Ciarán Cuffe
Ceist:9 Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the action he is taking to address the concerns expressed in the Second Annual Report of the Inspector of Prisons and Places of Detention for 2003. [16425/05]
Other Questions.
Irish Prison Service.
The second annual report of the Inspector of Prisons and Places of Detention is a substantial document, which raises many diverse issues and concerns of the inspector. It would not be appropriate for me to indicate in the course of this reply, the action already taken or being taken to address each item of concern raised by the inspector. The report is very lengthy, but if the Deputies wish me to address any particular issue, I will be glad to do so.
The inspector is not alone in being concerned about living conditions for prisoners in our older prisons and about the shortcomings in prisoner care services and programmes. These are matters that were of concern to me and to the Prisons Authority interim board, prior to the publication of the inspector's report.
I have set two principal objectives for change in this area. The first is to replace outdated prisoner accommodation, particularly at Mountjoy, Portlaoise and Cork prisons. The second objective is to control the spiralling prison overtime costs that were absorbing ever increasing amounts of money. This money could be put to more productive use in improving services for prisoners.
Deputy Cuffe may be interested to know that the total overtime budget for 12,200 members of the Garda Síochána was exceeded by the overtime budget for 3,300 prison officers. This was cannibalising resources which should have been spent on the improvement of our system.
The second annual report of the inspector refers specifically to the need to replace Mountjoy and Portlaoise prisons and following a visit to Cork Prison, the inspector expressed the view that this institution should also be replaced. Significant progress is being made in each case. Following conclusion of a recent tender competition, it is hoped work will commence shortly on the provision of new accommodation at Portlaoise prison, as the next phase of the redevelopment works in that location. As members of the House are aware, a contract was recently concluded for the purchase of an extensive site at Thornton, County Dublin, for a new prison campus to replace the existing prisons on the Mountjoy campus. Furthermore, planning is well under way for development of a new prison on Spike Island to replace Cork prison. These are major undertakings involving the replacement of almost 40% of the entire prison estate. They will take a number of years to complete, but I intend to ensure that they will proceed as quickly as possible.
Members will be aware from my replies to successive questions about the measures being taken to control prison overtime costs, with the intention of ensuring that taxpayer moneys are used to best advantage. The current level of prison officer overtime is unsustainable and I am determined to pursue cost control measures to ensure that a greater portion of the prisons Vote is available for improvement in services to those in custody.
Some improvements are taking place already. For instance, the shortage of psychologists as identified by the inspector has been addressed by the recruitment of six additional psychologists to improve services to Mountjoy, Dóchas, St. Patrick's, Cloverhill, Midlands and Cork prisons. Another new psychologist will take up duty at Arbour Hill prison on 30 May and it is planned to hold another recruitment competition for clinical, forensic and counselling psychologists later this year.
Apart from his concerns about prison conditions, the inspector has also referred to the need for new prisons legislation. The question of a comprehensive new Act covering all matters relating to the prisons is included in my Department's legislative work programme but it will be some time before such comprehensive legislation can be completed and unfortunately, there are other issues of higher priority.
The inspector also referred to the preparation of a booklet on prison rules. I have decided that the 1947 prison rules need to be replaced in their entirety and I will publish my proposals shortly in this regard.
I am concerned that the Minister is cherry picking from the report because, for example, the inspector did not state emphatically that Mountjoy should move to a new location, but left open the possibility of it being replaced on the same site.
The main recommendation of the report is that there should be an independent prison inspectorate. That is not a new recommendation, but was included in the Government's response to the committee for the prevention of tortures in 1998. Six years have now passed since the Government stated that there would be an independent prisons inspectorate. My worry is that currently the prison inspector has to report to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the publication of his or her report is at the whim of the Minister. Why is the Minister afraid to allow an independent prison inspectorate and why is he delaying the promised Bill? The Bill was promised five years ago but the current programme for this Dáil session does not specify a time frame for its introduction.
I am concerned that the Minister is cherry picking aspects of the report, some of which have been discredited. For instance, it is suggested that privatisation was a positive development in the UK. However, the report on which this assertion was based was prepared by a person who was working for a private prisons contractor.
Why has the Bill been delayed and why has an external review of the management of our prisons not been commissioned? There is a danger in proposing major changes in the prison service, as the Minister is doing, without an external review. An independent prison inspectorate must be put in place, whose report is not subject to the political vagaries of whether the Minister wishes to publish it. We also need an inspectorate that would ensure that the prison visiting committees are outside the realm of political patronage.
Deputy Cuffe will be happy to know that I intend to make provision for an independent prison inspectorship in the new prison rules, which will be published in the coming weeks.
On the question of my role regarding the inspector's reports, having considered them it has been my habit to publish them. The only circumstance that has prevented me from publishing all of his reports was legal difficulties relating to some material contained in one of the reports. I was obliged to seek independent legal advice from the Attorney General and rather than censor the inspector's report. An independent counsel excised the portions of it that were potentially defamatory.
I have received the third report of the Inspector of Prisons and Places of Detention and I intend to publish it within two weeks. Deputy Cuffe may be surprised by the contents of that report concerning the issue of private involvement in the running of prisons.
I am concerned about the source that was quoted from within the Second Report of the Inspector of Prisons and Places of Detention, namely the Serco Institute. The institute has been discredited as an independent source of advice on the issue of privatisation of prisons.
I appreciate the Minister's concerns about overtime and agree that it is a problem that must be addressed. However, it should not be addressed in a face-off situation with prison officers. The Minister must undertake a process of sweeping and radical reform of the prison service to remove the mantra of secrecy that was raised by the inspector in his report.
No other Minister is engaging in more radical reform than I am.
The Minister is constantly talking about engaging in radical reform.
I reiterate my point that Deputy Cuffe may be surprised when reads the third report of the Inspector of Prisons and Places of Detention where it refers to private involvement in the running of prisons.
Coroners Service.
Joe Sherlock
Ceist:10 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the progress made in implementing the report of the working group on the Coroner Service published in December 2000; if his attention has been drawn to the difficulties created for coroners by the lack of appropriate penalties for those who refuse to attend when summonsed to attend inquests; when the promised legislation to update the Coroners Act will be introduced and enacted; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16154/05]
Jerry Cowley
Ceist:28 Dr. Cowley asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if his attention has been drawn to the inadequacies and limitations of the Coroners Act in helping establish a proper course of action to address issues of very serious concern; if his attention has further been drawn to the outcome of two recent inquests relating to the deaths of two persons; the steps being taken to address the serious risk to public health resulting from such deficiencies in the Coroners Act; the progress being made towards reform of this Act; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15238/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 and 28 together.
The report of the coroners review group, published in December 2000, recommended a comprehensive overhaul and modernisation of the coroner service in Ireland, with regard to the legislation governing the work of coroners, the support services available to coroners and the structural organisation of the coroner service.
The proposed new coroners Bill will seek to address the issues highlighted by the review group as well as taking account of any significant developments since then. Necessary consultations with interested parties, including consultations with the Coroners Society of Ireland, are ongoing.
I intended to publish the heads of a coroners Bill in March but unfortunately the officials who were due to work on this were engaged in the preparation of the Defamation Bill, which took longer than anticipated. The coroners Bill has been somewhat delayed but I intend to bring detailed proposals to Government shortly, providing for the comprehensive reform of the coroner service. The new legislation will replace the Coroners Act 1962 with significantly updated provisions. My proposals will address the scope of the coroners death investigations and the necessary procedures required.
My Department is also considering whether new structures will be necessary to achieve a comprehensive reform of the coroner service. There are two broad issues here, namely the future structure and administration of the coroner service, including the optimum number and nature of coroners, whether they may be full-time or part-time or a combination of both and the best approach to achieving the necessary central focus and management for the reformed coroner service.
I share the Deputies' concerns to ensure co-operation of persons when summoned to an inquest. The proposed new legislation will make provision for increased sanctions for those who refuse to co-operate with the proper conduct of an inquest. It will also end the restriction in inquests on the number of medical and other witnesses.
Would the Minister agree that the coroner service is the Cinderella of the legal services? The manner in which the service is treated is disgraceful. The report of the working group on the coroner service was published in 2000. The Minister and his predecessor promised new legislation but he now tells us this has been delayed. We must now wait and see when it will be produced and in the meantime operate under the old Coroners Act 1962.
Last month we saw where a person engaged in alternative therapy refused to attend the inquest on one of her patients. In 2001, the same person had refused to attend the inquest on another of her patients who died. The only penalty in the case of non-attendance is €6.35 and, effectively, a person intimately and profoundly involved in the life and death of a citizen is not obliged to attend the inquest on the death of that person. Does the Minister agree that this is an outrage with which he should deal? Witnesses so intimately involved must be compelled to attend inquests.
As the Minister and any of us who have attended coroners' courts know, all coroners can do is examine the physical and medical circumstances surrounding the death. They cannot investigate the circumstances themselves. This means the inquest is a limited procedure. The recommendation was for a broader and more comprehensive procedure, but the issue has been lying idle for the past five years with nothing done about it, which is a scandal.
The State Laboratory has never had adequate resources to carry out tests on time. This means that loved ones waiting for an inquest on those who died must wait longer because the State has failed to invest resources in this area. Does the Minister agree that the coroner service is the Cinderella of the legal service? This is not good enough.
I agree with the thrust of the Deputy's remarks but not with how he expressed some of them. Reform in this area is long overdue. The Coroners Act was introduced in 1962 and even then was unduly restrictive and problematic. Now in 2005 the time is long past for reform of the coroner service.
The choice that confronted me was whether to produce what is called a break-out Bill to provide for an increase in penalties and powers of compulsion for witnesses or to proceed with a Bill which would deal with the wider second issue raised by Deputy Costello. Rightly or wrongly, I came to the view that a break-out Bill would take more parliamentary time. It was also extremely unlikely that, in my time as Minister, I would succeed in bringing through this House two separate coroners Bills. I intend to address the issues in a single Bill. I hope to have the text of that Bill before the Government and to have it in the House in the autumn of this year. I could have chosen to take the other route and introduced a two or three-section break-out Bill. However, I believe that had I done so, I would never have brought the second coroners Bill before the House and would only have done a sticking plaster job on the existing inadequate system and would not have carried out the fundamental reform necessary to upgrade the coroner service.
The central issue arising from the review is whether coroners' powers should be extended. What powers does the Minister think coroners should have? Deputy Costello referred to the coroner service as the Cinderella of the legal service. I note from the figures that will be discussed tomorrow at the Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights that €110,000 is the total annual allocation for the coroner service, which certainly leaves it in the halfpenny place. If we really want to give the service a role and function, it must be funded.
The figure of €110,000 is misleading because many coroners' salaries come from Departments other than mine. On the issue of the powers of coroners, in the past we had an overly timid approach to their powers. As the Deputy will recall, when suicide was a crime, it was held by the courts that a coroner could not find that suicide was the cause of death because it was an imputation of criminality against the person who committed suicide. That was an absurdity because it turned a limited jurisdiction to investigate the circumstances of a death into a ridiculous charade with regard to how to deal with a suicide case, cases of which are very sensitive from the point of view of the family etc.
I want to know about their powers now.
There should be a broader power than simply saying, for example, that somebody died of asphyxiation. The analogy for a coroners court is not an adversarial court; it is more like a standing tribunal into unnatural deaths or suspected unnatural deaths. A tribunal can make a finding which is of significance and which the public can understand, but it does not have legal consequence in terms of conviction. People do not stand convicted or whatever on foot of a tribunal's decision. On the other hand, the public expects to get the full facts and truth rather than a narrow, medical cause of death verdict. I agree with both Deputies that we must address the issue and I intend to do so.
Will the Minister clarify the situation regarding resources for the State Laboratory? Will it get enough?
I share Deputy Costello's concern that on occasions the sufferings of people whose loved ones have died have been aggravated significantly by the fact that pharmacological tests are conducted simply to exclude the possibility of overdose in circumstances where it is only a technical possibility. These people must wait months to receive the results of those tests before a proper post mortem can conclude. I agree these tests should be capable of being expedited in a manner fair to everybody involved.
Prisoner Escort Services.
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:11 Mr. Quinn asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his proposals for the privatisation of prisoner escorts; if he has satisfied himself that such important work can be entrusted to the private security sector; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16145/05]
The Deputy will be aware that the recently published Prisons Bill 2005 contains provisions which will enable the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to enter into an agreement with another party for the provision of prisoner escort services. This legislation will be enacted without delay.
Arrangements to invite tenders for the outsourcing of this service will proceed in parallel. This has already begun with the publication in the EU Journal of a preliminary indicative notice, PIN, so that the time needed to complete the tendering process can be minimised. I expect that a contract following this process will be signed by the end of September. This will have a major impact on overtime expenditure in the prison service given that approximately 30% of all overtime earnings is attributable to prisoner escorts.
The unpredictability of escorts leads to a considerable degree of disruption in the day-to-day running of prisons and the routine of inmates and causes considerable difficulties for prison management in operational planning. In the current context of the absence of an agreement on the change needed for a more efficient prison service, the utilisation of highly trained staff resources by both the Garda Síochána and the Irish Prison Service in the provision of a non-core activity warrants review. I have no doubt that elements in the private security industry would be better placed to provide this service in an efficient and effective manner.
The provision of prisoner escorts by the private sector has been a feature of the criminal justice system in neighbouring jurisdictions for some time. The engagement of dedicated prisoner escort providers utilising the appropriate cellular vehicles has allowed the prison authorities in those jurisdictions to focus on their core activities, namely, the safe and secure detention of offenders with a focus on returning these individuals to society in better shape than when they first encountered the criminal justice system.
My decision to proceed with the contracting out of prisoner escorts should also be seen in the context of increasing regulation of the private security industry, particularly the licensing requirements contained in the Private Security Services Act 2004 and the creation of a private security authority.
The background to my decision to proceed with the contracting out of prisoner escorts is well known.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
It has long been recognised that the huge level of expenditure on overtime in the prison service is not sustainable and must be reduced. Unfortunately, when Deputy Costello's party was last in Government, it did nothing to tackle the problem which diverts much needed funds from important projects such as prisoner rehabilitation programmes and an accelerated prisons building programme.
Since I took office in 2002, I have allowed ample space and time for a mutually acceptable negotiated settlement to be reached between the Irish Prison Service and the Prison Officers Association. Following the rejection of the earlier offer in October 2003, I agreed to use the full range of industrial relations machinery available in the State, including the conciliation services of the Labour Relations Commission and the ultimate arbitration facilities of the Civil Service Arbitration Board. That process continued over a 16-month period and involved long and difficult negotiations leading to a substantial arbitration award recommendation. The deal included an 8% pensionable arbitration allowance and the payment of a lump sum of €13,750. Unfortunately, the members of the Prison Officers Association did not follow the recommendation of their own executive and decided to reject the proposal for organisational change in the prison service.
While I understand that the Prison Officers Association believes that the proposal for organisational change can be tweaked on a cost neutral basis, it needs to be clearly understood that no Minister can be in the business of renegotiating a proposal which has already been arbitrated on by the Civil Service Arbitration Board. As the Deputy knows, the arbitration process is the end of the line. I cannot compromise the integrity of the industrial relations process which has served us so well and must continue to serve our public services into the future. I have already made it clear in the House that I will consider any detailed proposals which the POA may wish to put forward in writing which are not incompatible with the issues already considered by the arbitrator.
In the meantime, I intend to proceed apace with the agenda already approved by Government to ensure that the prison service is run as efficiently and cost effectively as possible. That agenda, which includes the contracting out of prisoner escorts, is now in place and, as I have already indicated, steps to implement it are already under way.
Does the Minister agree that the background to the Bill — the proposals to outsource prison escorts and provide prisoner escort services on a private basis — has been marked by his ongoing conflict with prison officers about the issue of overtime? The Minister has contemplated the legislation on that basis alone. He has closed three prisons and a further two prisons are about to be closed. The Minister has adopted a gung-ho approach to industrial relations, for example by telling prison officers that they cannot beat City Hall and deciding not to attend their conference. The staff of the places of detention at Spike Island and the Curragh protested outside the Dáil today against the Minister's approach. Some of them were joined by members of their families, who are aggrieved about the manner in which children will be torn from their parents, who will have to work in other parts of the country such as Portlaoise and Cork. The Minister plans to move them to various parts of Dublin in the future.
The Minister said that the Exchequer faces substantial costs because "approximately 30% of all overtime earnings is attributable to prisoner escorts". Has the Minister received an estimate of the cost of his proposals? Will he give such figures now? Does he agree that he should sit down with prison staff during the current window of opportunity? There is no difference between the positions of the two sides on the savings that would accrue from the reduction in the annual number of hours. Prison officers do not agree that 10% of those hours should be worked by all the officers. Many officers with young families do not want to work overtime, but their colleagues are willing to do so. I ask the Minister to address that issue as a means of making progress, rather than privatising a part of the Prison Service.
I have been careful when making public statements about this problem, which needs to be resolved. Having spoken to many prison officers, formally and informally, I firmly believe that the difficulties can be resolved in the current climate of resolution. During such discussions, I have made it clear that any resolution should be reached within the financial envelope that has been offered by the Minister. The officers have accepted that the financial envelope should not be exceeded. In that context, does the Minister agree that he and his staff should engage in discussions with the Prison Officers Association, especially as the current mood favours the resolution of this dispute? The association is preparing a document, the contents of which will be within the parameters I have mentioned, to be submitted in the next couple of days. Given that many problems could arise if this dispute gets worse, does the Minister agree that he should avail of the current opportunity, within the parameters in question?
I do not want to discuss this matter in public in a way that would do more harm than good.
Good.
I have been very committed to this process and I have shown great patience. If the Deputies knew exactly what I have done and what I have forborne from doing to bring about an agreed conclusion to this process, they would be surprised.
I invite the Minister to surprise us.
I am not in the business of renegotiating a deal that was reached through the public service arbitrator. If I were to do so, I would be setting a horrific precedent. It was clear during the frank discussion I had with the prison officers' executive, which was friendly on a personal level, that the position is as I have outlined. If the prison officers want me to consider a particular proposition that they consider to be fully faithful to the arbitrated settlement, in effect, I will do so. I would be happy to consider a proposition that improves the settlement, without doing violence to it.
That is fair enough.
I do not intend to re-enter negotiations with prison officers. There will be no more discussions. If they wish to make a proposal, they can put it to me in writing and I will decide whether to accept it. I expect any proposal that is made by prison officers to command acceptance among them. I will not negotiate with them for a third time.
The measures I am taking are proceeding. I assure every prison officer that I am pursuing a certain course of action. The officers were told by their executive that I would proceed with that course of action if they rejected the settlement. If prison officers want to call this process to a halt by producing a proposal that does not do violence to the arbitrated settlement and does not involve an increase in expenditure, I will consider such a proposal. I will accept such an agreement if I agree with prison officers that it represents an improvement on the existing settlement. That is as fair as I can be without destroying the State's industrial relations machinery.
Written answers follow Adjournment Debate.