Gay Mitchell
Ceist:2 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Justice the amount of the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Penal System chaired by Dr. T. K. Whitaker which has been implemented; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Penal System Report.
The Committee of Inquiry into the Penal System, chaired by Dr. T. K. Whitaker, interpreted as its remit to consider solutions to the following major problems: (i) the growth in crime and the demand for prison accommodation; (ii) the shortcomings in the facilities and services for prisoners; (iii) the inadequacy and unsuitability of much of the present prison accommodation; (iv) unsatisfactory relations between the Department of Justice, prison managements and staff and (v) the escalating costs of providing and maintaining prisons and places of detention. It is not generally realised that the remit was as wide as this and that in consequence the report covers a broad spectrum of advice and recommendations.
The report suggested, first, that the growth in crime and in the demand for prison accommodation could be dealt with effectively only by preventing and curbing crime, confining the penalty of imprisonment to more appropriate cases and, reducing the length of stay in prison. On preventing and curbing crime the report suggested that parents, teachers, the churches, voluntary groups and the State all have a role to play in reducing the incidence of crime. It said that most crime originated among unemployed youth in disadvantaged urban areas and called on the State to give priority attention to the problems of such areas and their communities.
It called also for greater watchfulness and a more caring attitude on the part of the community. Greater watchfulness entailed individuals and businesses doing more to safeguard their own property, local communities co-operating with the Garda Síochána in neighbourhood watch schemes and similar measures, and more effective education, particularly of the young, on the dangers of abuse of alcohol and drugs. A more caring attitude by the community involved parents being more concerned to discharge their duty for the care and upbringing of children, adoption of the principles of the Task Force on Child Care and Costello report, especially as regards the establishment of a national youth service, voluntary and local initiatives to help the young control their aggressiveness and thirst for excitement and to develop their full potential as members of society, better provision for the homeless, better provision for the treatment of drug and alcohol abuse, development of the juvenile liaison scheme operated by the Garda Síochána and full use of cautioning procedures and non-punitive responses to unlawful conduct.
It will be clear to the House that what was advocated in the Whitaker report on this single aspect of the terms of reference represents a very wide prescription indeed. I doubt if anyone could object to the general thrust of that prescription. In reality policies which have been pursued in recent years are in line with the prescription, for example, the wider development of neighbourhood watch type schemes, greater concentration on education for drug and alcohol abuse, the development of the juvenile liaison scheme, the identification of problem areas and what needs to be done about them and so on. I fully endorse the approach of the Whitaker report in its recommendations for controlling crime and consequently reducing the demand for prison accommodation, and intend to continue to advocate that approach as opportunity offers and as far as resources permit.
The next element considered by the Whitaker Committee was the question of restricting the penalty of imprisonment. It recommended that imprisonment should be used only as a last resort and that an extensive range of alternatives should be available to the courts. It advocated that normally a sentence of imprisonment should be imposed only after consideration of a full personal report on the offender from the Probation and Welfare Service, supplemented where appropriate by a psychological and medical/psychiatric report. The effect of operating these principles would be to reserve imprisonment for serious offences against the person and major property offences. It is, by now, well established official policy to advocate the use of imprisonment only as a last resort and the use of alternative community-based sanctions as far as possible.
On a point of order, is the Minister aware that this is Question Time and she has already spent five minutes answering this question? In fairness to Deputies who only have 20 minutes in all for four questions, I would ask her kindly to bring her remarks to an end so that we can get on to other questions.
I was asked a question by Deputy Mitchell in relation to the Whitaker report. The Deputy asked me to make a statement on the matter. It is appropriate for me to point out the recommendations of the report and what my Department has done to implement them.
We did not ask the Minister to republish the report.
At any one time there are 3,200 offenders on supervision by the Probation and Welfare Service in the community as an alternative to imprisonment, including about 750 on community service orders, and the intention is to extend such alternatives as far as possible. Again there is nothing in the advice of the committee to which exception can be taken and my approach would be to promote the implementation of that advice to the maximum as resources permit.
Finally, in this context the committee indicated its opposition to haphazard, as opposed to well-judged, early releases. The committee preferred a system in which sentences imposed would be served subject to a higher standard remission — one-third against one-quarter — for good conduct, to a system of regular reviews of all sentences of five years or more, and to provision for supervised released at any stage if recommended by review committees representative of all services operating in the prison. I have already indicated to the House that I am carrying out a thorough review of prison policy and in the context of that review I take full account of what is said in the report. In the meantime, the sentence review group which reviews most sentences of seven years or more has been operating for three years and goes a long way towards meeting the recommendation for regular reviews of long sentences.
In regard to the next section, that is, facilities and services for prisoners, the committee advocated that nothing should be done to inflict hardship or punishment beyond that inevitably consequential on the deprivation of liberty, and that fundamental rights should not be encroached upon except to the extent associated with loss of liberty. In particular, prisoners should have the right to communicate with their immediate family, legal advisers and the courts and should also have reasonable privacy, recreation, occupation and social contact with other prisoners. The committee then went on to prescribe in detail the services and facilities that prisoners should have. It has been standard policy for years to aim for a level of services and facilities for prisoners which would not only ensure humane containment but also meet the State's international obligations in this matter. The House may be assured, therefore, that most of the recommendations in this regard have been implemented. The most important ones were the appointment of a director of prison medical services in 1990, establishment of a programme to provide in-cell sanitation in all places by 1999, the setting up of a sentence review group under the chairmanship of Dr. Whitaker and the re-introduction of the intensive supervision scheme. There are other important recommendations which are still under review and will be considered following on my own review of general policy for the prisons.
The report next dealt with the inadequacy and unsuitability of prison accommodation. It pointed out that prison accommodation was not only of poor standard generally but was also insufficient for the numbers in custody. Since the report was published the new place of detention at Wheatfield for 320 prisoners was opened and there is now a programme in place for the renovation of all sub-standard accommodation by the year 1999. Already the existing women's prison has been modernised and also part of St. Patrick's Institution. So far as the size of the prison system is concerned the committee took the view that for social as well as financial reasons a limit should be set from time to time on the acceptable prison population and any tendency for the limit to be exceeded should signal the need for revised policies and strategies. It emphasised the scope for greater recourse to supervised conditional releases and an increase in standard remission. This interesting approach to limiting prisoner numbers is being taken into account in my review of policy for prisons.
On a point of order, I would ask the Chair to intervene to protect Members' rights to ask questions. I presume the Minister will go on until we pass the time during which we can get to the next question.
I appreciate the Deputy's anxiety.
It is a filibuster.
Order.
(Interruptions.)
It is a tactic she has worked out.
Order, please. The Deputy may observe that I am seeking to make a comment. The Chair has no control over Minister's replies, nor does it desire to have any such control. The view of the Chair is that when Members ask questions in this House they should get the fullest possible reply and the maximum information. At the same time regard is to be had to the amount of time allocated in our Standing Orders to questions nominated for priority. I appreciate that. It is the consistent desire of the Chair that we dispose of the number of questions, four or five as the case may be, within the prescribed time. The House will agree that the Chair strives earnestly to do that. Regard should be had to that time factor and the amount of time involved in replies and supplementary questions.
I agree that the Chair is consistent in protecting the rights of Members but would the Chair not agree that the Minister is consistent and persistent, since her appointment, in subverting Members' time?
With respect, Deputy McDowell, we should not waste any more of our precious time.
I have no difficulty in answering the next question from Deputy Harney or indeed Question No. 4 from Deputy Gilmore. I will be quite prepared to answer those and all other questions on the Order Paper.
The committee considered, next, unsatisfactory relations between the Department of Justice and prison management and staff. Before considering recommendations under this heading it is important to emphasis that a great deal of work has been done over the past number of years since the report was published to improve management/staff relationships and I am satisfied with that progress. The maintenance of good relations will continue to be an important objective for me. Specific recommendations which have been implemented include the introduction of new rosters, mixed staffing, improved staff relations machinery, a new draft disciplinary code and a grievance procedure. Other recommendations under this heading will be given due consideration as the prison system develops and as resources permit.
There is one recommendation under this heading which is often singled out for particular mention, and sometimes indeed as evidence of so-called inaction on the Whitaker report, and that is the recommendation for the establishment of a prisons board. A prisons board would represent a major departure from the way in which the prisons are administered and not least a fundamental dilution of the role of the Minister for Justice in relation to the prisons. While I have not made any final decision on my approach to this recommendation, my initial reaction is to suggest that it would not be in the general public interest or in the interest of this House that such a fundamental change should be made at this time. We should not lightly alter the arrangement whereby the Minister for Justice has to answer to this House on prisons issues — as I am doing now.
This is ridiculous.
The committee, finally, considered the escalating cost of providing and maintaining prisons and places of detention. It suggested that costs would continue to escalate unless a policy of limiting prisoner numbers by such means as fewer committals, shorter sentences and shorter periods in custody was put into operation.
Standing Orders never envisaged this. It is an absolute abuse.
It is a disgrace.
It also referred to its approach to resolving and preventing crime which would influence the numbers coming into the prisons. The concerns expressed by the committee when it reported remain valid and in the context of my review of prison policy I will take the views of the committee into account.
Question Time will become totally disorderly. The Minister is really abusing this House and its Members.
(Interruptions.)
She has abused the Members of this House.
It is outrageous. She does it all the time.
I hope it will be clear from my response so far to this question that there is a great deal more to the Whitaker report than a series of uncomplicated recommendations which are either implemented or not.
She is incompetent and that is why she is doing it. She is totally incompetent. She runs away from her responsibility.
The Deputies have heard my comments.
The report is mainly about the adoption of a philosophy for penal policy. Acceptance of that philosophy provides a fundamental basis on which the prescriptions put forward in the report can be assessed. Many of the recommendations have been implemented but there are many which will have to be kept under review and taken into account as the prisons system develops. The first priority is a thorough review of present policy and, as I have already indicated, I am engaged in that review at present.
Would the Minister mind repeating it? I did not get it.
Would the Minister agree that only those who need to be contained in prison should be in prison? Would she also agree that up to 30 per cent of those contained in prison are there for non-payment of fines and that this is not the way to deal with people who do not pay fines and that confiscation, community work orders, instalment payments and deduction at source should be used? Is the Minister aware that there are 700 people on temporary release, many of whom have not been assessed simply because there is nowhere to hold them since up to 30 per cent of prisoners are being held for non-payment of fines? That is completely contrary to the 1985 report.
I am concerned that the time allocated for priority questions today is fast running out and there are two more questions to be disposed of.
I promised to allow my colleagues in now and you should have given some thought to them. It is outrageous that the Minister should have been allowed to use up the time. Would the Minister agree that up to 30 per cent of people in prison are there for non-payment of fines and related matters?
Deputy Mitchell said that only those who need to be in prison should be there. That was a fundamental recommendation of the Whitaker report and I dealt with that in my original response. I am not sure what the percentage of fines is and whether the Deputy's figure is correct but——
Ask a question and you will get an answer.
——I should say nobody is on temporary release except those who have been assessed.
That is rubbish.
There are others on permanent release who were never assessed for anything.
Order, please, Deputy Shatter, let us proceed. Time is very precious.