The number of individuals granted varying periods of short-term temporary release has averaged about 4,000 a year for the last five years. In 1993, the latest year for which accurate figures are available, the number was 4,212. In that year, 3,564 individuals were granted full temporary release.
I must stress that one cannot simply add these two figures together to arrice at a total number of individuals who obtained some from of temporary release in that year as there would be a significant overlap of individuals between the two groups. For example, a prisoner may have received a day's temporary release to attend a funeral and subsequently been given full temporary release later in the year. This prisoner would be counted in both sets of figures. Figures are not kept in such a way as to readily given the exact extent of this overlap.
Exact figures for 1995 and 1996 are not yet available. However, indications are that the number of full temporary releases granted is now about 4,000 per year and approximately 4,500 individuals would be granted varying periods of short-term temporary release in the course of any one year. Again, there would be a significant overlap of individuals between these two groups. I will, of course, be happy to let the Deputy have the exact information for 1995 and 1996 as it becomes available.
I have no plans to terminate this practice. The granting to temporary or early release — called parole in other jurisdictions — is a feature of persons systems internationally and has been operated under statute in this country since 1960 by successive Ministers for Justice. I have outlined the positive reasons for the system in the past, as have my predecessors.
However, I have acknowledged that some early released do arise due to shortage of prison accommodation. This has been the case for several years. It would be wrong to suggest that this was the sole reason for early releases generally or, indeed, to imply that serious offenders are being released simply because of accommodation problems and without reference to other criteria.
The problem of releases to cope with accommodation pressures will be addressed by the provision of additional accommodation announced by me in January and July of this year as part of a major package of measures to combat crime. The provision of 640 new spaces over the next 18 months, including 400 spaces for remand prisoners at Cloverhill, beside the existing place of detention at Wheatfield, will greatly ease the pressure on accommodation, especially in the committal prisons. These new spaces, combined with other additional accommodation announced by me in February of this year, will mean an increase in available accommodation by the end of 1998 of approximately 880 spaces. This represents a 40 per cent increase in accommodation.
I also announced that I had obtained Cabinet approval for a new scheme involving intensive supervision initially of 100 prisoners on early release. Furthermore, I got Government approval for the recruitment of ten additional probation and welfare officers to enable this scheme to be put into effect.
In relation to temporary release concessions generally, I should explain that before granting temporary release, careful consideration is given to a number of factors, including the nature and seriousness of the offence. As I said before, the overriding concern when decisions are being made in individual cases, is the safety of the public. While great care is taken in selecting individuals for release, I am not aware of any system which can guarantee that no individual will commit offences during the period of release. The very regrettable reality is that some offenders will tend to re-offend irrespective of whether they are released early or serve every day of their sentence. The fact that some, despite the most careful selection, will tend to betray the trust placed in them, does not provide a basis for denying the possibility of release concessions to all offenders.