| Mr. Connor:
From the Minister's mouth.
Mr. L. Fitzgerald:
When the Minister accepted his portfolio - it was a most unenviable
task - he inherited a prison system that was in chaos. Their physical
structure was Dickensian. There was overcrowding, a revolving door
system and temporary release without justification. I am taking a shot
not just at his predecessor, but at a number of his predecessors.
Given the level of crime in the community, the deep rooted cynicism
among the public at the ease with which hardened criminals could
obtain bail due to the revolving door system and the extent of early
releases which had led to it losing confidence in the ability of the
Government to deal with crime, in opposition the Minister came to one
clear conclusion, that the vital ingredient was to lift marauding
individuals and gangs out of society, eliminate the revolving door
system, minimise temporary release and create the environment within
our prisons where meaningful and co-ordinated rehabilitation
programmes could be put in place.
It was obvious from the
start of his Ministry that he would not expend massive amounts of
taxpayers' money on rehabilitation programmes for prisoners who would
be in one day and out the next. That would have been ludicrous, naive
in the extreme and irresponsible on the part of the Minister. He chose
a clear and definitive starting point, which was to ensure that the
revolving door system would go, the unjustified and unstructured
temporary release system would be minimised and that the pre-Dickensian
conditions in most of our prisons, apart from the first purpose built
facility at Wheatfield Prison, would be improved. Existing conditions
could not facilitate rehabilitation programmes.
The Minister wisely chose to
implement a significant prison building programme while refurbishing
and modernising existing prisons. To decent, law abiding and fair
minded people, refurbishment and modernisation along with the
provision of purpose built units was the humane way of trying to
structure our prison system in a way that would facilitate the
rehabilitation programmes he had in mind. Rather than being
shortsighted, the contrary was the case.
Nobody claims that places of
detention and prisons are the answer to all our ills. The Minister
does not claim it. However, he is saying it is the starting point.
Ordinary people who recall the 1980s and 1990s will be quick to
describe what they had to go through. They asked the politicians who
called to their front doors why a person could get bail when it was
known in the community that he was committing further crimes while on
bail in the sure knowledge that he would only get concurrent sentences
if and when he was convicted by the court. There was great cynicism
about that. There was also great cynicism about the revolving door
whereby individuals returned to a neighbourhood and scoffed at their
victims.
The Minister, then an
Opposition Deputy, saw that and decided the only way to deal with it
was to create the proper physical structures and environment in which
we could ensure that the punishment fitted the crime and that when a
criminal was sentenced, he would serve the sentence. The usual
conditions could be attached but the sentence would not be served in a
revolving door and temporary release environment.
The other side of the House
might believe I am suggesting that the Minister has done nothing but
build prisons over the last three and half years. Nothing could be
further from the truth. His priority has been to start with the
recidivist criminal and remove him from society if there is to be any
hope of rehabilitating him. One cannot rehabilitate him when he is out
on the street, if he will go in one door and out the next or if he
will be given temporary release on an unstructured basis.
Contemporaneously with the
prison building and refurbishment programme, there was a significant
development of community based programmes in crime prevention and an
increase of over 70% in the allocation for the Probation and Welfare
Service. This was designed to ensure a realistic, properly prioritised
programme was put in place. I warmly commend the Minister for the
manner in which he has approached his task.
Mr. Norris:
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after
"Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:
"condemns the
shortsighted policy of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law
Reform in imagining that the notion of criminal and anti-social
activity can be countered by merely increasing the number of prison
places.".
I put this amendment down
because I was horrified when I saw the smug, ghastly,
self-congratulatory tone of the motion which "notes with
approval" the building of prisons and so forth. It is shameful,
the type of thing that can only emanate from people who have not
thought about the problem. I wish to tidy the amendment up
grammatically. It should read:
That Seanad Éireann
condemns the shortsighted policy of the Minister for Justice,
Equality and Law Reform in imagining that criminal and anti-social
activity can be countered merely by increasing the number of prison
places.
I am strongly of that
opinion. If one looks at any analysis of the concentration of crime
levels, it becomes clear that they exist in particular locations and
for particular reasons of social and economic deprivation. There is
virtually no investment in many of these areas while we prate about
the wonders of building prisons.
It is clearly a class system
and I am amazed that the so-called republican party, which regularly
refers to the objective of cherishing the children of the nation
equally, can gloat at the creation of so many prison places. Tomorrow
will be the 100th anniversary of the death of Oscar Wilde when we will
be treated to another smug feast of incorporating that abandoned and
harassed individual into our self-congratulatory society. It is
appropriate to quote part of The Ballad of Reading Gaol at this
juncture:
The vilest deeds like
poison weeds
Bloom well in prison-air:
It is only what is good in
Man
That wastes and withers
there:
Pale Anguish keeps the
heavy gate,
And the Warder is Despair
Is that not true? We know
that people go into the prisons of which we are so proud clean and
free of drugs and come out as drug addicts. What could more
effectively illustrate what Oscar Wilde had to say?
Recidivism was mentioned by
my distinguished colleague on the Fianna Fáil benches. Why does
Ireland have the highest rate of recidivism in Europe? Why do we have
such rotten treatment of prisoners? We have physical spaces but there
is virtually nothing rehabilitative. We do not have any concept of
restorative justice, no psychiatric services and no facilities in
which we can take people off drugs. That is not something on which
this House should compliment itself. It is morally revolting that
anybody should be so insensitive as to think it appropriate.
I have been briefed on this
issue by the Irish Penal Reform Trust and wish to put some of the
trust's points on the record. At least it knows what it is talking
about. First, the trust calls for an end to the prison building
programme. Second, it seeks the appointment of a full-time prisons
inspector. Why do we not have such an inspector? Third, there should
not be prison sentences for fine defaulters. Senator Connor dealt with
this point. We are paying enormous amounts of money to deal with
something which is, in many cases, scarcely a criminal activity.
Listening to Senator
Fitzgerald one would think this nonsense about zero tolerance had done
something. Every weekend, however, people are shot to death in the
streets of this and other cities. What has been done about it? Zero
tolerance does not appear to work. The trust's fourth point is the
introduction of drugs courts. Fifth, there should be improved
induction training for prison officers and, sixth, restorative justice
should be part of any new crime policy. This has been shown to work in
other European countries, particularly with regard to young people,
whose behaviour patterns can be changed. They must confront the people
against whom they committed their crimes. They must accept blame and
do something positive and useful in practical terms to make amends.
There is no doubt that
imprisonment is class based. Look at the tribunals. One can get away
with white collar crime. There is only one class of people imprisoned
in this so-called republic. Imprisonment is also socially divisive. It
has long been proven that it is damaging to individuals and does not
reduce crime. Crime must be seen in its social context and in terms of
the communities from which it springs. Factors such as marginalisation,
poverty and other disadvantages must be seen as part of the overall
equation.
In the interests of social
justice, rehabilitation for those in prison must be properly
resourced. Most of our prison population is in the 16 years to 25
years age group. These are people who can be helped because the
pattern has not yet necessarily been fixed. There is also the issue of
drug addiction. A study carried out in Mountjoy Prison in 1997 found
that half the prison population had used heroin during their current
sentences. To a certain extent a "wink and nod" policy is in
operation because the lid is kept on the general situation which
obtains vis-à-vis heroin addiction. In a more recent study
carried out by the department of community health and general
practice, of nine prisons surveyed 21% of inmates claimed to have
first started injecting while in prison. Of these, 58% shared drug
injecting equipment such as needles, syringes, spoons and filters.
Between 1990 and 1997, 12 prisoners died in prison as a result of
overdoses. This is what is happening in the institutions of which
Members on the Government side are so proud.
Mr. L. Fitzgerald:
That is why we need more prison spaces.
Mr. Norris:
More spaces so even more people can die in prison. That is a wonderful
Swiftian comment on the part of Senator Fitzgerald and I invite him to
consider what he said in a more calm fashion.
The draft plan on drug
misuse and drug treatment in the prison system has not been fully
implemented. If consultation is to be credible, it must be followed by
decisive action. Lack of funding is not a sufficient reason for doing
nothing, bearing in mind that £9 million has been allocated for the
building of prisons. Why not spend some of that money where it can do
some good? Genuine rehabilitation needs well structured and properly
financed medical and probation services and we do not have these.
Prison health care is
substandard. A report published by the Helsinki Institute for Crime
Prevention and Control in 1992 showed that the proportion of the Irish
prison budget dedicated to health care was the lowest of the 27
Council of Europe states. That is something of which Fianna Fáil and
the Minister are proud. The proportion for Ireland stood at 1%,
compared to 6% for England and Wales and 9% for Scotland. The ratio to
custodial staff was also the lowest, 0.3% compared to 12% in the
United Kingdom. Up-to-date statistics from the Irish Prisons Service
on health spending are not available but, given the increase in our
prison population, the position is likely to have worsened. We spend
huge amounts on building prisons but do nothing to improve the
services that will assist the unfortunate people incarcerated in them.
At present there are no
full-time doctors in the Irish Prisons Service. Health care services
are provided on a sessional basis by local general practitioners whose
work does not co-ordinate in any rational way. In other words, they
have not drawn up profiles on the prisoners they treat. Psychiatric
services are virtually non-existent. There are no psychiatric beds in
Mountjoy Prison and it is on this that the Members opposite have the
unmitigated gall to compliment themselves. Resources should be made
available immediately to provide these services.
There are no proper measures
in place in our prisons to deal with drug misuse. The practices that
have been found to be effective outside prisons should be implemented
in those prisons. Cloverhill remand assessment centre has to handle a
large number of prisoners in the early stages of withdrawal from drugs
and alcohol. It has been found in other countries that prisoners on
remand suffer from high levels of mental illness and are at a
disproportionate risk of suicide. It is crucial that measures are put
in place form the start to deal with what are entirely predictable
problems.
There is also a need for
much greater investment in the probation services if we are going to
look after those who are unfortunate enough to be incarcerated in
prison. In addition, the united code of conduct for law enforcement
officials must be implemented. Article 6 of that code states that all
prison personnel share a duty of care for those in custody. This means
that the status of prison medical orderlies, with only six weeks
training, needs to be abolished and nurses need to take their rightful
place in the system.
I understand that I have a
seconder for my amendment. I cannot imagine how any decent person
could stand over the volume of self-congratulatory hot air that has
emanated from the other side of the House. The perception of Members
opposite does not reflect the reality of the situation I have
outlined.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach:
Will the Senator confirm that the words "the notion of" are
being deleted from the amendment?
Mr. Norris:
Yes, I would like those words to be deleted. In addition, I wish to
remove the term "by merely increasing" and substitute
"merely by increasing"
An Leas-Chathaoirleach:
Is the amendment to the amendment agreed?
Mr. T. Fitzgerald:
I am not sure. This is a highly unusual step and given that the
Senator does not have a seconder in the Chamber for his amendment, he
should give notice of the change in writing.
Mr. Connor:
I am seconding the amendment.
Mr. T. Fitzgerald:
I do not accept the amendment to the amendment.
Mr. Norris:
That is fine. It is merely a technical amendment.
Mr. T. Fitzgerald:
I am sorry, Senator Norris, rules are rules.
Mr. Connor:
For the record, I formally second the amendment.
Mr. Norris:
I will not withdraw the changes unless there is a ruling from the
Chair. If Senator Tom Fitzgerald wants to vote on the matter we will
do so.
Mr. T. Fitzgerald:
I wish to ask the Chair if we are in a position to change our motion.
The answer is that we cannot. Neither can Senator Norris change-----
An Leas-Chathaoirleach:
The Chair can accept changes to both the-----
Mr. Norris:
I do not mind, let us have a vote on it. Vótáil.
Mr. T. Fitzgerald:
I would be prepared to be more helpful if it was not for all the hot
air that has emanated from the empty seats on that side of the House
this evening.
Mr. Norris:
The only reason my seat was empty was that I was on my feet speaking.
It is notable that the person on the Government side who proposed the
motion did not see fit to attend the debate.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach:
Senator Norris, please.
Mr. J. Cregan:
I ask Senator Norris to withdraw that last remark because the person
who proposed the motion spoke in the House tonight.
Mr. Norris:
On this motion?
Mr. J. Cregan:
Yes.
Mr. Norris:
I unreservedly withdraw what I said.
Mr. J. Cregan:
The Senator could withdraw many of his other comments.
Mr. Norris:
Senator Cregan should quit while he is ahead.
Mr. J. Cregan:
Senator Norris questioned the decency of Members on this side of the
House and he has no right to do so.
Mr. Norris:
I have every right.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach:
We are anxious to debate the motion and the amendment. The Chair has a
certain discretion in this matter. Will the House agree to allow the
amendment?
Mr. T. Fitzgerald:
Why should we agree to do so? Is it in order to change the amendment?
I do not believe it is because there is a time limit which applies in
respect of tabling motions and amendments. If we are late submitting a
motion, it is not accepted. The same should apply in respect of
Senator Norris's amendment. I ask the Leas-Chathaoirleach to conclude
this discussion and call on the Minister. We have enough hot air in
the House already.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach:
The Chair has had discretion in the past either in accepting late
motions or amendments.
Mr. T. Fitzgerald:
We have not been circulated with the Senator's proposed changes. Is it
not in order to circulate an addendum to an amendment?
Mr. Connor:
The Chair's ruling should not be questioned.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach:
The Chair is asking the House to accept a verbal amendment which
involves the deletion of three words and a change in order of two
further words.
Mr. Connor:
The Chair's ruling should not be challenged.
Mr. T. Fitzgerald:
It is very simple. The amendment stays as it is. We are not agreeing
to the change.
Mr. Norris:
In that case, we will have a vote on it.
Mr. T. Fitzgerald:
Rules are rules.
Mr. L. Fitzgerald:
Is the Leas-Chathaoirleach in a position to cite the Standing Order
which legally permits Senator Norris to change his amendment? If not,
I do not think a vote is relevant.
Mr. Norris:
Surely the-----
Mr. L. Fitzgerald:
I should be permitted to finish my point.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach:
The Senator has already done so. I refer him to Standing Order 25.
Mr. L. Fitzgerald:
Will the Chair-----
An Leas-Chathaoirleach:
I presume the Senator is aware of that Standing Order?
Mr. L. Fitzgerald:
No, not in this case.
Mr. Connor:
It is not acceptable that a Member of the House is not aware of
Standing Orders.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach:
The text of Standing Order 25 reads as follows:
Motions and amendments,
save such as are allowed by these Standing Orders to be proposed
without notice, shall be in writing, signed by a Senator as proposer
and another Senator as seconder. Motions and amendments may not be
moved on a day unless they shall have reached the Clerk not later
than 11 a.m. on the fourth preceding day in the case of motions and
not later than 11 a.m. on the second preceding day in the case of
amendments: Provided that by permission of the Cathaoirleach motions
and amendments may be moved on shorter notice.
Mr. T. Fitzgerald:
A Leas-Chathaoirligh, you are going to create a precedent. There
will be no law and order in future if motions and amendments to
motions can be changed in the Chamber.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach:
This has happened before. One amendment is a grammatical change and
one deletes a couple of words.
Mr. Connor:
You have ruled, a Leas-Chathaoirligh.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach:
The Senator has already spoken.
Mr. Connor:
The Chair's rulings should not be challenged and that is the precedent
we should observe.
Mr. L. Fitzgerald:
A Leas-Chathaoirligh, where is the reference in Standing Orders to
changes to the wording of an amendment during the course of a debate?
I have lost my argument if you can cite that reference.
Mr. Norris:
This is filibustering. We have won a moral victory.
Dr. Henry:
A Leas-Chathaoirligh, may I speak?
Mr. Connor:
The procedure is rooted in the Chair's discretion on these matters.
Mr. L. Fitzgerald:
The Chair's discretion on what?
Mr. Connor:
Exactly.
Dr. Henry:
This is getting like Florida.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach:
The Chair will put the amendment at the conclusion of the debate.
Senator Norris can formally move his amendment to the amendment at
that stage. Can I have a formal seconder for the amendment?
Mr. Connor:
I formally second the amendment.
Mr. T. Fitzgerald:
I am sorry, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, but can Senator Connor second the
amendment if he has spoken already?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach:
Is there another seconder in the House?
Dr. Henry:
I will second the amendment more than formally.
Mr. Norris:
Maith an chailín.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach:
Does Senator Henry wish to speak at this stage?
Dr. Henry:
I wish to second the amendment but not just formally. I wish to speak.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach:
Does the Senator wish to speak now?
Dr. Henry:
Yes, in case there is further legal argument and I do not get a chance
to speak.
Mr. T. Fitzgerald:
The Senator was not in the House when Senator Norris spoke. She is now
being allowed to speak before the Minister. This is not proper.
Mr. Norris:
It is very proper.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach:
It is proper when the Chair calls for a seconder.
Mr. T. Fitzgerald:
The Senator was not in the House when Senator Norris concluded.
Mr. Norris:
Senator Fitzgerald knows it is not appropriate to refer to the absence
of a Member.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach:
There is a precedent for this, Senator Fitzgerald.
Dr. Henry:
I can let someone else speak first if this is causing some difficulty.
However, I would be quite happy to speak now. I second the amendment.
I read the motion with some
astonishment because of my recent disappointment when the Leader
informed me that the mental health Bill will not be taken in the House
before Christmas. The Bill was first brought to the House before last
Christmas and I was told it was to proceed with the greatest possible
speed. If the greatest possible speed is that an extraordinarily
important mental health Bill cannot get through the Dáil in a year
then I dread to think what is involved if something happens slowly.
There is a very serious
situation concerning prisoners. I would not mind so much if further
prison places were being built or refurbished for the sake of the
general well-being of prisoners, but that is not why all this prison
building is going on. This building seems to be taking place so we can
incarcerate more prisoners.
Being a conscientious man I
am sure the Minister read Dr. Enda Dooley's report on the health
service in prisons. However, I am sure the Minister was as dismayed as
I was at the continuing problems regarding the health of prisoners. At
least 10% of prisoners have a serious psychiatric illness and 30% are
described as having some sort of psychiatric illness. When one
considers that the rate for such illness is about 4% in the general
population one has to wonder if a large number of people are in prison
because they have a psychiatric illness rather than because they
committed a heinous crime.
I have spoken before in the
House about the homeless people I meet on my way home every night on
Baggot Street, a considerable number of whom end up in prison. Surveys
carried out by different Departments show that about 30% of homeless
people admit to suffering from a psychiatric illness and another 30%
suffer from alcohol or drug addiction. This is why these people are on
the streets.
Reports from the Department
of Justice, Equality and Law Reform have continued to point out that
many of these people get involved in petty crime, are arrested,
convicted and put in jail but cannot get bail because they have no
address. They are kept in jail for a short period of time. The
Minister speaks about the revolving door syndrome and people being
released early. However, when homeless people are released they have
nowhere to go.
How many hostel places have
been built in the past three years? No such places have been built for
women. I do not know the number for men but it is very few. How many
additional probation officers have been appointed? What increases have
been introduced in community work programmes? These are difficult
subjects, particularly community work, as there is the issue of
supervision. However, people would join the probation service if
positions were created. People cannot be supervised when they come out
of prison nor can reports be compiled, even on children who come
before the courts. Judges have stated it is impossible to continue
with cases involving children without such reports.
It would be monstrous if I
applauded the Government for building more prison places when no
action is being taken in these areas. If all of these prison places
are being built what will be the increase in the number of prison
doctors? What will be the position regarding nurses, particularly
psychiatric nurses, working in the Prison Service? The Minister has
not addressed these issues.
My primary concern is that
when these people are released from prison, far from coming out to
some sort of structured rehabilitation programmes, there is nowhere
for them to go. Sometimes when released they have very little money,
so what will happen to them? Those of a lesser intellectual ability
will become involved in further crimes because that is all that is in
front of them. No progress has been made in this area.
I do not know what would
happen if it was not for Sister Ó Caoimhín and her drop-in centre.
As far as I know she gets £300,000 per year to run the centre. I
think it costs about £50,000 to keep someone in prison. I am sure the
Minister has visited the drop-in centre which is extraordinarily
compassionate and helpful to people released from prison, yet it is
run for the same cost as keeping six people in jail. Why can we not
help other people to set up similar programmes? In particular, why can
we not provide shelter, support and training for people, particularly
young people, released from prison? Many prisoners are
institutionalised because they have served many sentences, quite often
for petty crimes. It is impossible to see how such people can remain
outside prison.
We have seen serious
problems with taxi drivers in the vicinity of Leinster House. When
taxi licences are being issued I have asked that the greatest possible
care be given to ensuring that people convicted of sex or violent
offences are not given licences. This has happened in the past. Many
prisoners have been convicted of sexual crimes but are not receiving
any form of therapy. I accept that such people need to show some
commitment towards therapy but it is extraordinary that there are no
treatment services in the Curragh and only a limited number in Arbour
Hill Prison.
About one third of sex
crimes are committed by young people and it would be of great
assistance if some form of treatment could be provided for them. If
this happens then at least there is a possibility they will not
reoffend.
The new women's prison is
very good and the conditions are much better than before. However,
even in these conditions, people have committed suicide and others
have attempted it. Psychiatric services should be the priority rather
than the bricks and mortar. It is mainly personnel who are needed. The
Minister is aware that it is mainly junior doctors who run the
psychiatric services. They are not in a position to establish
long-term therapeutic relationships with their patients. There is
nothing in the way of psychology for those people. We put all our
money into bricks and mortar and locked doors and expect that to have
some effect. If we are just using prisons as holding stations and if
there are enthusiasts who feel that at least crime will not be
committed by people who are in prison, I presume it is not intended we
should incarcerate them forever.
I examined the position in
America, where there has been a major programme of private prison
building. Prisons have been built there in a speculative manner and
those prisons will be privately run. Those who build them know that if
they build them they will be filled. I hate to have to say it, but
this prison programme reminds me of that - the prisons will be there
and, therefore, they will be filled.
Minister for Justice,
Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O'Donoghue): I
am delighted to take this opportunity to highlight the achievement of
the Government in developing a prison service of which we can all be
proud, in terms of the prison building refurbishment programme, a
major achievement in its own right, and the significant advances that
continue to be made in developing rehabilitation programmes generally.
Since 1997 I have presided
over an unprecedented investment in our prison infrastructure. Already
additional custodial accommodation has been provided at the Midlands
Prison, 515 spaces, Cloverhill Remand Prison, 400 spaces, Dóchas
Centre, 80 spaces, Castlerea Prison, 152 spaces, and Limerick Prison D
Wing, 60 spaces. In all more than 1,200 additional prison spaces have
been provided with a further 700 closed spaces on the way.
The new female prison at
Mountjoy, the Dóchas Centre, which I opened in October last year, is
an example of the necessary accommodation that has been provided. It
is one of the most advanced institutions of its kind in the world. The
prison has accommodation for 80 women and offenders are accommodated
in seven separate houses with mainly single rooms. There are a limited
number of interconnecting rooms for family members and larger rooms
for mothers with babies. Each room has a toilet, washbasin and shower
installed in an en-suite unit. Each house has a kitchen cum dining
area and sitting room. A comprehensive range of support and facilities
is provided for the women, including education, life skills, computer
skills, physical education, medical services, counselling, a library,
a chaplaincy, indoor and outdoor recreation and a training workshop.
The general layout of the facility is spacious and open.
A visitors' waiting area has
been provided at Mountjoy Prison which caters for the whole complex.
It includes a children's play area and means of providing light
refreshments for prison visitors. I am also pleased to confirm that I
am planning another similar facility on a smaller scale for prisoners'
families in Limerick.
New accommodation such as we
have provided recently will also enable the Prisons Service to
commence much needed work on the upgrading and modernisation of some
of our older institutions. I am particularly pleased to have approved
the commencement of detailed planning for the complete refurbishment
of Mountjoy Prison, where a major overhaul is long overdue. It is
intended to commence work on the site next year. Is it the provision
of accommodation such as this that the counter-proposers find
objectionable or short-sighted or would they prefer us to have the
Victorian conditions in which our offenders were formerly housed?
Our investment will ensure
that the scandal of the revolving door, with which we lived for so
long, will have been brought to a halt for good. Already the number of
prisoners on temporary release has fallen from 463 in 1997 compared to
just more than 200 at present. Quite recently the governor of Cork
Prison informed me that on a comparable day two years ago 125 people
were on temporary release or early release from Cork prison, most of
them on release on the sole criterion that there was an insufficiency
of space. On the same Friday in November 2000, there were just 13 on
early release from Cork Prison and all of them were on structured,
planned releases. That gives Members an indication of what has
happened in our prison service and the transformation that has come
about under this Administration.
Almost all prisoners on
early release at present are on structured programmes, in many cases
under the direct supervision of the probation and welfare service.
Those not on structured programmes have been temporarily released for
valid compassionate reasons, ill health or family related
circumstances. For the first time in 25 years, we are reaching the
stage where we can accommodate all those sentenced by the courts for
the full duration of their sentences. The impact of the elimination of
unplanned temporary releases on the level of indictable crime is not
only clear but irrefutable.
Aside from ending unplanned
releases of offenders, other considerable benefits and opportunities
arise from our prison building programme, benefits which are all too
frequently overlooked. We are not only bringing to an end the chronic
overcrowding which bedevilled our prisons for so many years, we are
also in a position to create the conditions in which prisoner
rehabilitation, through a coherent process of sentence planning, can
take place. Our investment programme, therefore, goes well beyond
physical infrastructure to include investment in programmes and
activities for persons sentenced to terms of imprisonment.
Such programmes are almost
impossible to deliver in overcrowded conditions. Thanks to the
investment by the Government, however, the Prisons Service is now in a
position to fulfil one of its prime objectives in developing and
maintaining an enhanced range of rehabilitative measures that will be
made available to all prisoners. In the revolving door period, which
peaked under my predecessor in office, prison staff found it almost
impossible to motivate prisoners whose only focus was to get temporary
release. Equally, participation rates in prisoner education were much
lower than they needed to have been. That has all changed in the short
period of three years.
Earlier this year a steering
group was established at my instigation to put in place
multidisciplinary prisoner programmes. This group, chaired by a senior
prison governor, comprises representatives from the Department, senior
Prisons Service management, the Probation and Welfare Service, the
psychology service, the prisons education service and the Prison
Officers Association. Its first task will be to oversee the
development of a new rehabilitative programme for sex offenders. Given
that we have almost 400 sex offenders serving prison sentences at
present, or one in seven of the prisoner population, enhancing
treatment programmes for sex offenders in prisons is a priority of the
Prisons Service and its director general, Mr. Sean Aylward.
The structured, offence
focused, therapeutic programme for sex offenders, introduced in Arbour
Hill Prison in 1994, has been operating successfully since then.
Furthermore, generic therapeutic and counselling services for sex
offenders have been put in place in the Curragh Prison during the past
year and a dedicated, sex offender programme is due to start there
shortly. The thinking skills course has been running in Arbour Hill
and Cork prisons since 1998 and has recently been introduced in the
Curragh Prison. It is designed to target a range of offenders,
including sex offenders, particularly with a view to motivating the
latter group to engage in the most intensive programmes. The course is
run by multidisciplinary teams, including prison officers, probation
and welfare staff and teaching staff under the guidance of my
Department's psychology service. The success of this course augurs
well for the use of multidisciplinary teams to deliver rehabilitative
programmes for sex offenders.
An important future
development in relation to targeted services for imprisoned sex
offenders is the intention to develop a new rehabilitative programme
for sex offenders. This programme will be delivered by
multidisciplinary teams including prison officers, teachers and other
prison disciplines, including the psychology and probation services.
This model has been operated satisfactorily in Great Britain over the
past number of years and I am anxious to see it developed in this
jurisdiction.
The key element in this
project is the drawing up of manuals for the delivery of this
treatment approach and the selection and training methodology for the
staff involved. A contract has been placed with an experienced
professional to carry out this work which will be completed in the new
year. The objective is for the Prisons Service to develop and put in
place a wider range of rehabilitative programmes for sex offenders
than are currently available to ensure they operate on independently
accredited selection, training and service methods and that they reach
every sex offender in custody who is willing to participate at some
level in their personal rehabilitation and relapse prevention.
Another example of a
successful multidisciplinary approach has been the Connect project.
This project focuses on prisoners' transition from custody, through
training, to reintegration in the community after release and labour
market participation. The first stage of the Connect project commenced
in February 1998. It was EU funded and involved a collaboration
between my Department, the Prison Service and the National Training
and Development Institute, part of the Rehab group. The project was
developed and brought forward in a manner that involved extensive
consultation and partnership within the prisons with the probation and
prison education services and with the wider community. |
