Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Okay. I have questions for the IPRT and maybe one for the POA.

The first one relates to head 7, and I imagine this is for the IPRT and the Department to take note of. Head 7(1)(e), relating to education and training, says "insofar as the length of time in prison permits". In terms of rehabilitation and access to education that is quite problematic because it means that a scenario could be put forward where we could say that the sentence did not permit access to education or a particular course. That could be because the prisoner was expected to be transferred or released at a certain time. This provision should not actually be in the draft and all accommodation should be made to enable inmates to access education.

Regarding head 10, the staff of the service, which the union might want to comment on, one of my questions is in relation to mobility and the importance of staff being able to move around and having the status of a civil servant. My concern, and I am wondering if it is a concern of the witnesses, is that it says "shall be a civil servant in the Civil Service of the Government". This is problematic. Other legislation dealing with the Parole Board and the Inspector of Prisons says "of the State" rather than "of the Government". It should not be "of the Government" to give it real independence in terms of separating some of those powers.

In head 12 there is no mention of the director general's role in research. It would be beneficial to have something in there regarding research and development.

Head 22 relates to functions of the board but it does not mention any sort of governance oversight or finance management oversight. Should there be something in there so that the board actually has some power and oversight in relation to governance? It does mention governance later on when it comes to an audit committee but it does not actually have it in the functions of the board.

On membership of the board, I am just wondering about the make-up of the board. It says in the heads that if somebody gains a conviction while on the board, they will no longer be able to serve on the board, but it does not actually say anything about people with previous convictions being able to serve on the board. We know there are issues with the charities regulator's legislation. It seems this could be an opportunity for us to ensure people with lived experience could function on the board. I would appreciate some comment on that.

Head 34 is quite concerning regarding the accountability of the director general. It says the director general cannot really form any sort of opinion on or give criticism of the Minister or the Government. It is like giving this illusion of independence but actually really restricting that independence and the ability of the director general to be able to act. Within the prison system you need to be able to challenge policy. If we look at mandatory sentencing or anything else that may come up in terms of policy, you would imagine the director general and the union members and everybody else would have a very particular view that sometimes may need to be demonstrated to Government or to certain Ministers of the day who may be taking a different policy that does not actually serve either the prison population or its staff.

I have one more point on transfers. I do not think it says if the director general will take responsibility for transfers to open centres. Does the power still lie with the Minister in that regard?