Vol. 471 No. 8
5 Mr. Kenneally asked the Minister for Justice if her Department will pay any associated insurance costs in relation to convicted persons doing community service instead of the owners of the properties where this scheme is operating in order to ensure that more projects will be available under this scheme; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [21673/96]
Regulation 4 of the Criminal Justice (Community Service) Regulations, 1984, requires that prior to the commencement of work by any offender under a community service order on behalf of a body, the Probation and Welfare Service must be satisfied that the body is adequately insured against liability in respect of injury, loss or damage caused to or by the offender concerned in performing the work. As the regulation stands, my Department is precluded from covering these insurance costs.
I am aware that some organisations have had difficulty in obtaining insurance, and my Department has sought the advice of the Chief State Solicitor on this matter. I will consider the matter again when I have received the Chief State Solicitor's advice.
There is a lack of prison spaces, mainly because of the Government's failure to address the problem. Many people who wish to avail of the scheme cannot do so and it would be prudent to include as many offenders as possible on it as this would help to free up the number of places available for real criminals. Many owners of premises who take on these people cannot afford the extra insurance costs. The Minister said she is precluded from doing anything about this because of the regulations. It would be prudent to change the regulations so that the Department would meet any associated insurance costs. Does the Minister intend changing the regulations?
My Department and the probation and welfare service have received letters from local authorities and interested parties anxious to use people on the community service scheme. They have outlined the difficulties involved in doing this and I have raised the matter with the Chief State Solicitor. I cannot give the Deputy a commitment that my Department will pay any associated insurance costs until I receive the Chief State Solicitor's advice.
I agree that the scheme is a valuable one. Last year 1,602 community service orders were made. One of the benefits of the scheme is that an offender on a community order costs £36 per week while it costs approximately £856 per week to keep an offender in custody. Needless to say, I am as anxious as everyone else to see the system used. There are conditions attached to the use of the system in the courts, for example, the offender must agree to it and the candidates must be suitable. Last year the probation and welfare service held a seminar for members of the Judiciary on the benefits of the community service order scheme in an effort to encourage them to use it as often as possible.
The difference between the cost of keeping an offender in jail and the cost of an offender on a community service order proves my argument. The Minister said that 1,602 community service orders were served last year. How many other offenders were deemed suitable for these orders and how many bodies were not in a position to take them on because of the insurance problems involved? Apart from the 1,602, how many others would have qualified if places were available?
I cannot answer the Deputy's question. When the order is handed down, there must be a connection between it and the work to be carried out. If there is no connection, I assume those involved must return to court and state that an order does not exist. I do not have information as to how many potential orders might have been made had judges been satisfied there were places available. I do not believe that forms part of the argument when a judge is making the decision because he or she must consider the conditions relating to a particular offence. If it is decided that a community service order can be granted, I do not believe judges must be satisfied because it is the responsibility of the Probation and Welfare Service to find the community service to fulfil the necessary time requirements. If it is possible to obtain that information, I will communicate it to Deputy Kenneally.
Does this series of questions and answers not underline a more fundamental question with regard to whether we should be in the business of affording civil liability rights to people covered by community service orders on the same basis as ordinary employees or members of the public? Have we not reached a foolish stage where, if two people on community service are shifting a plank and one of them drops it on the other's foot, the State, the organisers of the community service or the insurers are obliged to pick up the tab? Since each person in respect of whom a community service order is made must agree to it as an alternative to a custodial sentence, surely we should consider this matter in a more radical way. Should we not state that those who agree to be governed by the terms of a community service order themselves adopt the risk of injury on such a scheme unless there is gross negligence on someone else's part? These people should not be compensated for injuries caused by the negligence of other community service order workers.
We must face up to the issue of civil liability. I am aware that this raises deeper questions but we have reached the stage where compensation madness has encouraged prisoners to sue the Department of Justice because they slipped and fell in jails. Community service orders cannot now operate because those covered by them may sue the people who organised the alternative to their being put in prison. This matter must be approached on a more fundamental basis than allowing insurance premia to cause problems.
I do not have any responsibility for or information about the broader issues of civil liability, insurance, etc. Very often those involved in arranging alternatives to custodial sentences are voluntary or charitable organisations or local community groups who want to repair a river bank or an old well. They put themselves forward as being prepared to employ someone who is willing to do community service. It would be wrong if insurance were not provided and such organisations or groups were obliged to pay for any injuries caused.
The regulations state it is the responsibility of the voluntary organisation or the local authority who employ people on community service to provide insurance cover. I was a councillor and I am aware of the difficulties involved for voluntary groups in obtaining public liability insurance cover, which has nothing to do with whether they employ offenders. I have taken this matter up with the Chief State Solicitor's Office and I am awaiting its advice before I begin my consideration of the regulations. As they stand, however, those regulations preclude my Department from picking up the tab or covering people's insurance costs. The broader question raised by Deputy McDowell can probably be discussed on another occasion.
