Prison Services: Statements.

Mr. O'Donovan

I would like to welcome the Minister to the House. It should be put on record that despite the criticism from the Opposition Benches about problems in the prison services, this is the second debate on this general matter in the past 12 months. It was debated on 13 June, 1990 on a motion tabled by Senator Costello. While I am not criticising him for that it just shows that the Department, the Minister and the Minister of State are concerned about the problems in the prison services. They are doing an excellent job.

If we had a Utopia and a perfect society we would not need prisons. The reality is that for centuries a prison system has developed basically to protect the citizens who are being interfered with by criminals, etc. Unfortunately custodial sentences are the only alternative that can be used to ensure that the citizens of this country can walk freely in the streets and go about their business unhindered. It should also be said that the number of people who are apprehended, taken through our courts and eventually end up in jail does not reflect the incidence of crime on the streets.

The total number of prisoners we now deal with is somewhere in the region of 2,100. This number has escalated over the past ten or 15 years. In our cities and towns there is increased violence particularly related to drug trafficking, etc. The drug barons and the escalating violence in our towns and streets, despite increased Garda numbers and increased resources, is a problem this Government and successive Governments have had to face in the past ten years.

The report notes with concern matters such as overcrowding and improper conditions in our prisons. It should be placed on record that this Government, the Minister and the Department have, over the past three or four years, done much to redress the problem. Perhaps it may be argued by the Opposition that enough has not been done but the Minister and the Department must be lauded for what has been done in regard to building, refurbishment and providing facilities and services in prisons. Let us compare the situation with that in the United States, a large country with a large population. The cost last year in the United States of running the prison services was $20 billion, a frightening amount. For the three previous years there were substantial increases in the United States budget to deal with the prison services generally but despite all that, the crime rate is escalating. We do not have that size of problem here and within our resources we are handling the situation reasonably well.

As regards other European countries — and there was a survey done some time ago — out of 20 countries surveyed the Irish prison service was in sixth place. That indicates that in the context of Europe the Department, the Minister and the prison service are acquitting themselves reasonably well. For anyone to say that the Government ignore the prison service is an absolute lie. We must face reality. Whereas there may be some difficulties facing the Department and the prison service, there have been huge strides over the past three or four years to rectify this. For example, last year a riot took place in Strangeways Prison, Manchester. Prior to that riot the prisoners had to spend 23 out of the 24 hours of any given day in their cells. In Ireland prisoners are allowed out of their cells at 8 a.m. and do not have to return until 8 p.m. In the intervening time there are recreational, educational and training facilities available. That is reasonable treatment. It was stated in a debate here in this House last June that we were in parallel with prisons in England. The only parallel between Strangeways Prison and Mountjoy Jail in Dublin is that they are both old buildings but there is no comparison in the level of services that we are providing here. That fact must be put on record.

The Opposition have criticised our judicial system and have said that the Minister for Justice and his Department are not doing enough to deal with alternative methods apart from issuing custodial sentences or sending people to prison. As a practicing lawyer I must say quite clearly and categorically from my experience at both District Court level, Circuit Court level and High Court level that that is not true. Most judges, whether they be district justices or judges of higher courts are very slow to send somebody to prison for six months or 12 months, depending on the seriousness of the crime. Where possible they will dispose of a charge by way of fine or will use the community service scheme which is something I would laud and commend. It may be argued that that scheme it is not being used enough. In my view it is being widely used and has a great success rate. There are certain people who are not suitable to be put on such community service programmes. Certainly a fine or even a suspended sentence is not enough. I have often heard, in my 12 or 14 years in court, judges saying that the person in front of them put themselves into jail. I remember one case where a man had been caught driving a car without insurance six times in 12 months. I was in the District Court on three occasions where the judge said: "You are a married man with three or four children. As a last chance I am imposing a suspended sentence but if you are before me again in the near future while I am in this area I will certainly send you to prison". Not alone did that offender come back once, he came back twice. Six times in a given period he ignored the law, deliberately driving into the local village to have a drink, collect his dole or whatever. He had no insurance and ignored the Garda. In those instances, people driving vehicles and the public in general must be protected and the judge is left with no choice but impose a prison sentence. The judiciary must be complimented on their humane approach to these situations. As I clearly outlined earlier it is as a last resort that somebody is put in prison. In many instances the seriousness of the crime or the repetition of certain crimes deserves nothing but a custodial sentence.

With regard to the amount of money spent on the prison services, on the educational side the estimated cost for the current year to the Department of Education of 100 teachers, on a secondment basis, is £1.7 million. That is a substantial figure and shows the concern of the Minister and the Department for the education of prisoners. The estimate for the provision of library services for prisoners for the current year is £325,000. The estimated cost of training and equipment in prisons for 1991 is £232,000. The cost of tools etc. is £500,000. The cost of providing extra recreational equipment and supplies is £235,000. These figures represent a substantial increase.

Since this report was published in 1988 the Government have made great strides in trying to rectify some of the defects that were pointed out in it. The report details the different prisons. Spike Island in Cork is mentioned where there is no overcrowding; there is excellent backup support by the VEC and FÁS, in providing training in different aspects. It says that during December — that was probably 1987 — the Geese Theatre Company of Great Britain visited the prison. Therefore, the prisoners are not totally neglected. This is not unique to Spike Island. Other prisons such as Mountjoy get visiting theatres and are allowed to see films etc. Last year during the World Cup the Governor of the prison, through the Department of Justice, allowed the prisoners to see the World Cup no matter what time of day or night the matches were being played. This shows the concern of the Government and the humane approach they have adopted.

Since the debate last year the construction of Wheatfield Prison, at a cost of £40 million to the Department of Justice, was completed. That is a modern prison. The money spent by the Government indicates again their huge concern for the prison services in this country.

I would like to refer to some statistics in relation to the Council of Europe document. Last year I said here that the rate of imprisonment per 100,000 of population is 98.2 per cent in the UK, 106.2 per cent in Scotland, 86.7 per cent in West Germany, 92 per cent in France, 96 per cent in Austria and 56 per cent in the Republic of Ireland. Out of 22 countries surveyed Ireland was sixth from the top at that time. This should be acknowledged.

I would be the first to accept some of the criticism and comments made by speakers on the other side because AIDS in our prisons over the last four, five or six years is a new concept. It is one that is difficult to deal with and one which the Government are taking a very sympathetic look at. In Mountjoy there is a facility where AIDS prisoners are segregated and given excellent treatment. Doctors, dentists, psychiatrists and psychologists are always readily available in our prison services. On the last occasion the debate was spurred on by the fact that in 1989 four prisoners died in Irish prisons primarily by way of suicide. In 1985 in a four month period four prisoners died in our prisons. In the case of AIDS, or in the case of suicide, however diligent the Minister and the prison officers might be, it is difficult to do anything in advance that would be helpful.

If one were to analyse the system, education is being provided in prison for people who are illiterate, to primary, secondary and university levels. Wherever possible this is encouraged. It is quite common nowadays to hear of long term prisoners studying law and arts and being encouraged by the prison staff and officers to do so. It has often been said that we have a terrible prison system, that our prisoners are being treated badly and so on but if we compare our system with that in the 20 countries surveyed throughout Europe we come out very well. Due to the progress the Government have made in the prison services since the results of the survey were published we must be in the top four. That should not be forgotten.

I could go on at length but we have agreed to limit our speeches to 20 minutes. I do not wish to delay the House and I would like to let other people contribute.

One must bring a balance to this whole debate because as a public representative, one criticism I often get from ordinary citizens is that there are people walking the streets of Dublin or the streets of Cork, who commit very serious crimes, whether they attack old people in their homes, which is a desperate crime, molest young children or commit serious sexual offences like rape, who do not serve enough time in prison. People say that our system is too lenient and lets people back on the streets too soon. That should be recognised because people are concerned that some of those who commit serious crimes are released on remission too early. There has to be a balance. The primary duty of the Minister, the Department and the Judiciary is to protect the citizens of Ireland.

Recently in a Circuit Court case four people who had committed serious crimes against old people sought leniency from the court. I was almost six hours in the court that day and I heard them mocking the judge and the system. They are the type of people we are dealing with. If they take the Judiciary and our judicial system for granted, they deserve nothing more than to be in prison. I must compliment the Minister, and the Minister of State, and say that a very good job has been done in the past three or four years. If we continue the progress our prison system will be the best in Europe. That should be put on record and recognised by this House.

Mr. Neville

I would like to welcome the Minister to the House and thank him for taking the debate. I look forward to his reply.

The general conditions which prevail in the prison system are despicable and an indictment of the Minister for Justice. This is of extreme concern to everybody in the prison service. It is now six years since the report of the committee of inquiry into the penal system, which was chaired by T.K. Whitaker, was published. This made five key recommendations, most of which have been ignored.

In discussing the prison system we must remember that society must be protected from the criminal elements. Sanctions are applied where the law has been breached. We have an independent judicial system which endeavours to apply the law fairly, regardless of its warts. It takes all the circumstances surrounding a case into account and then decides on the penalty. People are in prison because of their own actions. The old, the young, the vulnerable sections of society — in fact society in general — must be protected. The prison system fulfils its role in doing this.

Ten years ago it was recognised that there were problems in the prison service. They were identified as overcrowding, lack of activity for prisoners, unhygienic conditions and a lack of places for disruptive prisoners. The Department of Justice in recognising the problem facing the prison service developed a building programme costed at £13 million. This programme included the building of new prisons at Wheatfield in Dublin, in Cork and in Limerick and a security unit to hold disruptive prisoners in Portlaoise. This building programme if carried out would have a considerable impact on the problems in the prison service. Ten years later little has happened except for the marginal development at Wheatfield. Of those plans only the first phase has been completed. The problems due to overcrowding, lack of activity of prisoners, the unhygienic conditions and the lack of places for disruptive prisoners have become more acute in the past ten years. Added to these problems has been the increasing incidence of AIDS and other diseases in our prisons. The addition of Wheatfield Prison, and its 320 places, has not alleviated the chronic overcrowding problem. Mountjoy, the most unhygienic of our prisons, has the worst overcrowding problem. To accentuate the problems among its inmates are those who suffer from the AIDS virus.

The problem of in-cell sanitation must be tackled. Only three of our prisons could be regarded as having proper cell sanitation. The Minister and the Government must give a commitment for the introduction of in-cell sanitation in all our prisons.

The prison service lacks a clearly defined role and has no sense of direction. The Whitaker report states:

The Committee is satisfied that the detailed administration of the prison has moved to an excessive degree to the Department of Justice to the detriment of discretion, responsibility and, therefore, good management. While the ultimate responsibility must remain with the Minister for Justice, the day to day administration of our prisons should be placed by statute in the hands of the director of the prison service who will be Chairman and Chief Executive of a separate executive agency or board and be the Manager responsible for the efficient functioning of the prison system.

The Minister must appoint a clearly identifiable leader in our prison system, a person who would be responsible for the administration of the services and is seen to be so. The Government should give urgent consideration to this proposal.

The Irish prison system needs a radical overhaul if it is to provide a humane and dignified regime into the next century for those in custody. This is going to cost money and the Government must give a firm commitment to allocate the necessary finances to introduce the changes which are needed. The Whitaker report states:

It has been said that the way in which a society treats its prisoner population is a reflection of the degree of maturity and civilisation within the society.

It one accepts this we should be very concerned about Irish society.

The incidence of suicide in the general population has been increasing over the past number of years. An examination of the statistics available on the matter gives a fair indication as to the problems which face our prison service. Since 1975 there have been 19 deaths in the prison system which can be classified as suicide. The statistics indicate that the greatest percentage increase in the suicide rate in Ireland since 1970 has been among young males between the ages of 15 and 24 years. This group forms a large majority of our prison population. It is accepted that those with an alcohol or drugs dependency problem are a high risk factor for suicide attempts. This grouping forms a large part of our prison population. People from the more deprived areas of society, from large families with low educational achievements, overcrowding in the home, high unemployment, child neglect and so on, are about 12 times more likely to attempt suicide than those from affluent areas of society. People from this grouping make up by far the majority of the population of our prisons. As can be seen from this, the prison service is dealing on a daily basis with a prison population many of whom could be classed as potential suicide risks. The Irish prison system, like all prison systems, has had its share of suicides over the years. A sad fact is that a considerable majority of the suicides were either teenagers or in their early twenties.

Any suicide has a very traumatic effect on the relatives and friends of the deceased. This is even more so in the prison context with the resulting media coverage of the incident, the inevitable public debate and the attempts to attribute blame. Given the circumstances, this type of reaction is inevitable and the consequences of it can have devastating results on the relatives of the deceased and on the prison staff directly involved in the discovery of the incident. The question which has to be asked is: can every suicide in our prisons be prevented? Probably the answer is no, but there are numerous incidents where the quick intervention of prison staff has saved lives. Prison officers on the ground are hampered by a lack of information on prisoners, such as records of previous attempts of suicide or unusual behaviour. Hardly a week goes by without a number of incidents involving prisoners cutting themselves and attempting to harm themselves in one way or another and many of these are not logged or recorded. In an attempt to bring about a strategy for the prison service to deal with the problem of suicide, early last year the Minister for Justice set up an advisory group to examine the issue of deaths in prisons and to make recommendations in relation to further measures which might be taken towards their prevention. I would welcome the Minister's comment on its progress and reports from that advisory group.

We must be very concerned about the situation in the womens' prison. The prison is situated on one of the floors of the main prison in Mountjoy, so it is probably incorrect to call it a women's prison. It is now 21 years since it was recommended that it should be closed. Unlike the situation with male prisoners, all women prisoners are left together — shop-lifters, murderers, women sentenced for begging, drug pushers and so on. They are all held together. Most of the women held in the Mountjoy complex are there for pretty offences which do not need a high security prison, many of them should not be serving custodial sentences at all.

The Whitaker report and the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace have condemned Mountjoy female prison and in particular sending juveniles there. A secure probation hostel which would enable the courts to suitably deal with juveniles was recommended. This has not been set up. The conditions in the segregation unit are totally unsuitable for the needs of juveniles. I think most of us here have been made aware of a case of a 15 year old girl at present in solitary confinement in the segregation unit of the female prison. All the professionals who have dealt with her agree that she is in need of a great deal of attention. Preferably a residential therapeutic unit with child care workers is required. The approach to dealing with the 15 year old in such a close unit is surely unacceptable in 1991. This girl is on a very high level of medication and will find it difficult to adjust to normal society when she is released from prison. Since her admission to Mountjoy, this child has suffered great trauma and emotional difficulties. She has cut herself on numerous occasions and has attempted to hang herself at least on one occasion. We must introduce a progressive modern child centred service to deal with these types of situations.

Fine Gael have called on the Government over the past two years for alternatives to prison sentences for minor offences such as non-payment of fines and debts and so on. It is absurd that our prisons are clogged up with offenders who do not pay fines or debts at a cost to the taxpayer in excess of £600 per week. Prisons should be reserved for those who commit serious crimes against a person and against property. They are the people who should serve their full sentence with time off only for good behaviour. A range of alternatives to prison must be considered. For example, the confiscation of property or assets should be available to enforce such fines. Compensation should be made to the victims of crime, particularly in the cases of old people who are often traumatised and do not recover from the affects of attacks and robberies. Where there is default in such compensation the confiscation or attachment of income, where possible, should be used. Where this is not possible, an extension of the present approach to community services should be substituted rather than putting people in prison. The opportunity to pay fines by instalments should also be examined. Many people do not have ready cash to pay a fine and, rather than putting them in prison, an approach should be made to allow them pay by instalment. Those who commit serious crimes and violent crimes should serve their full sentence rather than the revolving door approach we have at the moment.

One third of offences are committed by those under 17 years of age and special mention should be made of this. They suffer from emotional, physical and cultural deprivation. Most of the crimes are petty stealing, and it is rare that a first time crime is committed by those over 17 years of age. We should take this into account. Prison is a training ground for such people. We must attack this problem by increasing the life opportunities of these people and by a careful programme of rehabilitation and education. The aim should be to keep offenders away from future criminal activities and out of prison. We should concentrate on providing further education, training, welfare and guidance to try to ensure that those who are in prison are helped to become constructive members of society.

Many Members of the House do not have direct knowledge of the various prison systems and how they operate. I think we should all, as Members of the Oireachtas, be more aware of the complexity of the service and the difficulties which it experiences. May I suggest that Members of this House should be invited to visit a cross-section of prisons and prison accommodation to make ourselves more aware of the situation? We should visit a prison like Wheatfield and see how it works, Portlaoise Prison, the women's prison or the open prison like Arklow or Loughan House. I appreciate that Mountjoy is so overcrowded that it would probably be impracticable for Members of the Seanad who are interested to visit it.

I appreciate that my time is almost finished. I thank Senator O'Donovan for anticipating the criticisms of the prison service. I quite understand how he would do that having looked at the prison system and I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Mr. Farrell

I welcome the debate on this subject, a subject that is raised very often in this House. Senator Costello, who is active in this area, raises it regularly. Something that is never raised in this House and which I believe should be talked about is victim's rights, It is time we had a victim's rights association.

Mr. Costello

There is one.

Mr. Farrell

There is one, but it is inactive compared to the Prisoners' Rights Organisation.

Mr. Costello

I am a member of it as well.

Mr. Farrell

Yes, but it is difficult to wear two hats. I have never heard Seantor Costello mention victim's rights in this House since I came here.

Mr. Costello

I certainly have.

Mr. Farrell

The Senator has certainly raised prisoners' rights. Our prisons are very good at present and this Government have spent a lot of money in bringing them up to a reasonable standard, but we must start to think also of the rights of victims. I recall my own experience of being a victim of crime. My home was broken into. At the time I said to the garda in the court not to be too severe on them, that they were only young. He looked at me. My home has been burgled three times since and I would not be as lenient again. The people who carry out these burglaries are highly organised. They first come and case your property. They carry out the robberies on old people in the same way. They always case their victim, they study the case and then they swoop. The sad thing is that when you report it to the Garda the first person to be questioned is yourself and the second is your very loyal staff who are put under a lot of pressure. The third to be questioned are customers, people who are in and out, and particularly young persons who may at some time have come to the notice of the Garda. When a robbery is committed it has a very traumatic effect on many innocent people. There is a lot or pressure put on innocent people; there is a lot of pressure put on school children, particularly secondary school children, when a robbery takes place in a school or in a place where these children are in a habit of visiting.

There are far-reaching effects of a crime. We all think of the criminal, and that is not bad. He or she is a human being and we must have a certain regard for them, but I think we are going a little overboard. There must be a balance. As the previous speaker said, many old people never recover from the effect of a robbery. I know a number of old people in my own area who were robbed and they never really recovered; indeed some died a short time later. A robbery has a very traumatic effect on such people and nobody is thinking about them at all.

We all have experienced having our cars broken into. My car has been broken into in this city and a number of items taken, including a half set of golf clubs. Somebody somewhere is playing with a half set of golf clubs and is unable to get the matching half because it is impossible to buy them. They were Lynx paralax clubs, graphite shaft with chromium heads. Someone somewhere might hear of this and realise that they are playing with stolen clubs.

My own place has been robbed on three occasions and my car once. These crimes nearly put me to the wall because over £1,000 had been stolen. At that time we had not reached the stage where we were putting everything under lock and key as we are now. Luckily, these criminals were caught because many people were questioned as to who knew the money was there. I was pleased that the criminals were caught. They had come from Northern Ireland, but I did not get back the money or the goods that were stolen. Perhaps six months after a robbery, when you are looking for something, you realise that you did not see it since the robbery. It is amazing all the things that are missing before you realise they are gone. We must have a balance here. We must have rights for the prisoners but we must also have rights for the victims. We are not talking enough about victims' rights and this is something we will have to deal with in the future.

There are good rehabilitation services in our prisons and many prisoners are rehabilitated, but — and I have held this view about physically handicapped people in particular — if we had an organisation like Alcoholics Anonymous and Gamblers Anonymous, where rehabilitated criminals would be in charge, they would be far better able to speak on behalf of the people they represent than those of us who might think we know all about it but who have no experience of being a criminal. Since itinerants set up their own organisation they have acquired a more human face. Many political prisoners, for instance, come out of prison highly educated having pursued their studies in prison. If that service is there for political prisoners it is also available to other prisoners. Some prisoners have come out of prison with diplomas or degrees. There are many services provided in our prisons, but are they being utilised as much as they should, and when they are utilised, do we make use of those people, because there is nobody as good at giving advice as somebody with experience? You can talk all you like, you can read all you like, but it is all theoretical. I believe we should have more of those rehabilitated people in an organisation similar to Alcoholics Anomymous, because that organisation does far more for people with alcohol problems than any social workers, with no disrespect to them, because they have experience, they know the problems and they have gone through it themselves.

In regard to our open prisons, I vist Loughan House occasionally; it is a hotel away from home. When you visit there the prisoners will make you tea. I have been entertained there by prisoners. There is one type of prisoner for whom I have great sympathy, those people who are victims of circumstances. They got pulled into cases where some member of their family or somebody else started the problem. These prisoners could have given evidence that would have cleared these people, but if they gave that evidence they would be looked on as informers on their own. Rather than inform on their own, they kept their mouths shut, remain silent and refuse to co-operate. I know of one particular victim, a fine decent fellow, who is in prison at present and he is certainly a victim of circumstances. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time and got enmeshed in the crime. He found it was as easy to take his sentence as to inform, because it was going to be a harsh sentence for him no matter which way he danced. He had no choice but to refuse to give evidence and as a result he found himself doing seven or eight years in prison. He is in Loughan House at present. It is good that he was moved to Loughan House because he should never have been in Mountjoy Prison in the first place. I am sure there are many cases that are like that where people are implicated and unfortunatley get caught up. I believe that for that particular type of person we should be making a special case. I did my best in one case. I succeeded in getting them as far as Loughan House, but I would like to have got more done.

I would like to see more rehabilitated criminals. I use that term now with the greatest of respect, but if they had done a jail sentence that is an unfortunate bracket to fall into. I would like to see them more involved in rehabilitation services. They know the people, they know who is involved and they could give encouragement. It would be a boost to their morale to say "Look, you have made it. You have been down and you have come up. Now you could help more to get up." By their example and by their help we could improve our rehabilitation services.

Fifty years or more ago we closed prisons in this country, including a prison in my own town of Sligo. I remember at the time people saying "Thanks be to God, we are at last an educated, cultured society. There is no need for jails". What has happened society over the last 20 years? Where have we gone wrong? Certainly, society has gone wrong. The reason is often given that people are poor and underprivileged and so on. I do not believe that. Just watch the supermarkets. There are many people caught who could damn near buy the supermarket. It is not for want of money, but they just get involved. Many of them pay up and smile and get out of it and that is it; but many of them do not.

I cannot understand what has gone wrong with society that it is so criminally minded. This country is losing out now. Tourists cannot come into towns. We have gangs now on the east coast and as soon as tourists leave their cars the cars are robbed and all their belongings taken. Very often the money they brought with them to spend on a holiday in this country is stolen. Crime must be controlled before it gets out of hand.

Is a jail sentence the answer any more? Are they really taking any heed of jail, or is it no longer a severe sentence? I do not know. Some would say we should have the same system as the Isle of Man where there are far more tourists and no crime. I do not know. I am not going to advocate violence to deal with violence, but I will certainly say that criminals are successful because of their violent methods. Because of their violence people are faced with the choice of trying to apprehend them and getting the worst of the battle, or they become so much afraid of the criminal that they say "Take it, for God's sake, and leave me alone". Certainly, the criminal of today has become extremely violent. In this city, ladies driving their cars at night and sometimes in daylight, have their cars smashed and their handbags taken. That is planned and organised. It is not the act of stupid but of very intelligent people.

I am one for giving prisoners rights and I am delighted that our prisons are being upgraded all the time. I can say that Loughan House, which is the only prison I have experience of, has improved enormously over the years. I was sad to see that some people broke out of it recently. Some of them are back in Mountjoy and some of them are still free. I cannot understand why prisoners, when they get to a place like Loughan House, cannot have some sense and avail of the services there, because it is really a hotel in the country.

Fines were mentioned. There is an appeal to the Minister. I believe if anyone who finds it difficult to pay a fine writes to the Minister saying they are prepared to pay it in instalments, the Minister and his staff will be prepared to consider such an offer. Perhaps for some petty crimes we do put people into prison too quickly. These people are not a danger to society. I am speaking of people brought up for driving untaxed cars and so on. For that kind of a person, who certainly breaks the law but not in a violent or criminal manner, perhaps there should be a system of community work rather than prison. It would take some of the load off our prisons, because there are many people like that in prison who do not deserve to be there. I do not think that was the purpose for which we intended our prisons. On the other hand, I do not really know and I am only speaking of the situation as I see it.

AIDS is a big problem in prisons today. I understand there are at present 40 male prisoners and two female prisoners who have been identified as HIV positive. I understand these prisoners are detained in the B base at the separation unit in Mountjoy Prison. The female prisoners are integrated with the general female population. Testing is on a voluntary basis and these figures do not reveal the full extent of the HIV infection among the prisoner population. It is estimated that there may be 200 HIV infected people in Mountjoy.

Those are problems connected by and large, with drugs. People start with the abuse of alcohol from which they go on to drugs. Here is where we could do a good job. It is difficult. This is a multimillion pound business and there are people making big money on it. It is sad in our society today that people do not mind what suffering they inflict on other human beings as long as they are making money out of them. That is a sad reality of life today.

If we could come to terms with substance abuse, a big improvement could be made in our society in general. I do not think for one minute that unemployment, housing and so on is really the answer to all this. It is simplistic say that. There are drug problems, there are alcohol problems, even in the best of homes. It stretches right across the board; it is not just in one section of our society. This is a problem which must be confronted if we are ever to achieve reduced numbers in prisons. That is the real answer to our prison problems. The numbers must be reduced because until we do that we have not learned to live as a society.

I notice now that medical advice about HIV is that it is justifable on medical grounds, as distinct from operational grounds, to segregate offenders. An expert group, comprising medical, psychiatric, psychological and welfare disciplines, together with people who are involved day-to-day in the management of offenders, has been established to examine the manner in which these prisoners can best be treated. A simple issue in their deliberations will be the question of desegregation. A new unit in Mountjoy is being constructed which will cater inter alia for offenders who are HIV positive and who are no longer fit for the normal prison regime. That is great, because those are people who are sick. We must all have a greater concern for them than for any other type of prisoner because many of those people have been brought into drugs and so on and find themselves in prison as sick men and women. I have great sympathy for sick people and am delighted that this unit is being built. I congratulate the Minister on bringing the matter before us.

Mr. B. Ryan

Prisons almost inevitably fail to achieve many of their stated objectives. They do not deter people; there is not a scrap of evidence that custodial penalties for crimes act as deterrents. I am perfectly convinced through my own experience and from talking to other people that the majority of those who go to jail for a variety of offences have absolutely no idea when they are committing the offence what the penalty is. A reflect response takes place every so often in this and other political systems when there is an outbreak of some spectacular form of crime — usually a crime that bothers the middle classes — which is to extend penalties and lengthen prison sentences. These measures do not work and make no difference. Prison is not a deterrent to the social classes to which prisoners largely belong. Senator Farrell said much that one could identify with but I remind him that the overwhelming majority of those who end up in prison come from backgrounds of extreme social and economic deprivation. It is not true that poor people are somehow worse than the rest of us but if the rest of us had to live in similar conditions of social and economic deprivation an increasing proportion of us would end up in lives of criminal activity. Many of us do not have to cope with the pressures, isolation and desolation of social deprivation in this country.

It is true of all countries that those who go to jail are not necessarily those who commit the greatest crimes but those who commit a certain kind of crime and who come from a certain section of society. It is frequently pointed out, for instance, that a person who kills someone while drunk in charge of a car rarely ends up in prison although the crime is one of the most heinous offences in our society. It is not the fact that they are unlikely to go to jail that persuades people to keep on committing this crime. People who are found guilty of large scale white collar crime do not go to jail unlike people who are found to be fiddling social welfare, even for trivial sums and who generally receive suspended prison sentences. People fiddling their taxes do a deal with the Revenue Commissioners which does not involve any penalty. It must be the only area where if you are caught stealing, which is what tax evasion is, you pay back what you owe to the institution you stole from and there is no penalty. If everybody involved in theft could get away with paying back what they stole few people would go to jail. Penalties are imposed on people not because we do not recover the stolen goods but because they have done something wrong. When it comes to tax evasion we have a different perspective on it.

Prisons do not work as a deterrent or in terms of rehabilitation either. Prisons achieve two objectives one of which is positive. They serve as a limited degree of protection for society from people who are proven to be a considerable threat. That is probably the only positive thing you can say about prisons. The tragedy is that the price of our protection from certain people is the damage to many people who pass through the prison system and who end up worse off in terms of their attitude to society and their attitude to crime. They believe, as many people do, that they have learnt a thing or two in prison which will save them from being caught next time. A spiral of crime is produced, directly and casually related to people's encounters with the prison system. If we were prepared to admit that the only positive function of prison is to protect us from certain people then much of our energy for putting more people into prison could be directed towards finding a punitive measure which would persuade people not to commit offences, protect society and not harm offenders. There is no point in getting ourselves into a reflex situation with prisons which gives us more problems to solve later on.

The most comprehensive study on our prison system done during my political career and indeed for many years was the Whitaker Committee report. There is considerable lethargy about implementing its recommendations. Some of the factual information in it seems to have been dismissed, if not ignored completely. We still have considerable overcrowding in the prisons. It is difficult to deal with the prison situation when the most recent report on prisons and places of detention covers 1988. We do not have a report on 1989 that I am aware of nor a report on 1990 and we are halfway through 1991. This situation does not strike me as symptomatic of efficient prison organisation or efficient information assembly.

The prison population keeps on climbing. The daily average prison population in 1986 was, 1,869, in 1987 it was 1,943, in 1988 it was 1,962 and I am told the number of prisoners today is 2,170. I do not know whether that is the daily average for this year or the precise number at present. If you add in the sort of sums that the Whitaker Committee recommended we have a demand for about 2,500 prison places. It is something of an achievement that that number is a few hundred less than the minimum projection made by the Whitaker Committee for 1990. The demands that will result from the increasing numbers will go on forever.

All recommendations in the Whitaker report deserve to be implemented, but one which could have been and has not been implemented is the recommendation to increase remission to what the Whitaker Committee say is the standard European figure of one-third. I have no idea what strange notion of prisons or their function persuades successive Irish Governments that 25 per cent remission is preferable to 33 and one-third per cent remission. I wish somebody would give me a reason other than telling me that it is still being studied. The Minister and his Department are aware of this matter for long enough to have done something about it. Remission in Northern Ireland is currently at 50 per cent, although one does not want to make invidious comparisons because there are other things about the Northern Ireland prison system that one would not like too much.

It is well to recollect what it is like to be in prison. I had the experience of being inside Portlaoise Prison recently for perfectly legitimate reasons and on my count I passed through at least 14 locked doors. It is an awesome experience to feel that you have actually passed through not just one barrier to your escape by possibly 14. Going from one box into another and so on produces a surge of increasing isolation. It underlines the philosophy enunciated by a former Minister for Justice and now Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Gerry Collins, when he said that depriving people of their liberty is punishment enough. I get annoyed with people such as Senator Farrell, who said a little on it, when they talk about the excessively comfortable conditions in prison. Nobody here could spend even three days in the best prison in the State without realising what it means to be deprived of your liberty, however luxurious the conditions. You cannot have comfortable luxurious prisons; to be in prison is punishment. You are haggling about details if you haggle about decent conditions in prison which may encourage prisoners to do some good instead of enormous harm. Decent conditions in prison do not make prison a less awful experience.

It is the poor, the excluded and the abandoned who go to prison. The other class of people who go to prison in this country are, of course, the subversive, political or whatever you want to call them prisoners in Portlaoise. They are a classic example of the meaninglessness of rehabilitation. I have no evidence that going to Portlaoise does anything to persuade people to change their political views.

One of the great scandals of our justice system is the way we deal with juvenile criminals. A 15 year old girl/child is currently in custody in Mountjoy prison. The Department of Justice, in an exercise in semantics, says she is not in solitary confinement. It is not a view shared by the chairman of the visiting committee. I have a letter here from him to the girl's solicitor in which he says: "Unfortunately the child is now in solitary confinement, basically". What this reflects is not that anybody is less compassionate than I but that the problem of the detention of children in the worst prison in our prison system will not be solved by meaningless arguments about semantics. The child is on her own in that prison because an eminent member of the Judiciary ruled that she was depraved. I have here in front of me two different affidavits, one from a professor of moral theology in Maynooth, Professor Enda McDonagh, and the other from a woman whose work with the deprived is usually lauded to the rooftops by people who want to bask in her reflected glory, Sister Stanislaus Kennedy. Both make the point that it is a contradiction in terms to use the word "depravity" about a child. By definition "depravity" is a comment on a lifestyle and a lifetime of change. I quote from Professor McDonagh:

I say that for most Christian theologians and believers as well as for moral philosophers or ethicists "depravity" and "depraved" are used in a general sense of a very corrupt or serious perversion in one's behaviour and way of life. I do not believe that the words could or should be applied to a 15 year old.

That is the view of the most eminent moral theologian in the State. A child is incarcerated in that prison because our society and law decided that she was depraved. Let me give you an account of what this "depraved" person does on her own. This recent account was given to a visitor:

9 a.m. — up and called and door opened. I could go to the gym if I wanted. I only went this morning. Sit on the bed listening to tapes. I have five or six. 11 p.m. to 12 noon — school.

She mentions the teacher's name but I will not mention it.

I find it boring but I am coming on in the reading and writing. I could do a bit before I came in. I could not read a letter. Can read a few words. On Tuesday there is cookery at school times. I went once. 2 p.m. — everyday locked up. Listen to tapes again. 3 p.m. — I can go to the yard but I do not go since X left because I would not like walking around the yard on my own. I never went out at all last week except to school in the cabin. A certain prison officer is very nice. I might talk to her, etc. 4.30 to 5.30 p.m. — lock up, sit on the bed listening to tapes. 5.15 p.m. to 7 p.m. — TV. 7.15 p.m. — locked up until morning. Lock up at night time and dinner time is worst time. I sit down and cry and talk to myself and sing to myself the songs on my tape. I hate being on my own. It is boring. I feel like doing harm to myself. Last night I thought I would do harm to myself but I stopped myself thinking I would be out some day. When I think of my father's death I get upset.

Her father committed suicide during the last 12 months.

I cry every morning over him. I think of my father and my mother and the kids at home crying and so on.

This 15 year old child has attempted suicide four time and is on the following medication: Valium three to five times a day, Ponstan four times per day, sometimes Largactyl and one sleeping tablet at night. I do not quote that letter with any voyeuristic delight. I quote it because it is wrong; the Governor of Mountjoy publicly said it is wrong to detain a child there. The prison officers believe it is wrong. They are all doing their best for that child. It is not their fault but the law's and the State's fault that we have nowhere else to put her except in appalling conditions in what is de facto solitary confinement. It is a scandalous reproach to our society that that child be locked up like that. I do not know what the Minister's answer to all of this will be but presumably to promise action some time next year.

We have experienced extraordinary ambivalence about juvenile crime in this country. When we are in our "sanctity of the family-cherish the children of the nation equally" mood we accept that children need to be supported, educated, helped and all the things that go with love and family and so on. We are all very good at making speeches about it. The following week, if there is a particularly spectacular juvenile crime problem, we all change sides and talk about young thugs, "lock them up, throw away the key and whip them". That ambivalence proves that we cannot accept the fundamental fact that at 15 a child deserves to be treated like a child. She is not a potential adult but a child. In that child's testimony you can see what you are dealing with. Whatever her problem or record we are dealing not with an adult but with a child, with the feelings and needs of a child. Locking a child up on its own could never be right and it is up to us as a society to deal with it now and not next year. That child should be out of Mountjoy today and it is the Government's duty to find somewhere else to put her. It is a shame on the Government, the Department and all of us that we would tolerate a child being kept in those conditions. We cannot talk about prison reform under my circumstances if we are prepared to tolerate the locking up of a child in a place like that.

Mr. O'Keeffe

I would like to share my time with Senators McKenna and Hanafin.

Discussing the statement on the prison service what comes to mind is the misery that honest people of this island suffer when they are attacked, vandalised and their homes broken into. I ask myself the question: what rights have they? Have they the right to be protected? I think of the old lady last week who rang me. While she was out playing cards somebody broke into her home, ransacked it and stole £80. It was an absolute misery for that woman. The result is that that woman fears for her life and safety. She was living on her own. She asked me: "What can you do for me? How can you ensure that my home is not broken into?" The Minister and the Government have a duty as far as possible to ensure that the right of the ordinary individual is protected. Therefore I welcome the commitment of the Minister to assign a further 1,000 gardaí to the beat to protect the rights of the individual.

I think of the person on the street at night who is attacked, mugged and maimed and I say it is essential that the Government put more gardaí on the street. I welcome the commitment of the Minister towards achieving that.

When we speak of rights I think of the rights of the ordinary member of society and the rights of a prisoner. To equate those rights and to find a balance is the important thing. We all ask ourselves what this Government have done to ensure that the rights of the prisoner are protected? The punishment for sinning against society is that the person be locked away and divorced from contact with the outside world, while at the same time ensuring that the prisoner has every possible amenity given the resources available to a Government. When I look at the Fianna Fáil Government performance in 1987 and the performance of the present Government since 1989 I ask myself have improvements taken place? Is there a general concern for those who have been locked up? The answer is a very positive yes.

I can only speak about the prison in Cork because I am aware of what happens within that prison. The object in taking a person out of society is that when the term is served that person will return to society and operate in a constructive way within the law. How is that achieved? Are this Government and the prison officers achieving that?

In the prisons at present training schemes operate for prisoners. I see Senator Costello looking at me as the general secretary of the ASTI and I want to remind him that marvellous training schemes are being undertaken under the vocational education committees. Prisoners have the option of undertaking courses provided by teachers under Cork City Vocational Education Committee. Courses in carpentry, painting technology and a wide range of activities have been provided by this Government. But is that enough? The answer is one can never be absolutely sure; the Government can only do their best. If these constructive outlets are not provided then surely there is no chance that these people will integrate properly into society at the end of the day.

What are prisoners' rights? On what are they founded? Who were the people behind the founding of the prisoners' rights movement? What was their purpose and what did they hope to achieve? Balance is everything and a balance must be reached between the rights of offenders and the rights of people offended against. Society is structured in such a way that people will continue to offend against it and must be penalised.

When we talk about prisoners' rights do we go overboard? Do advocates of prisoners' rights acknowledge the fact that the Government are trying to provide sanitary facilities in every prison cell? Do they acknowledge that Wheat-field places a major emphasis on work training? I do not think so.

When I talk about a balance I think of advocates of prisoners rights who may be on the verge of incitement. When talking about rights I think of the prison officers. How much recognition is given to the laudable work prison officers do? Do the advocates of prisoners' rights consider these individuals?

I am sorry to be personal to Senator Costello but I saw the Senator as a member of the Prisoners' Rights Movement on a television news programme which upset me very much. A group of prisoners were protesting on a roof top, damaging taxpayers property which would have to paid for out of taxpayers money. Forgive me for saying this, Senator, but you reminded me of Nelson Eddy when you were roaring at those people trying to communicate with them. I know you are very interested in prisoners rights but in terms of balance have you and your group Senator, gone overboard? That is a serious question which I ask. I do not like doing this but I am concerned about it since I saw that news programme.

Mr. Costello

I hope I shall get the opportunity to respond.

Mr. O'Keeffe

There have been attacks on the cars of prison officers. There have been attacks on the homes of prison officers. We must get this whole debate in perspective and say: how does this come about? Is there any possibility that perhaps the outspoken statements, manoeuvrings and posturings could have brought about a situation where people would be incited, urged or exhorted to taking retribution on certain prison officers? It is, generally speaking, not my form to be as direct as I am here today, but I feel extremely strongly on this issue. I have met prison officers who are concerned about what has been said by prisoners rights organisations over the years. Damage has been caused to them personally and their wives and families have suffered also.

All I can say and hope is that any statements made by any group would be tempered and that those statements would not alone consider the rights of prisoners but the rights of those people who are upholding the law, and not make life hell for the wives and families of those people who are acting in the best interests of this State.

Mr. McKenna

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this very important issue. I do not agree with the fact that a certain small group of people take it upon themselves to be the protectors of the underprivileged, including prisoners. Every member of society is concerned about the problems different people have, and what would include prisoners. Senator Brendan Ryan was talking about the futility of having a prison service and the inevitable failure of a prison service. What alternative is there? We would all love to be able to bring in an offender and explain to him in nice language that this cannot be done and that he can go on his merry way, and that everything will be fine, but that is not what life is all about. If there is not a deterrent of some kind, then society as we know it will crumble. God knows, we have difficulties and problems enough with our jail system without throwing a blanket across the whole thing and saying that from now on there will be no deterrent, no penalties, no incarceration of any description, and that people can go their merry way and do what they like. Very quickly we would see society crumbling totally.

I would agree with what Senator B. Ryan said in relation to poor people. I deal with a fair section of poor people. I am not saying that they do not have their difficulties, but there are a number of people who have been born with a silver spoon and they too get into difficulties. It is not just because one is under-privileged that one will automatically face the problem of going to jail and of committing all these crimes. There are vast numbers of poor people in extreme difficulties who never resort to any type of offence or criminal activity. We are talking about a relatively small percentage of people here be they from the upper-class, the middle-class or the lower stratum of society. That has to be recognised.

Senator Brendan Ryan referred to the fact that drunken drivers may commit a crime and kill innocent people, and are let off scot free. That is not fact. There may be court cases which will go one way or the other, but I know of numerous people who were found guilty in that regard and have served jail sentences. I concur wholeheartedly with that. It is important that we set the record straight.

I am concerned about suicides but the difficulties with suicide is that it seems to be a type of response to society in general. It is not peculiar to the prison services. It is something that we must all be concerned about at the moment. Because of the way society is progressing these tendencies are far more prevalent than they were heretofore. It is not necessarily because people are convicted of crimes of one sort or another that they automatically think of suicide. There is a substantial range of penalties and activities introduced by the courts. Sometimes the ultimate result is jail, but in a number of instances the Probation Act is applied for a range of numerous offences.

Community service orders are widely used. Where vandals and thugs continue to terrify and harass old people, destroy property and set out in a calculated way to do as much damage as possible to society and to property in general, there must be a custodial sentence for them. How else are we to protect the innocent people? We all know there are innocent people living in absolute terror from one end of the day to the other because they are afraid these thugs and vandals will break into their houses. It is not necessarily a fact that they come looking for money. They take extreme pleasure in terrifying old people. The fact that old people have a few shillings to give them does not satisfy them. They will go out of their way to destroy any property these old people have. They will go out of their way to absolutely terrify them. There are numerous cases where rape has been committed on old people. That is a heinous crime.

In relation to people who are convicted for the crime of rape, I am on record in this House on several occasions as stating that there is no custodial sentence I know of that is severe enough for people who are convicted of this heinous crime. Are we suggesting that we should devise a system where people who are known rapists should be released into society again? Are we saying that the finger should be waved at these people and they should be told they should not do that again? Are they to be released into society again? Some young people are raped continuously for seven or eight years, and the people who commit these crimes are supposed to be released into society again.

I know my time is up, but I think it is important to put on record that we must have a proper custodial system. The job being done by the Government at the moment is first class. In the region of £70 million is being spent on the prison services this year. That is a huge amount of money. Everyone would like more but, unfortunately, we have to cut our cloth according to our measure.

I compliment the Minister and the Department on the work they are doing for the prison services.

Mr. Hanafin

There are many different crimes and many of us feel very strongly about particular types of crime. To me the thought of prison is horrible but, like the previous speaker, who spoke about rape and child abuse, I feel that no sentence is long enough for somebody proven guilty of such a crime. I understand that there can be many complaints that would be justified from the inmates of a prison. There would be many complaints from the prison officers. It is the type of institution which lends itself to abuse of all kinds. I visited a prison on one occasion and it frightened me.

I would like to speak about one particular case and bring it to the Minister's attention. In this case there are a number of points he might take into consideration. It concerns a girl called Julia Greene. She is currently detained in the segregation unit of Mountjoy female prison. She is serving a sentence of 18 months. She is held on a warrant of 12 months' imprisonment for failure to appear in the Children's Court on 5 November 1990. She is also serving a sentence of six months' consecutive imprisonment for the assault on Garda Noel Campbell at——

Acting Chairman (Mr. Mooney)

Senator, I would suggest that if you wish to make a contribution in relation to a specific case you should not mention the individual concerned by name.

Mr. Hanafin

I did not know that I should not do that. The particular person I am concerned about was sentenced in 1990. The court certified that she was so depraved a character — nobody is so "depraved" a character — that she was not a fit person to be detained in a basic detention unit and that she was to be sent to Mountjoy prison. This certification was carried out under section 102 of the Children's Act, 1908. Her co-accused, Diana MacDonogh, was released on 26 April 1991 by order of the High Court due to the fact that the sentence she was serving was in excess of the legal maximum.

This particular person I am speaking about was allowed to mix with the other adult prisoners for the first four months while she was in Mountjoy female prison. However, by order of the High Court the governor was directed that this young girl should be segregated from the adult prisoners and a segregation unit was set up. The Whitaker report and the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace have condemned Mountjoy female prison and in particular juveniles being sent there. A secure probation hostel which would enable the courts to dispose of juveniles was recommended, but this has not been set up. The conditions in the segregation unit are most unsuitable to the needs of a 15 year old girl. She is held in solitary confinement in the segregation unit which is in Mountjoy female prison. All the professionals who have dealt with her say that she is in need of a great deal of attention, preferably in a residential therapeutic unit with trained child care workers. No such unit exists. Perhaps the Minister might take that into account. The concept of dealing with a 15 year old in such a closed unit is worrying. This girl is on a very high level of medication and will find great difficulty in adapting when she is released from prison, as you can appreciate.

In Britain there is a prohibition on sending juveniles to an adult prison. So far we have failed to amend our 1908 Children's Act. Since her admission to Mountjoy this girl has suffered great trauma and emotional difficulties. She has cut herself on numerous occasions and has attempted to hang herself on at least one occasion. She was transferred to the Central Mental Hospital, Dundrum, for a short period. Modern child care thinking regard it very unwise to put a 15 year old in such a closed unit. What should be recommended is a more open setting. Research shows that one of the difficulties with such a small unit is that the prisoners feel very cooped up and naturally pressurised. This girl of 15 is allowed regular visits from her family. However, she is the only prisoner in her unit. Unfortunately, she is also illiterate. She is very much in need of counselling and help because her father committed suicide. He died last February. I understand — and this is the tragic part — that she spends a lot of time crying when locked up and finds the conditions very upsetting. It is hard to understand, or to guess, how she might be when she is released from prison. She is where she should not be. I ask the Minister to look into it.

Acting Chairman

I am grateful to the Senator for his accommodation. I would like to call Senator Costello. We are being flexible with your contribution, Senator, in the circumstances and I hope you will keep that in mind.

Mr. Costello

I appreciate the fact that you have been flexible and generous in relation to giving me some time. I have been asking the Leader of the House over the last number of months to ensure that there would be a debate on the prison system. I am certainly delighted to have the opportunity now of making my contribution. I want to welcome the Minister of State to the House. I suppose I have to express some disappointment that the Minister for Justice is not here to listen to the very valuable contributions that have been made. I have no doubt the contributions will be forwarded to the Minister by the Minister of State.

In the first instance I must reject very strongly the personal slur and the accusations that were levelled against me by Senator O'Keeffe by suggesting very strongly that I was in some way responsible by my activities and my utterances in my position as a spokesman in relation to the prison system for attacks on prison officers. I must say that he got what I would regard as too much freedom to make those accusations. I regard them as scurrilous and unbefitting any Member of this House. The situation is at times misunderstood by a number of the speakers from the Government benches in that what we are discussing here is the prison system. We are not discussing the entirety of the issue in relation to crime or in relation to victims. I am not, have not ever, nor do I think anybody in the House is condoning any form of crime or any breach of the law. I am involved in the victims' rights organisation which is in action. It is active in the Dublin area. It is important that the people who are the victims of crime are also assured that their rights are respected. We do not always recognise the trauma involved for the victim in a criminal offence.

In relation to some of the matters that were raised here about the facilities in the prisons, I would like to say particularly to Senator O'Keeffe that it has been as a result of a lot of hard campaigning on my part over the last two decades that we have 100 teachers in the prisons. There was none in the prisons when I started, except the odd nun or priest who came in and gave their time.

Mr. O'Keeffe

I suppose the Government had nothing to do with that.

Mr. Costello

It had to do with campaigning. The reason for it is that somebody stood up and said that the conditions in the prisons were intolerable and that a degree of rehabilitation should be put in position. One of the absolutely essential areas where rehabilitation was required was in the field of education. Anybody who would oppose the extension of rehabilitative facilities has his head in the sand in relation to the prison system.

Could I also say, in relation to the statement made by Senator O'Keeffe about me speaking to prisoners on the roof of Mountjoy, that I was specifically requested by the prisoners to act in a negotiating capacity. I did that and contributed to the prisoners coming off the roof rather than, as Senator O'Keeffe seemed to suggest, being provocative. It would be much better if Senator O'Keeffe got his facts right rather than make allegations which are unfounded.

The simple fact of the situation is that here we are, a year after we had a very thorough debate on this matter in this House, and the overall situation, as I see it, is worse than it was at that time. The prison system is more overcrowded now than it was. There are more prisoners than there were 12 months ago. There have been more roof top demonstrations. There is regular slashing of wrists by prisoners in segregated units and in the basement. Of course, that whole area is intolerable: prisoners with serious medical complaints are segregated there from the rest of the prison population. Many of them are put down in the traditional punishment block in the basement of Mountjoy prison. As a result those who are in need of the best medical treatment are put further into despair and depression and inflict a lot of self-injury on themselves.

The Wheatfield prison, which cost £40 million, has had its first riot. Unfortunately, it has not been in operation for more than two years, but the old regime is in operation there all the time. It is a new prison. I would expect an enlightened regime in operation, but there is not. There is no segregation in the prison. I have had more complaints from the new prison in Wheatfield than I have had in the last 12 months from any other prison in the State. That is certainly not a positive way for a new prison to start its days in operation.

In our women's prison we had the first suicide last year. There has been a lot of self-inflicted injuries since then. We have the very damning report from the last annual report on prisons. I just do not know if anything has been done to remedy the description given on page 47 of the report:

As we have reported previously, we are concerned at the lack of segregation of drug pushers and users, long and short term prisoners, young teenagers and experienced convicts and emotionally disturbed people all confined together. Despite the best efforts of management and staff the dangers inherent in this overcrowded situation cannot be eliminated. Theft, intimidation, drug and sexual blackmail incidents have occurred. Fewer detentions or more space is an urgent requirement.

There has been no alleviation of that situation. That is a terrible indictment of that prison. We see now that there has been a further deterioration in the prison in relation to the girl who was referred to by a number of Senators, who is in the prison in solitary confinement because she was adjudged by the court to be unruly and depraved and is serving a sentence of 18 months. That is totally unsatisfactory. I am not going to go into the details. Most of them were described. That girl of 15 years of age spends 16½ hours every day on her own in her cell. Any reference to the fact that people were out from morning to night is not true in any prison in this country other than in the open prisons. There could be no defence of that. I would urge the Minister to look into that matter urgently. The problem of course is that we have not updated our legislation, the 1908 Children's Act. While the Minister has promised legislation to deal with juvenile justice there is no sign of that coming to the Oireachtas.

Last week in Trinity House there was another roof top disturbance. There have been deaths in prison and in Garda custody. In the last three years there have been 30 deaths in the prisons, which is an average of about four deaths per annum over the last three years. Eight of those deaths were in Mountjoy, which is an average of approximately three per annum. Mountjoy Prison is a particular black spot because of the conditions under which the prisoners are detained. Approximately 60 per cent of our prison population is confined in the Mountjoy complex. This needs to be addressed rapidly. The slopping out, which is one of the most degrading experiences still is the way the vast majority of prisoners have to go about their daily routine. They have to slop out in the morning, go down to the end of the corridor and dump out their chamber pot, rinse it under the tap and come back in again. They are locked up from 7.30 p.m. until 8 a.m., very often in doubled up and overcrowded conditions. I would ask what is the Minister doing about this problem? I would like to ask specifically in relation to some promises made by the Minister. The Minister in 1979 set up an advisory committee on prison deaths. Last year he stated that the committee was very near to completing its final report. Last week in the Dáil he stated again that the committee was very near to completing its final report. Could I ask him where is the final report?

The Minister sacked the Mountjoy visiting committee because of their critical reports in 1988 and 1989. That is not exactly the best way to respond to criticism by the body that was established as a watchdog body for the public. The Minister promised this House on 8 March 1990 that allegations that had been made to me in relation to strip searching of women in prison would be investigated. He stated specifically that not only would they be investigated but also stated: "I will release and make public the outcome of that inquiry and will take whatever steps are necessary". I have not heard a word since then other than a request from the principal officer in charge of the investigation to give what information I had, and I did so.

There have been further promises by the Minister regarding further allegations by a number of ex-prisoners. Indeed, he promised that there would be a Garda inquiry. I would like to know what is the outcome of that inquiry. Can we expect that they will be internal inquiries and that we will get nothing out in public?

There are further allegations in the Mountjoy visiting committee report and about prison staff in riot gear quelling a disturbance in the women's prison. I wonder if there was any response to those allegations.

I would ask the Minister to look at the broad legislative framework in updating our antiquated 19th century prisons legislation and to take on board the principle of a justice model with the rights of those being incarcerated to the fore. That would be done through rehabilitation. I ask him to take on the administrative structure outlined in the Whitaker report, namely, that there would be a chief executive officer and a director of prisoners, and that justice would be only one feature of the administrative structure. All the other relevant elements — health, education, welfare and labour — would be part and parcel of the board that would run the prison system. That is the type of root and branch change we require. Obviously, the prison rules and regulations which are outdated and based purely on privilege would need to be updated urgently. As was said previously by a number of speakers, the punishment is the loss of liberty. Essentially, that is what the sanction of imprisonment is and should be. Any other punishment is additional and may not be warranted by the court. Rather than having a punitive model, we need a justice model. If people are treated like animals, the danger is that they will act like animals.

In relation to the prison visiting committee, the 1925 legislation needs to be updated so that the personnel can be selected on an independent basis and that the punitive and disciplinary powers are taken away. There is no reason why a body which is a watch guard body for the public should also have disciplinary powers, even disciplinary powers to put people in iron. We do not need that. That should be done away with entirely. Of course, there must be a major move towards the alternatives which are recommended in the Whitaker report. We must get the Child Care Bill and the juvenile justice legislation on the books so that we can never again have a youngster of the age of 15 or less defined as unruly and depraved, which of course is a contradiction in terms and should never happen in any society. The women's prison and also St. Partick's Institution should be closed down, as the Whitaker report recommended.

The only way we can go about dealing with the problem of prisoners who are addicted to drugs or alcohol or who have AIDS or are infected with Hepatitis B is by having a detention-treatment centre to which they would be sent directly from the courts rather than going into the mainline prison system. In other words, the emphasis would be on treatment for the problem rather than on security or punishment. That procedure, too, would eliminate the need for the present procedure whereby AIDS infected prisoners are detained in a separate area of the prison which, in the case of Mountjoy, is the basement. Because of the stigma attaching to such prisoners, it is impossible, under the present arrangements, for them to go back into their own community on release.

Finally, I want to raise the matters the Minister assured us he was investigating and in respect of which he promised to give the results in a short space of time. I would like him to give us the information to date on these matters. I thank the Minister for agreeing to the debate. He has been generous in that.

I have criticisms of the way the prison system is run but I have no doubt the Minister will say he has been doing trojan work in regard to the Whitaker committe. My problem is that I have been around for the past 20 years arguing for prison reform and for prisoners' rights, issues which are of paramount importance if a prison system is to function properly. That system must have a philosophical base, the present prison system has no such base. The problem is that rather than improving the situation is getting worse. No matter what the Minister may say, that is the position as I am getting it from people who are in prison, from ex-prisoners and, indeed, from prison staff. The prison staff more than anybody else want the prison issue addressed because in a sense they are also prisoners, they are confined in the same conditions in which the prisoners are confined. For all of those reasons it behoves us all to take an interest in the conditions in our prisons and to see what we can do to improve them. Thank you for your generosity, a Leas-Chathaoirleigh.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice (Mr. N. Treacy)

Is cúis áthais dom teacht anseo chun freagra a thabhairt ar an díospóireacht seo faoi sheirbhísí priosúin agus ba mhaith liom mo mhíle buíochas a ghabhaíl le gach Seanadóir a ghlac páirt san díospóireacht tábhachtach seo.

I want to assure the House that I am here representing the Government and the Minister for Justice. I want to assure Senator Costello in particular that the commitment of this Government to our prison services is greater than that of any previous Government and particularly Governments in which his party were involved. I have been given special responsibility for the prison services and we have ensured, by the investment we have made and by the decisions we have taken, particularly under the guidance of the Minister for Justice, Deputy Burke, and the support of the Department of Justice, that major progress has been made in the whole operation of the prison services and systems in this country over the past four years.

It is fair to say that the ground covered in today's debate has been well traversed over the years. The matters which have been raised here this evening have been dealt with in Dáil Questions, in motions before this house and in various other public statements. Nevertheless, as the operation of our prison system is one which is of such vital concern to the entire community, it is only right that Senators should wish to further debate the issue. I welcome the opportunity of contributing to and responding to the debate.

Those of us with responsibility for the prison service are always conscious of the contribution it makes towards the maintenance of law and order. It requires for its operation the dedicated input of a range of professional people, including doctors, psychologists, welfare officers, teachers, chaplains and representatives of various voluntary groups.

All of their work is underpinned by prisons management and prison officers, who keep our institutions operational 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. I would like to take this opportunity and I know the House will join with me in acknowledging the work done by all of these people who, day by day and with great professionalism and dedication, carry out this task on behalf of our entire community.

Prisons by their nature tend to attract considerable public attention. This is as it should be but it is an unfortunate reality that much of the attention focuses on the negative side of prisons. Publicity often gives an unbalanced picture and fails to acknowledge the many achievements of the prison system. Criticism often centres around prison policy, with the notion that this policy is flawed.

I am sure that in the light of what I have to say, the House will readily acknowledge that there is nothing to substantiate this assertion.

A prisons policy, if it is to earn the description of being effective, has to be characterised by a variety of features.

I do propose to list these exhaustively, but would simply like to mention some, which I regard as the essential elements and argue that not only are they coherent, but that they are being effectively implemented.

I think there can be no dispute that one of the central requirements of an effective prison system is that it should provide secure containment. While there may be much debate about the effectiveness or otherwise of imprisonment, all European governments agree that, if the public are to be protected imprisonment is the only sanction which is acceptable for certain kinds of offender and in respect of certain types of offences. Difficulties do, of course, arise from time to time in achieving secure containment, but I am satisfied that such difficulties as have arisen have been dealt with very well by prison governors and staff who deserve our deepest compliments for the good job they are doing.

A central feature of an effective prisons policy is that there should be an emphasis on a caring and humane approach within the limitations necessarily imposed by imprisonment itself, and the need to maintain good order and security.

This humane approach has been a cornerstone of Irish prison policy down through the years. Our prison system stands up well to international comparisons in relation to regimes, educational opportunities, medical care, diet, recreation and so on. The extent of our development in this area is the product of years of work by successive Ministers for Justice and staff at all levels at the Department of Justice, and I know the House will agree that this work must continue.

I should like to mention, in particular, initiatives in this area which have been introduced in recent times.

First, I should like to refer to the establishment of the Sentence Review Group under the chairmanship of Dr. Whitaker. Until the group were set up there was no systematic review of all long term offenders, although, of course, individual offenders were considered on an ad hoc basis.

The group was charged with reviewing all offenders who had served seven years or more of a current sentence, excluding a sentence for capital murder. Throughout 1990 the group examined all eligible cases and made appropriate recommendations in relation to them. All these cases were duly considered by the Minister and so the first round of reviews can be said to be completed.

The group remain in existance and, along with reviewing new cases as they arise, will reconsider old cases, where releases did not follow the initial review. I would like to take this opportunity to express our deepest gratitude to Dr. Whitaker and his team for the enthusiasm with which they have approached this very difficult task. Another initiative was the decision to establish the Advisory Group on Prison Deaths.

The sad problem of deaths in custody is not only a source of anguish to the families and friends of the deceased, it is also traumatic for fellow prisoners and prison staff who have the unenviable task of coping with the consequences on the spot.

There are many who, regardless of the facts, speak of the "alarming" increase in deaths while in custody. While there is little by way of solution to the problem to be gained by playing with statistics, it should be noted that there were four deaths in each of the years 1988 and 1989, and five in 1990. More significantly, however, in a four-month period in 1985-86 there were also four deaths. I make this point simply to illustrate that figures fluctuate and, while it is no consolation to anybody, least of all those who were bereaved, it is important to acknowledge the real facts.

The causes of suicide are varied and very complex. Deaths in custody are a world wide phenomenon. As we all know, suicides do not happen only in prison; they happen outside prison as well. No fail-safe way has been found of identifying all potential suicide risks, inside or outside prison.

So far as prisons are concerned it is likely that suicides arise from a variety of causes, and it is far too facile to suggest that there is only one cause, for example, pressure on accommodation, hoping that by addressing this one issue, we can come up with a solution.

It is because of the complexities involved that an expert advisory group were set up to examine the problem and make recommendations. The Group comprise a wide range of disciplines, including medical, psychological, psychiatric and welfare, together with people who are involved with the day to day management of offenders. They have already made interim recommendations which have been accepted and are currently being implemented.

Included in these recommendations is provision for 24 hour medical orderly cover in the closed institutions. The additional 43 medical orderlies necessary for this are being recruited. The other recommendations which are being implemented are the setting up of a suicide prevention group in each prison, a review of procedures for identification of potential suicide risks and improving the speed of response to suicide attempts. The final report of the advisory group is nearing completion, and when it is received it will be given urgent consideration.

Another area of great concern in prisons and which is, of course, critical for offenders and staff alike, is the question of communicable diseases including HIV. This is a matter on which my Department have been approached by various interests and which has become the subject of intense discussion within the prison service and with the Department of Health, the Eastern Health Board and others.

In the light of the considerable advances in scientific knowledge which have taken place in recent years in this whole area, it was decided to bring together people, who are appropriately qualified, to advise as to future policies in this area. The group were established in 1990 and are expected to report later this year. I intend to give priority attention to the advice which I receive from the group.

In the meantime, the House will be aware that last year Government approval was received for the construction of a special unit within the Mountjoy complex for those suffering from infectious diseases. It will be specially equipped to enable medical attention appropriate to the special needs of these offenders to be given. Work has started on the building, and it is expected to be completed within 18 months.

As part of the overall aim of ensuring that the medical services provided to offenders are of the highest calibre the appointment of a full-time medical director, as recommended in the report of the Inquiry into the Penal System, known as the Whitaker report, was seen to be a high priority.

Following initial failed attempts to attract a suitably qualified person for the post, approval was obtained for a considerable improvement in the employment terms and as a consequence, the medical director was appointed last October. This is a very significant appointment in the interests of bringing about improvements in the overall standard of health care throughout the prison system.

I am, of course, fully aware that many would consider that a prisons policy which did not embrace plans for the implementation of the recommendations in the Whitaker report should be regarded as seriously flawed policy. Let me say that I share that view. For anybody with responsibility for the running of the prison service to ignore the findings of such a distinguished committee would be an act of folly. However, despite the assertions by many people, some indeed who do not from their pronouncements appear to have read the report very carefully, if at all, that the report has been shelved, I can assure the House that the reality is very much to the contrary.

Some of the developments which it advocates such as the community service order scheme, the use of suspended sentences, fines, probation and so on, have long been a feature of our system. The setting up of the Sentence Review Group, the appointment of the medical director, the introduction of new duty rosters and so on is more recent evidence of the commitment to the implementation of the committee's findings.

It is quite simply false, and indeed unjust to the Whitaker Committee, to suggest that their findings are being ignored.

There are, of course, recommendations which are still under consideration such as the establishment of a prison board and the expansion of alternatives to custody to an extent which would reduce even more significantly the number of offenders in custody.

With regard to the establishment of a prisons board, I am not sure that many of the advocates of this have carefully read what the report has to say. The report recommends that the day to day administration of prisons should be placed in the hands of a public official called the Director of the Prison Service, who would be chairman and chief executive of a board, consisting for the most part of members of his own staff. The type of management structure proposed is quite similar in fact to that which currently exists in my Department.

A major question, which must be looked at when considering the subject is the question of whether the establishment of such a body is in the best interest of the public and of persons held in custody. There is a strong argument for saying that a member of the Government, should continue to have direct and immediate responsibility for those deprived of their liberty and direct answerability to the Dáil rather than that this responsibility should be placed in a non-elected public servant. Even if a satisfactory way could be found to delegate some responsibilities to a director, the reality of our situation is such that so many reservations would have to be entered in the public interest, in relation, for example, to subversives, sex offenders and other serious offenders, that such delegation could very well be meaningless.

In mentioning this I do not wish to imply that the idea of a prison board does not have merit. What I am saying essentially is that certain issues require very careful consideration before final decisions are arrived at if we are to ensure that whatever is ultimately decided is in the best interests of the prison service and the public. At the present time, this question is still being reviewed and no firm decision either way has yet been made about it.

There are many who continually advocate alternatives to custody, as if they did not exist already. I would like to point out that alternatives to custody not only exist, but are very widely and extensively used. Not many appreciate that at present there are some 3,500 offenders on alternatives of one type or another, including community service orders, compared with 2,200 in prison.

Further options in the area of alternatives were recently explored and earlier this year, the introduction of a scheme of intensive supervision was announced. Thirty-one additional probation and welfare officers are at present being appointed for this scheme. They will be assigned the task of providing special supervision for about 200 additional offenders in the community, as an alternative to keeping them in prison.

The scheme is aimed not only at reducing pressure on prison accommodation, but also at assisting those concerned in reintegrating successfully into the community. An innovation in the area of supervision will be the establishment of two drop-in centres for those under supervision. One of these will be located in Dublin and one in Cork. Counselling and other services will be available in the centres for those under supervision.

With regard to the prospects of significantly reducing the existing population by the greater use of alternatives, however, it is only right to sound a note of caution. The growth in the prison population is already kept in check by the use of alternatives. It is simply a fact that alternatives to custody would not be appropriate for many of the offenders currently in custody. It is simply not true that our policy is to imprison all offenders regardless. On the contrary, every effort is made to provide many offenders with an opportunity to stay out of prison. Many of those currently in custody have either exhausted alternatives, or are guilty of such grave offences that alternatives are not appropriate.

There have been many accusations that a revolving door system is now operating in our prison system. Under the Criminal Justice Act, 1960, the Minister for Justice may authorise releases in particular cases.

All of these releases have standard conditions, which include the obligation to keep the peace, be of good behaviour and be of sober habits. Other conditions are added, as appropriate, such as a requirement to report to the Garda Síochána, to be supervised by a welfare officer, or to reside at a prescribed hostel. Any person breaching any of these conditions is liable to rearrest and return to prison to serve the remainder of the sentence.

The criteria by which cases are assessed for release are well known. They include the nature of the offence, the offender's previous criminal history, his or her attitude while in custody, the length of the sentence served and a Garda assessment of the risk, if any, which may be posed to the community by a particular release. It should be borne in mind that the overriding concern when assessing cases for release is the protection of the public.

Parole systems are a feature of all civilised societies the world over. Our temporary release scheme is our system of parole and I am happy to tell the House the flexibility of our system and the substantial measure of control over the behaviour of offenders, which is possible under it is admired by international penological experts, throughout the world.

While it cannot be denied that pressure on accommodation is a factor in some early releases, it should be understood it is only one factor in a decision to release an individual prisoner and all releases are judged in the light of the criteria, which I have already mentioned. I can assure the House that in administering relatively long sentences for serious offences, shortage of accommodation is not a consideration and it is important that that point gets across to those who engage in serious crime. For them, there will be no easy release.

Apart from the normal prison regime, which includes training workshops and other facilities, we also run a number of workshop and welfare centres throughout the country for the more moderate offenders. We spent approximately £1.5 million annually on these services. We finance a total of up to 20 hostels and other voluntary groups. Training is specifically provided at Priorswood House in Coolock for discharged male prisoners run by PACE. Since 1977 we have supported the Candle Community Trust in Ballyfermot, which caters for boys up to 21 years of age. We also have excellent training workshops in Ballinasloe and Tuam and we support the Lions Villa Hostel in Chapelizod, Usher's Island Workshop, Dublin, the St. Vincent's Trust Hostel, the Youth Project in Dún Laoghaire, the Cork Probation Hostel, the Lady's Lane Hostel in Waterford and several other worthwhile projects.

This brings me to the general question of prison accommodation. No Minister for Justice has ever denied that there are accommodation problems in Irish prisons and I will not deny it now. However, these difficulties are not of recent vintage and are constantly being addressed.

In recent times a number of measures have been taken, which I know will help to alleviate the problems. Since 1989 a total of £23 million has been provided for maintenance and capital works for prisons, which represents a very clear commitment towards the ongoing upgrading of our prisons stock. Given the necessity to contain public expenditure in the interests of the economy in general, I would suggest that this allocation to prisons has been generous.

First the place of detention at Wheatfield which provides 320 additional places for offenders was brought into full operation. As well as the capital-maintenance investment, a very heavy investment was also made in staffing resources. Major refurbishment and reconstruction work was commenced in St. Patrick's Institution in mid-1990, and the first phase will be completed by the end of next August. The other two phases will be completed next year. The work being undertaken involves major refurbishment and reconstruction, and will result in the provision of vastly improved cell accommodation and facilities for education, work training and recreation.

In addition, the refurbishment provides for the installation of in-cell sanitation facilities and a cell-call communication facility in every cell. As part of this project, the existing women's prison is to be totally refurbished. There has never been any argument on my part that there was not an urgent need to improve these conditions. We fully accept that facilities for women prisoners must be improved as a matter of priority. With the completion of the first phase of the St. Patrick's project next August it is intended to move the women into the refurbished accommodation, as an interim measure. With regard generally to the question of providing a new prison for women, the position is that no option has been ruled out. However, it is considered that the total refurbishment of the existing facility is the only means whereby a significant improvement in conditions for women can be brought about in the short term.

Work to improve the women's prison itself will commence this year. These arrangments may not be a full solution to the problem but they will be a considerable advance on what is there at present. They are intended to serve while the matter of providing a more satisfactory long term solution is being decided. The total number of women prisoners is quite small—45 female offenders in total, compared to over 2,000 male offenders. It is wrong to suggest that the majority of these women are minor offenders who can be dealt with otherwise than in prison. The fact is that the courts are very reluctant to send women to prison and it is generally only where the offence is very serious, or where offences are repeated over and over again without regard to the warnings by the courts, or where all sorts of alternative have failed, that women wind up in prison. Many women prisoners are committed also for drug-related offences. In these cases it is quite clear that the courts have little option but to impose custodial sentences.

Plans are also well advanced for the replacement of one of the wings in Limerick prison by a completely new structure which will provide 30 additional spaces. Plans are also advanced for further developments in Portlaoise and Mountjoy. It has also been decided that in all new buildings and in refurbished accommodation, in-cell sanitation will be provided. It is expected that, within two years, 40 per cent of offenders will have 24 hour access to sanitary facilities.

It is one of my primary concerns to ensure that everything possible is done to prevent illegal drugs getting into prisons. For this reason I have asked my Department to carry out a full examination of ways to prevent drug smuggling. I do, of course, acknowledge that in order to prevent completely the passage of contraband between visitors and offenders, during visits, it would be necessary to separate visitors from the offender completely. To introduce such a system would be unnecessarily harsh, particularly in cases where young children may be visiting. The problem is finding the correct balance to avoid unnecessarily harsh conditions for visits while at the same time ensuring an adequate measure of control. I hope that the examination referred to will help in deciding on this balance.

Senator Ryan referred to the remission of sentences and compared our situation to the 50 per cent rate of remission in Northern Ireland, by his own admission an invidious comparison. Remission is only one aspect of the question of early release for offenders. The other one is parole which in our case is release under the Criminal Justice Act, 1960. The fact is that in our system any prisoner whose offence is not too serious and whose early release would not constitute a danger to the public is released well before his sentence expires. The increase of remission to be automatically applied irrespective of the nature of the crime, or the possible danger to the public, does not seem to me a sensible development. It is far better to retain the discretionary element which conditional release under the 1960 Act allows.

In the course of the debate a number of other questions were raised and I would like to refer to them briefly. A number of Senators made allegations that a young girl in Mountjoy is being held in solitary confinement in the women's prison. The implications in the allegation are refuted. Under the rules for the Government of Prisons, 1947, there is an obligation to segregate juveniles from adults. A successful action was brought recently in the High Court to enforce this obligation in the case of two young girls and, of course, my Department complied with the court order. Dormitory type accommodation with ancillary facilities were made available in the grounds of the women's prison and complete separation from adult offenders was achieved. One of the two girls has since been released and the result is that the other girl in this accommodation lacks the company of a like offender. Given this background it is a distortion of the reality to imply that the girl is being deliberately held in solitary confinement, a phrase which has specific connotations in prison language. I will, of course, keep the matter under review to find a way of avoiding any damaging consequences for the girl.

Mr. Costello

The visiting committee have admitted that the girl is effectively held in solitary confinement.

Mr. N. Treacy

I have made the position quite clear. We are bound by the laws of this land. We are bound by the decisions of the courts of this land. We have adhered to those decisions. There were two people together in a particular unit of the prison system in Mountjoy prison. One of those has been released thereby leaving another person left in that position. We are obliged under the decisions of the courts to treat that girls in a particular way and that is being done in the most humane way possible. It is not our desire to hold that girl in a separate, single situation or environment. We are treating her as best we can, as humanely as possible and sooner rather than later we hope that she will be released.

Mr. Costello

She is locked up for 16½ hours every day——

Mr. N. Treacy

Senator Costello had his opportunity. I was very generous.

An Cathaoirleach

The Minister must be allowed to continue with his reply.

Mr. N. Treacy

Comments were also made about the disturbance last week in Wheatfield. It is the first such disturbance since Wheatfield was opened and while injury to individuals and damage to property was not significant, it is regrettable that it should have happened. Any damage to an institution like this, which was provided at great public expense, has to be deplored. The trouble stemmed from a relatively minor assault by one prisoner on another. As often happens in a closed community such as this, retaliation by other prisoners followed. Staff succeeded in bringing matters under control but when the offending prisoners were left locked up, pending an investigation by the governor, some of them resorted to damaging cell items as a protest. As I have said, the damage was not serious, and more permanent fittings such as sanitary bowls and wash-hand basins were not damaged.

Everything possible will be done to try to prevent a recurrence of this kind of incident. Prison staff and the majority of offenders there have too much respect for the excellent conditions to do other than avoid such incidents. Nevertheless it has to be said that any closed environment can give rise to situations and tensions which can easily develop into destructive incidents. Much can be done to avoid them and will be done, but there can be no guarantee that prison staff will always be successful.

There was also some comment on overcrowding and questions about the action being taken to deal with it. It would be very easy for me to tell you that we were about to embark on a vast building programme to solve this problem forever. The management and operation of a prison system is not that simple. First, the point has to be made that there is adequate accommodation for all offenders convicted of the most serious crimes, that the public will be protected from such offenders and that nobody contemplating a serious crime should be in any doubt but that there will be a place for him or her. New prison buildings are very expensive — the cost of Wheatfield Prison was almost £40 million — and before committing further large sums of public money for new prisons we ought to be sure that they are indispenable.

I referred earlier to the alternatives to imprisonment which have been developed, which are in the pipeline and which will continue to be sought. The reason for this is not only financial. I am sure we would all endorse the view of the Whitaker committee that for a variety of reasons imprisonment should be seen as a last resort and something to be avoided if at all possible. This idea of minimal use of imprisonment would find acceptance in most civilised communities. Subject to the overriding need to protect the public, there may very well be further scope for examining the question of the extent of our resort to imprisonment. I am having such an examination carried out. Should anything positive result from the examination there would, of course, be a benefit in terms of reducing overcrowding.

Senator Costello referred to strip searching. I understand that the inquiry carried out by a senior official in the Department of Justice has been completed and that his report is almost ready. I expect, therefore, to receive it fairly soon and I will give full consideration to its conclusions and recommendations and will make an announcement in due course. No decision has been made about publication, but I should imagine that publication would not be desirable if it contained names or other very personal details by which prisoners could be identified. There is a duty to preserve confidentiality in relation to persons committed to custody.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the Cathaoirleach for his generosity in allowing so much time for this debate. I wish the House to agree that the approach being taken is the right one. Anyone who considers fairly the range of developments in the prison service which I have outlined must conclude that our balance between custodial and non-custodial treatment, together with the ongoing developments which are taking place, are clear evidence that we are operating a soundly based prison policy.

An Cathaoirleach

I would like to thank the Minister for giving of his time over and above the allotted time, but is was important that Members who have a specific interest in this area would have this opportunity and I was glad to be able to facilitate them.

Sitting suspended at 4.35 p.m. and resumed at 6 p.m.

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 16 May 1991