burst open. There was no money in the safe and the sacred vessels were not touched. The person who entered the church on that occasion did so via a small window and left by the main door. That door was left open. For the most part Blacklion, the nearest village to Loughan House, comes safe. The presbytery is not in the village and, I suppose, those involved understand that there is a large force of gardaí stationed there, a Border area. Those people head in a different direction, further south west towards the villages of Glangevlin and Dowra.

The inmates of Loughan House, and their visitors, are the subject of great concern to the people. I have been asked to stress that particular vigilence must be exercised as far as the visitors to Loughan House are concerned. On the night the church was broken into a car was stolen. The vehicle was later found 120 miles away from Blacklion in the Phoenix Park. Glangevlin dispensary was broken into. On 25 March the presbytery was ransacked and some old coins and a torch taken. The coins were not of any value and some of them were afterwards found in Loughan House. The presbytery was broken into on 21 April and a radio stolen and a cheque book was missing. The radio was later found in Loughan House. On 24 April a window was broken in the church. No entry was made and no further damage was done. However, at that time escapees were at large.

A car was stolen at Swanlinbar which is some distance away. It is difficult to prove these things in a court of law but I am talking about an area which was practically — I could even leave out the adverb — free from crime hitherto. A car stolen in Glangevlin was found damaged near the Phoenix Park. Two bicycles were stolen and one was later found near Swanlinbar. The postman's car was stolen. In Doobally a car was pushed from the owner's premises but was abandoned by the thieves when it was discovered there was no engine in it. The idea was to push the vehicle way from the house so that they would not be heard starting it up. Those involved made a mistake in that instance.

Children have been met by some of the escapees and responsible people in the area are worried about these people being able to converse with children. I must stress that there is a heavy force of gardaí and soldiers in Blacklion. In Dowra, a village on the Leitrim border, a car was stolen and was found in Galway with Loughan House people in it. Again, they seemed to fancy cheque books because together with the car they stole a cheque book from a house. Apparently, they broke into the house, got the key of the car and stole the cheque book.

The result of all this is that the people in the area are frightened for their property. Old people are frightened for their safety. This fear is enhanced by the stories about attacks on old people in the west. Old people in that area must climb the Cuilcagh Mountains to count sheep and they have seen escapees on the mountain. One of the most ridiculous complaints I got — were it not for the fact that escapees were seen in the area nobody would suspect the link — was that an old shelter used by sheep when lambing was vandalised and destroyed. That was a completely mindless and senseless operation.

I believe I have said enough to give the House an idea of what is exercising the minds of the people in that area and what inspired me to ask the Chair to allow me to raise the matter on the Adjournment. I should like to know how many of those escapes were reported to the Minister. What knowledge has the Minister of the escapes? I am sure it will be particularly difficult to trace escapes which enable people to steal objects and bring them back into the prison. It seems to me that until the stolen object was found that was the kind of escape that was hardly recorded. The prison was being made a kind of pied-à-terre for the rogues. Is the Minister fully informed about these matters and will he list in his reply all the escapes that have been notified to him?

The substantive question is what plans has the Minister to deal with security in Loughan House? Is the Minister satisfied with the action he has taken? I saw a report in the paper since I tried to raise the matter in the House, that the Minister had sent for officers from Loughan House. I would like to get the story and I would like the Minister to say what steps have been taken to stop this depredation in a peaceful, quiet and beautiful part of the country. The Minister has an obligation to see to it that there is absolute security in the area, that people are not afraid, whether they are young or old, to go about their business, to sleep peacefully and securely at night, to be confident if they have a motor car that they will be able to continue to use it and that when they go to use it they will not have to fetch it in the Phoenix Park. Until comparatively recently in this part of the country motor cars were seldom locked. Recently I heard the first complaints about two bicycles being stolen from a bicycle shed.

I want an assurance from the Minister on behalf of the people in the area that he is fully aware of what is happening and that he has had consultations with the people who understand security in prisons and that he is seeing to it that security will be maintained and that there is proper liaison between the Loughan House authorities and the Garda so that the Garda will be apprised of the fact that people have escaped as soon as it has happened and that responsible members of the community may also be alerted as to what is happening. I thank the Chair for allowing me to raise this matter in the House and I look forward to the Minister's answers.

Limerick East): I thank Deputy Wilson for putting down this question. It gives me an opportunity to explain to the House some of the issues which can arise in relation to our open places of custody. The House is aware that we have high security prisons such as Portlaoise and Limerick mainly used to house subversive-type prisoners. We have other prisons like Mountjoy and St. Patrick's Institution, which has been designated a prison, which are very secure. We also have prisons such as Shelton Abbey which is an open shelter, where the gate is open and people have to obey a certain regime and they are not kept in by walls, gates or bolts. The same is true of Shanganagh Castle, near Bray. The Deputy knows that Loughan House was an institution for people under 16 until recently. When we took it over as a prison it could be categorised as a semi-open prison system. It has not the open gate system of Shanganagh or Shelton Abbey but it is not as secure as Mountjoy or St. Patrick's and it has not the kind of security one would find in Portlaoise or Limerick.

Open institutions, as a penological concept, were first introduced into the Irish penal system in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The introduction of open institutions was one of a number of measures introduced or developed during that period. At the same time measures such as probation and "conditional release" were encouraged as alternatives to custodial sentences and, within the prisons, work-training, education, personal development programmes were also encouraged.

I should point out, however, that in 1967 — the year before our first open centre was acquired — there were only three prisons and one detention centre operating in the country. The daily average prison population then was 600, less than one-third of the number in custody today and there was no pressure on prison accommodation although the numbers being committed to custody began to rise towards the end of that decade. Furthermore, the type of offender being sent to prison was different. By and large persons in custody conformed and served their sentences without much disruption or the threat of it. Also the regimes in the prisons reflected the social norms which obtained in the community generally: there was greater discipline, conditions were more spartan and administration stricter all round. In those circumstances one can readily understand why prisoners in those days welcomed a transfer to one of the new open institutions which had more liberal regimes. When they were sent to one of those institutions they stayed there and, generally speaking, they behaved themselves in the knowledge that if they absconded they would be found and sent back to one of the more secure institutions where the measures were more spartan.

I have mentioned the origin and background of the open institutions mainly to illustrate the change that has taken place over the years and the different nature of the issues which confront the open centres at the present time. Today, to be specific, there are 1,914 prisoners in custody and they are contained in eleven different institutions. A high proportion of our prisoners have been convicted of serious offences and, to put it in prison terms, the number of prisoners who could be described as "trustys" is getting smaller. All of this means that, as time goes on, it is proving more difficult to find the type of prisoner who traditionally was considered suitable for open centres. But the important fact remains that prisoners, whatever their crimes, must sooner or later be released. The question which must be answered is whether it is better to release a prisoner on the last day of his sentence or to ease him back into the community before that, in a controlled situation. I think the latter option is preferable. If I am right in that, and I believe I am, then the open centres must continue to play their role in providing pre-release facilities for prisoners, even if the prisoners of today are more difficult than prisoners in the past.

Loughan House is, of course, an open centre. From a security point of view it has certain advantages over some of the other open centres. It has a double wire fence around it which, although it is not intended that it should provide total security, does provide for a level of control. The location of Loughan House is itself a factor which influences the security of the place. Also, and this is an important point, the staff-offender ratio at Loughan House is one of the highest in the prison system. This is because of the high staff ratios that were there when it served a different purpose and there was an unwillingness to disturb the life patterns of those who had build their lives there. Now, there is an argument that has been put forward that too high a staff-offender ratio can itself cause problems — not least of which is lack of interest on the part of staff which, in turn, can adversely affect security. This is a matter which I will examine shortly in relation to Loughan House and, indeed, in the context of the need to deploy staff more effectively elsewhere in the prison system.

Recently officials of my Department have had discussions with the governor of Loughan House and reviewed the security arrangements at the house. Following those discussions the governor was authorised to take certain steps which he considered would strengthen security at the centre. This involves, inter alia, improving the perimeter fence and changes in the deployment of staff.

Where there is an institution of this kind in an area, there is a temptation to attribute all unsolved crimes committed in the area to the inmates detained in the institution. I know that the area where Loughan House is situated has a relatively low crime level. Apart from a very small number of incidents, I am not aware that the inmates in Loughan House have, since the house opened as an open centre in 1972, contributed to any great extent to crime in the area. However, I have information that at least two of the incidents to which the Deputy referred are attributable to inmates of Loughan House. There are others where it is an open question as to whether they are so attributable.

Any problem that arises will be dealt with and I will take whatever steps are necessary to cope with the situation. The Deputy asked — I know in the interest of the local community and to allay any fears — what steps are being taken to make the place more secure. A number of steps have been taken. I would like to pay tribute to the local community who accepted the situation over the years. The parish priest and members of the community have been very supportive.

From examination of the situation, it seems that escapes invariably occur between 10 p.m. and midnight and offenders have always scaled a fence in the secluded area which is surrounded by trees. Preliminary steps were taken by the governor. An additional officer is being allocated to duty between 6 p.m. and 11 p.m. and he will be patrolling the suspected area. An additional officer will be on duty in the same area from 11 p.m. right through the night with effect from next week. Additional coils of bladed wire have been added to the top to the suspected area perimeter fence and this area of the fence is currently being raised by four feet and this will be completed within a week. I say that in the context of an institution where one can do a certain amount of perimeter fencing but it will never be a Portlaoise, a Mountjoy or a St. Patrick's.

The Deputy referred to the staff levels. There are 80 staff at the centre, which is far higher in terms of ratio than operates at Shelton Abbey in Wicklow. As I have said, I am going to have a look at that. Certainly the rostering system needs to be changed and I propose to get that changed in consultation with the governor. Day posts can be converted into night posts where a greater presence is needed. I know that at a meeting of the Blacklion Community Association concern was expressed about a number of items and I am having those examined to see what improvements we can make in the situation.

Abscondence from prison has always been a problem to some extent. Going as far back as 1976, 85 offenders are unlawfully at large up to 31 March 1985 but they go back to 1976, 1977, 1978, 1981, 1982 and so on. Seventy-two of those breached temporary release conditions, seven absconded from hospital while receiving inpatient treatment, three escaped from court and two absconded from Coolmine drug treatment clinic. There has been a rise in the abscondences from Loughan House, especially in April, and after that we took the steps that I have outlined.

I appreciate the Deputy's concern. We have the difficulty that the courts now are giving longer sentences. The people we have in prison are serving longer sentences and the kind of stable population of all our our institutions are people who must be held on to for a very long time. Therefore, the number of trustee prisoners who are available for places like Shelton Abbey, Shanganagh, Loughan House or Spike Island in its present state of security is limited and all the time we must evaluate the suitability of candidates from a decreasingly eligible group for institutions such as this. The Deputy knows that that was one reason why I was forced into getting extra secure prison accommodation recently rather than extra open accommodation, and that was why I had to take over the classroom space in Arbour Hill and in Cork. Those classrooms were built to hold prisoners and they are also inside the walls. They were of great benefit because they provided extra secure places, whereas the large open house in the middle of 100 acres is another open centre, and the number of candidates that one can safely put into those open centres is declining. As Spike Island is being made more secure daily, as the bars and meshes are put on the windows, as the concrete walls go in and so on, we will have more secure open spaces. I hope that when we get over the patch we are going through at present the pressure on places like Loughan House will decrease.

In the last three weeks alone we are accommodating 123 extra prisoners in the prison system and the pressure can be seen if you get that huge increase in a very short time. It is difficult, but with the acquisition of Spike Island and the education units I hope that the situation will plateau out. I think I still have some options for extra prison accommodation and when these come into effect the pressure on places like Loughan House will decrease. In the meantime I will do everything in my power to increase the meanning levels at night and to raise that fence that I have been talking about. I hope that I can allay the fears that are arising in the community, that we can make a secure institution and that the very good relationship which the Deputy has described between the residents of Blacklion and surrounding areas, those who work in the institution and those committed to it, will continue.

May I ask a question?

Yes, a question.

Considering that there is a very high staff ratio, that visitors are locked at each stage of entry to Loughan House and that all this obtained up to now, will the Minister give the House an assurance that this is sufficient to keep people in and keep people from re-entering once they go out? That is the nub of the problem as far as local people are concerned, who were shocked when stuff stolen outside was found inside the prison. Will the Minister say that the Garda, another branch for whom the Department are responsible, will be informed about visiting days and about escapes immediately they occur etc. so that there is a proper liaison?

(Limerick East): Very little material that I know of was found within the prison from incidents outside. A bottle of wine and a radio are referred to in my brief.

And old coins.

(Limerick East): I did not have that but I accept it if the Deputy says so. The Garda will be informed. They are very aware of this. I note what the Deputy is getting at about the visitors, but another side to the question is the location of Loughan House. The fact that it is so far away from Dublin, from where many of the prisoners come, now means that they get very infrequent visits.

Because they get very infrequent visits this adds to the tendency to abscond. That is one of the problems we have. On the other side of the visiting, yes, I can give the assurance that the Garda will be informed about visiting days and so on, but I have had no indication at all that those who visit prisoners in Loughan House have led in any way to any increase in crime in the area. Obviously, it is very suitable for serving counties such as County Cavan and adjacent counties, but the crime rates there are pretty low. It is not all that suitable for prisoners coming from Dublin because if they do not get visits people tend to become depressed and move out. However, regarding the other commitments that the Deputy has sought I can certainly give them.

The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 22 May 1985.

Barr
Roinn