It was mentioned that the Garda pay issue would be resolved through a contingency fund. What is the estimate for the fund?
Estimates for Public Services, 1998.
Votes 19-24: Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Resumed).
I would like to answer that question but until the deal is done we will not know the amount involved.
I know the Minister cannot tell the amount involved, but he mentioned a contingency fund and in the context of the Estimates I do not accept that he does not know the amount involved.
The contingency fund exists to cover public sector pay and contingencies such as that which has arisen. However, off-hand I cannot say the precise amount of the fund. However, I will try to get the information and send it to the Deputy.
On Vote 21 - Prisons - the provision is £182 million, an increase of 14 per cent on the 1997 outturn. I am sure that Members will recall my reference yesterday to a major organisation change programme which has been under way in my Department for some time. In the context of the organisation change programme the Government is committed to the establishment of a prisons authority. The issues surrounding this were examined in detail by an expert group which reported in 1997. I will shortly bring proposals to Government to give effect to this commitment.
With regard to prison accommodation, I am happy to inform the committee that I am on target to meet, and indeed exceed, the Government's commitment to provide 1,000 additional places in our first two years. In all, 1,092 additional places will have been made available when the final project in this first phase of prison buildings, namely, the Midlands Prison which is currently under construction and will provide 400 places, is completed in August or September next year. Already the new wing at Limerick Prison, which contains 60 places, is in operation and a further 52 places in the main prison at Castlerea will be brought into operation shortly. A further 480 places at the new remand prison beside Wheatfield and at the new women's prison beside Mountjoy will be completed later this year. The total construction costs for the 1,092 additional places will be approximately £90 million and represents excellent value for money. I have commenced planning for a further 1,000 prison places to be provided within the lifetime of the Government under the second phase of my prisons building programme.
Simultaneously, I am pressing forward as rapidly as possible with an ongoing programme of capital building works to replace, refurbish, upgrade and extend the existing prison building stock. This programme will include the replacement of unsuitable and unsafe cell blocks at Portlaoise Prison and Limerick Prison, the total refurbishment of the main cell blocks at Mountjoy Prison and a wide range of other major improvement works at many prisons. It will include work to bring these prisons into compliance with current health, safety and security requirements.
The prison system is under unprecedented pressure and while the new places in Limerick and Castlerea will offer some relief in this regard, the extent of current overcrowding at our larger prisons such as Mountjoy and Cork will not be relieved until the new prisons at Cloverhill and Portlaoise are ready for use next year.
Of course, this increase in the number of prison spaces requires a concomitant increase in both the staff required to man them and the goods and services required to run them. I am looking to the PCW flexibility agreement with the Prison Officers' Association to achieve savings through the implementation, for example, of modern technology and also to the recommendations of the 1997 Prison Service cost review group report.
In this context, I warmly welcome the agreement of the Minister for Finance to establish a dedicated cost review team as recommended by the report, to examine all the staffing and operational issues involved and to come up with a best practice blueprint for the future. In the meantime, it is vital that staffing arrangements for the new prisons are on a best practice basis and as a guideline the Government is insisting on staff/prisoner ratios in the new prisons which will be broadly in line with international practice.
Even with this, 700 additional staff will be required for the new prisons. The Civil Service Commission recently advertised a competition for Prison Service recruitment and I hope successful candidates will begin to come on stream towards the end of the year. The recruits will result in not only extra costs in terms of pay and allowances but also in terms of uniform requirements. In addition, increases proportionate to the percentage increase in the prison population are required in such areas as prisoner clothing, victualling, bedding, etc. Finally, requirements for other provisions such as furniture, office machinery, lighting and fuel will also increase. These are unavoidable increases and are provided for in the Estimates.
I cannot, of course, discuss the Prisons Vote without mentioning overtime. The committee is aware that the high level of overtime in the Prison Service has been a problem for many years to the extent that it is no longer sustainable. The present high level is due to the need to maintain staffing levels and control the current conditions of overcrowding. The associated high level of escorts contribute to about 30 per cent of the cost. I hope to have a preliminary report from the cost review group on this urgent matter within a few months.
Committee members will also be aware of my commitment to the development of community based sanctions under the supervision of the Probation and Welfare Service and that towards the end of last year I established an expert group to review the service. The 1998 budget for the service is £15.9 million, which represents an increase of over 25 per cent on the budget allocation for 1997. A significant part of this increase is allocated for the provision of a new information technology system for the service. The amount available for the development of probation centres for 1998 is £5.4 million, an increase of £1.3 million on the 1997 outturn.
I agree with the Minister's comments on the cost of overtime in the Prison Service. The subhead A1 provision is for £94.732 million and dividing this by the number of prison officers gives a figure of £41,000. This seems to sustain what the Minister said in terms of wages earned by prison staff.
The Minister spoke about ensuring that under new recruitment the staff/prisoner ratios conform to international standards. What are international standards? The ratio here is almost 1:1; in fact, I think we have more prison officers than prison places. We seem to be out of kilter with international standards. Can the Minister give examples of what applies in other jurisdictions?
Some countries have roughly the same ratio but other countries have wildly differing ratios. Here the ratio is approximately 1:1. The objective in terms of the new prisons is to reduce this to 0.8:1 which would be a significant achievement. The cost of overtime is quite high and works out on average at £20,000 per year per officer which is an unacceptably high level. Overtime arises to cover additional staffing demands, such as escorts to courts, hospitals and other prisons. Temporary staffing demands include providing security for contractors working in prisons, short-term requirements include additional security searches and so on, and temporary staffing shortfalls arise from vacancies and the need to replace officers absent on sick leave.
The overtime bill and the associated issues were among those examined by the Prison Service Operating Cost Review Group which reported last August. It recommended that a dedicated cost review team should be established to address the issue. The underlying factor is overcrowding which requires higher manning and an increased list of demands. There is also the drug problem, violent prisoners and the possibility of suicide, which we must try to minimise as far as possible. Overtime is used to ensure a constant level of services to prisoners. It is unavoidable at present but we are seriously addressing it and have made our intentions known in this regard.
The question of courts and remand prisons must be addressed. When Clover Hill is built I hope to have a court there rather than have a need for escorts. I also plan to have a District Court sit at Castlerea when required. This is the way forward in that there should be courts where there are remand prisoners, which would help. The size and age of prisons are factors which give rise to the high ratio of prison officers to prisoners. In general terms, overtime is at an unacceptably high level and it is our intention to seriously tackle this issue. The overall problem will not be tackled properly until we have sufficient prison space. We will have sufficient space when the prison building programme is complete.
I return to the drugs problem in Mountjoy and the amount of money which has been spent treating people who are addicted and who make up a large proportion of the total number there. A figure of £0.9 million is provided for medical supplies and fees to doctors totals £1.4 million. Does that include services to drug addicts by way of treatment? Will the Minister give us a breakdown on how much is being spent on each person suffering from an addiction?
I do not see much as regards studies and alternatives to prison and I am not sure if they come under this heading. A figure of £20,000 was provided for assistance to persons on probation and on release from imprisonment or detention. That figure has been increased from £4,000 to £20,000 but a small amount of money is being invested in rehabilitation.
The Minister spoke about investing in information technology, which is encouraging. Will it allow the Minister to provide answers to questions - other than the standard ones - which consume an inordinate amount of staff time? I have a fine collection of such answers and, when I am not too busy over the summer perhaps I will count them and present the Minister with the results. My count may take a day or two but it will be interesting for all of us. It might be possible for the Minister to say in future that the usual answer applies to that question.
I recommend that Deputy Upton hold onto those replies because they could be valuable in years to come. The reason they could become valuable is that we are introducing new technology which will mean an inordinate amount of time will not have to be spent drafting replies to questions which state that. The only alternative is to stop asking the questions but I do not believe I would have such luck.
On the question of drugs, the drug treatment facility in Mountjoy has been in operation since July 1996 and was put in place by the previous Minister, Deputy Owen. It provides a chemical detoxification and therapy programme. To be fair, it is the first unit of its kind in a prison environment. I wish it was not required but, unfortunately, it is, for obvious reasons. It is not desirable to have drugs in a State institution let alone on the streets. This unit is modelled on similar hospital based units in the community. It is monitored and reviewed by officials on an ongoing basis in order to examine the feasibility of further expanding the range of treatment options available for such prisoners. It is the intention to have similar facilities available in all the closed institutions once the need for them has been established.
I hope we will not see drugs in the new prisons and it behoves this and every Government to do everything possible to ensure the new facilities are drug-free. That may not be an easy task but it is a very important one. I firmly believe that if drugs get into the new prisons it will be difficult to root them out. That has been the experience in Mountjoy Prison. A conscious effort is being made by the Department and the governors of prisons to control the drug situation and to treat it where it exists. There is a commitment to introduce facilities similar to those available in Mountjoy in other closed institutions where required.
On the training of prison officers, I understand the period of formal training is six weeks followed by on the job training and period of probation. There is potential to expand the training with a view to giving prison officers more rounded professional training enabling them to engage in therapy programmes. From the point of view of rehabilitation, that would make much sense. We have met the need to extend the period of training for gardaí from six months to two years. Six weeks formal training for prison officers is very short.
I appreciate that some prison officers, of their own volition, undertake further courses and apply them to their jobs. It is extremely welcome that people would take in-service courses, enhance their qualifications and develop their professionalism. However, there is potential for more in-depth rounded comprehensive training with a view to meeting the needs of prisoners which, apart from the containment or detention element, must be rehabilitation which, unfortunately, is not being met in the majority of cases.
Given the good work undertaken by the Probation and Welfare Service, the professionalism of its 200 staff and the results of its efforts, I am certain the expert group will favour the expansion of the service. It has the imagination necessary to deal with the kind of rehabilitation that is so crucial to getting offenders back into a proper life style. Such a recommendation would make value for money sense. The expert group was established last year. What is the projected date of its report? The sooner it is produced the better because I am sure the Department of Finance will point the Minister and his Department in that direction.
It is anticipated an interim report will be issued within the next four to five weeks which will make for very interesting reading. The review group, which I established last November, was asked to examine the role of the Probation and Welfare Service, having regard to recent and current developments, the needs of the service in the context of its proper role to deliver an effective and efficient service and the organisational status of the service to make recommendations.
On the question of the prison officers, their recruitment and training, Deputy Higgins raises some very interesting points. It is true that the training period for a prison officer is relatively short at nine weeks and there is a case to be made for improving the training process. We have a consultant's report to hand, which agrees with the broad thrust of the Deputy's views.
The question of a competency based process is recommended in the report. We are studying the idea. On the job training should also be addressed. The report indicates this would be desirable. The additional question of expanding the training period will also be addressed. A competition is under way with regard to the recruitment of prison officers and the method of selection in the future. The method of training will refer deferentially to the report which we have received from the consultants. Longer work experience and refresher courses are desirable as is development through training throughout a prison officer's career. I trust this gives the Deputy an idea of the way we are going.
I agree the Probation and Welfare Service should be used to optimum effect. I have stated previously that I am fully committed to the development of community sanctions and of alternative measures to custody. I also recognise the Probation and Welfare Service has an important role to play in this respect. It is also true that a number of alternatives are already in place. For example there are, on average, well over 4,000 offenders serving community based sanctions on a daily basis under the supervision of the Probation and Welfare Service. That is almost twice the number of people who are in custody. Approximately 1,042 people are placed probation orders every year. Each year approximately 1,600 offenders are required by the courts to perform community service. Intensive probation supervision has also been developed recently.
While I envisage an expanded role for the Probation and Welfare Service - otherwise I would not have established the review group -the bottom line is that when people are committed to prison they have been through the Probation and Welfare Service mill. It is rare for a judge to sentence a person to prison unless he or she deserves to go there. We have a very high rate of recidivism. For example, Dr. O'Mahoney's study, to which Deputy Higgins refers, shows that the average prisoner in Mountjoy Prison has had 15 convictions of which five led to non-custodial sanctions. That is indicative of the fact that the Probation and Welfare Service has touched upon the lives of those prisoners sometimes without the desired success. That is not to say I do not envisage a role for the Probation and Welfare Service at an earlier stage, when it can become interventionist in its approach and where it has the chance to meet with greater success. The earlier any problem or potential problem is tackled the greater the opportunity of resolving it.
The cost of keeping a person in an Irish prison is high. Deputy Higgins and Deputy Upton referred this yesterday. It amounts to approximately £126 per day to keep somebody in custody. The probation option represents value for money in that the cost is approximately £40 per day under a probation order. That represents a considerable saving on sending people to prisons.
It does not reflect well on society that we must build additional prisons. It means we have new problems which are mainly drug related. A considerable amount of serious crime is now drug related. There was a time when the country was virtually drug free. However, the increasing incidence of serious crime in recent years has led to the belief that additional prison spaces are required. While there are severe overcrowding problems in our prisons, I do not want anybody to be under the illusion that there are many people in prison who should not be there. That does not happen in the Irish criminal justice system.
At present 1.092 additional prison places are under construction at a cost of £90 million. The Minister goes on to say he has commenced planning for a further 1,000 prison places to be provided within the life of the Government under the second phase of his prisons building programme. How far advanced is that planning process? Has any decision been made about the location of these 1,000 additional spaces? Will there be a new prison or will there be additions to existing prison accommodation?
Because of the demands on the Probation and Welfare Services, there is no supervision in many cases. The case loads are almost double the British equivalent and those responsible cannot supervise all their cases. Supervision is a fundamental element in ensuring that early releasees, people under community orders and people under intensive supervision are properly assessed.
One of the core responsibilities of the Probation and Welfare Service is to make reports to courts on family law cases. That does not happen anymore; that now comes under the aegis of the health boards and in some cases is not done at all. Has there been any resolution of that issue? There were people trained and equipped to make expert professional reports on the sensitive area of family law disputes.
Deputy Higgins has raised some interesting questions. Plans are at a preliminary stage for the next phase of prison building. We have been concentrating on building the additional 1,000 spaces. No locations have been identified but we want to maximise our existing stock. That makes economic sense.
It is true that supervision in the Probation and Welfare Service can be inadequate, in Dublin in particular, owing to a lack of resources and staff. That will hopefully be addressed in the review group's report. It is also true that the courts seek reports from health boards in family law cases because the Probation and Welfare Service is overstretched and unable to provide reports. That will also hopefully be addressed in the review group's report. I anticipate that the review group will examine all these issues and identify areas where we can make improvements. Once they are identified, every effort will be made by me to secure funding to implement the proposals contained in the report.
I move now to Vote 22, the Courts Vote. The provision for 1998 is £40,759 million, an increase of 46 per cent over the 1997 outturn. As Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform I have broad responsibility for ensuring that the courts have the resources necessary to provide an efficient and effective service.
The Vote covers the usual costs, such as salaries, office equipment, accommodation and telecommunications and, for the first time, the cost of the new Courts Service. The estimated net cost of the courts system in 1998, taking into account the gross current expenditure and revenue accruing to the State through court fees, fines and so on, is approximately £30 million.
There are a number of particular areas worth mentioning in relation to the funds provided in the 1998 Estimates for the Courts Vote. This is a time of change in the courts and I am pleased to have brought through the House the legislation to establish the Courts Service. The Act, as previously mentioned, was signed into law on 16 April 1998 and the transitional board came into being on 16 May. The transitional board will now undertake the functions provided in the legislation - to prepare for the assumption by the service of the functions to be vested in the service under this Act on the establishment day and to appoint a chief executive designate.
Substantial funding of approximately £3.5 million has been provided in the Estimates for the establishment of the new service. The funds provided are to cover the cost of the service for a six month period. Funding has been provided for additional staffing, including the appointment of the chief executive officer. While it is intended to transfer staff currently in my Department to the new service, additional staff will be required for the proposed new management structure.
Other services such as staff training, telecommunications and information technology have also been provided for. The funding also provides in the capital subhead for the new headquarters building of the service and covers the maintenance costs of courthouses to be assumed from local authorities under the provisions of the Courts Services Act. Local authorities have up to now been responsible for the maintenance and running of courthouses. Some local authorities had a good record in maintaining courthouses while others did not. It should be put on the record that Kerry County Council had one of the best records in the State. This new service will mean a substantial burden will be removed from the local authorities to the central Exchequer. It will also enable the Courts Service to provide appropriate surroundings for court sittings.
The committee will note that a substantial provision has been made for information technology for the courts even over and above that provided specifically in relation to the needs of the new service. This is the result of a scoping study carried out in 1997 on the entire criminal justice system to ascertain how best to met its IT requirements. The Government is committed to spending approximately £11 million over the next few years on IT in the courts alone. The systems to be delivered under this procurement will run in every court office in the State. As a result, when Deputy Upton spends an inordinate amount of time framing PQs about the Courts Service, it should not take an inordinate amount of time to provide him with the information he seeks.
The condition of much of the court accommodation throughout the State has for many years been poor. I am pleased to say that substantial progress has already been made in improving this over the last number of years with projects completed in Tallaght, Galway, Carrick-on-Shannon and Naas, to name but a few. I noted Deputy Bruton revealed in a newspaper that he had provided for a new courthouse in Trim. That is the cheque in the post syndrome but the courthouse will be proceeded with and the Government, through the taxpayer, will foot the bill. However, there is still a long way to go and for that reason this year's Estimates provide the single biggest commitment to capital works on court buildings ever made by a Government.
I welcome the 69 per cent increase under subhead D in relation to courthouses. A committee was given in the Programme for Government. What is the situation in relation to the establishment of a specialist court to deal with drugs offences?
The idea of a drugs court was something I proposed in Opposition. In Government I commissioned Mrs. Justice Susan Denham, chairperson of the Courts Commission, to look at the establishment of a drugs court system and to report back to me. She sent at least one person to America to examine the way such a court operates there. I also studied that system when I visited America for St. Patrick's Day. I have little doubt it could be extremely successful in an Irish context. It has a high success rate in the United States.
I have studied with great interest Mrs. Justice Susan Denham's report on drug courts which will be published shortly. Mrs. Justice Denham and the Courts Commission are of the view that it is a concept with which we should proceed. I intend to bring this matter before the Government in the near future. I am firmly of the view that if we are to seriously tackle the drugs problem, we must have administrative procedures which can deal with it. Drugs courts are one such mechanism and I favour their introduction.
People remanded to treatment courses by drugs courts succeed in kicking the habit. It is also true that people who complete the course successfully do not become involved in crime again. In addition, it appears on a preliminary study that the cost of remanding a person to a treatment course is far less than remanding them to prison. These courses would be entirely inappropriate for some people and some offences. However, other offenders, such as those who commit non-violent drug related offences, could benefit from being remanded to such courses or programmes by drugs courts. The judges would have to be well trained in this new concept in our Courts Service. It would have to be introduced on a pilot basis in the District Court.
A sum of £16,998 million is being provided in Vote 23 for the Land Registry and Registry of Deeds for 1998. This represents a 7 per cent increase in the 1997 outturn. A strategic plan to link the organisation structure and technology infrastructure to the business goals and objectives of the Land Registry and Registry of Deeds is being implemented at present. It includes information systems to help the registries approach the task of building the technology infrastructure in a structured and cost effective manner. Development work has been undertaken in relation to an application tracking system, digital mapping, geographic information systems and the installation in the registries of modern financial and accounting systems.
As the committee is aware, part of the Land Registry operations were transferred to Waterford in the past year. The regions which have been decentralised to date are Cork, Kerry, Limerick, Waterford, Tipperary, Laois and Offaly; I do not mean all those counties have been transferred to Waterford.
The property market is booming at present and this is reflected in an increase in business in the Land Registry. Staff commitment in the Land Registry and Registry of Deeds ensured that the challenge of dealing with the increased workload was met by sustained high levels of output. People in the Land Registry are working in a highly specialised area. They carry out difficult work and it is only appropriate to acknowledge their commitment and skills.
What is an acceptable definition of a Land Registry map? There seems to be a major problem about mapping procedures. The Minister will be aware that I recently chaired a meeting of the Society of Chartered Surveyors at which people from all parts of the country voiced their concerns about mapping procedures. The Minister will also be aware that we recently received a submission from IMPACT on the legislative requirements necessary to improve the standard of Land Registry maps. It is crucial that we establish a uniform mapping system. This seems to be an area of major concern, particularly among practitioners in the field.
The issue of digital mapping is now being addressed. It is generally accepted that this is the way forward. Once this is in place, it will iron out any difficulties. There may be some teething problems, but it is a worthwhile development.
Vote 24 - Charitable Donations and Bequests - relates to the Office of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests. The provision for 1998 is £225,000, which represents a 16 per cent increase over 1997.