Damien English (Meath, Fine Gael)

Deputy Higgins referred to literacy in prisons. On "Morning Ireland" prisoners were asked what it meant to them to have the right to vote. One of those interviewed said that while a notice to that effect had been displayed for weeks, most of the prisoners could not read and did not know what it said. That proves Deputy Higgins's point. We are giving the prisoners the vote but we have not taught them how to read and write. There is a duty on the State to give prisoners the tools needed to fit into society when they leave prison and thereby reduce the chance of re-offending.

I have no problem with the idea of prisoner escort services referred to in section 2. Is this included to strengthen the hand of the Minister in negotiations with prison officers? Two weeks ago he was at pains to tell us he did not expect the provisions to be used. I question his motive on this point.

I have a problem with the certification of custody officers. Who will certify them? Will it be an accredited training body with expertise and experience in this area? What are the criteria for assessment? Who is to be certified — the person who gets the contract who can then employ other officers or is it every officer or employee of that business? It is important to have that clarified. Section 9(1) states:

A prisoner custody officer shall not disclose information relating to a prisoner which is obtained by him or her in the course of his or her employment as a prisoner custody officer unless he or she—

(a) is authorised by the Minister to so do, or

(b) does so for the purposes of performing his or her functions as a prisoner custody officer.

It does not mention that the person cannot pass on information about transport arrangements. We know what could happen if information about transport of certain prisoners gets out. We must be very careful how we deal with this, and it must be clarified. Who will do the certification?

The same section refers to private contractors detaining prisoners. Where do we envisage this detention? Will it be in an office or a backyard? I ask this because we have been through traumatic times in recent months with regard to tiger raids involving large sums of money. The same trauma could happen with dangerous criminals who could plan for their escape to occur while they are being transported. It is much easier to plan when there is information on the inside which can get out. The Bill is not clear on the matter of who will detain prisoners and where they will be detained.

Have these measures been costed or are they for another purpose? This has not been made very clear. I am concerned when I hear a Minister explaining how a measure will not be used. Why bother with it? I would like to know what is behind it.

If someone is refused certification he or she has the right to appeal to the Circuit Court. Can the Minister of State explain this? It does not seem to be normal human resources procedure in any Department? Why would one want to do so?

The contractors will file an annual report, in effect, evaluating themselves. There should be independent evaluation of the private contractor services. Will a licence be granted for three years? Many other programmes funded by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform must seek funding on an annual basis and must produce evaluation reports and so on. This sector seems to be allowed to send in its report with no proper evaluation. I seriously question that.

Section 3 refers to prison discipline, another area that must be clarified. Some sanctions may damage mental health, notably the provision for 60 days without visits, workshops or letters. The disciplinary measures must be clarified. I favour a charter explaining what category of punishment is attached to each breach of discipline. There must be a clear system for the prisoner to know what is happening.

I can accept the withdrawal of extra recreational activities but we should not prevent somebody attending a workshop. That would be counter-productive because that person might not get certification. There is a reference to taking away television rights but the televisions were brought in to help prevent suicide. Has this measure been thought through? I want to see proper information on this before the Bill is passed.

The Bill provides that the person hearing a prisoner's appeal must be a barrister or solicitor with seven years practice experience. Does the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform think he is going to lose his job here? Is he lining up a job for himself afterwards or why must the person be one who may not be best trained or have the expertise to judge this appeal? There are many people with expertise and training in dealing with prisoners who might give a better judgment on appeals.

We have had the "Bertie Bowl", now we will have the "McDowell Bowl". The Minister wants to give himself permission to build prisons where and how he wants. This would breach planning laws. The Bill provides that there is no need to go through the full planning process on the existing site of a prison. The decision rests with the Minister on a new site because it is a matter of national importance. Under the legislation, a rapporteur will hear submissions and this House will have the final say. We all know that if a Minister wants to shove something through here he or she has the power to do so. It is democracy on paper, not real democracy. I am not happy that this gives us a chance to make sure the planning process is correct. That is not good planning law.

If the Tánaiste is enabled to knock down a premises and rebuild it does that mean that if he were to apply the same planning allowances to the stadium at Lansdowne Road he could knock it down and build a new one, without planning permission? He would not accept that and should not accept it in respect of prisons. That is not fair to the neighbourhood or the local people.

Why, when it comes to purchasing a prison site, does the Government pay over the odds? In the case of Thornton the Tánaiste paid almost eight times the price at which it could have been bought. If the matter is of such national importance surely he can compulsorily purchase the land at a fair price and not waste taxpayers' money paying a ridiculous sum for it.

I welcome the proposal to put an independent inspector of prisons on a statutory basis. That is important. Could that person's remit be extended to cover the evaluations of the people who pick up the escort service contracts?

The Tánaiste stated: "We are changing how prisons are run, work practices in prisons, where prisons are located and, very importantly, we hope to change what is achieved by sending people to prison." What exactly is achieved by sending people to prison? We do not seem to achieve anything. A recent report from UCD states that 25% of people who leave prison return within a year and up to 85% are back within four years. We must not be achieving much in our prison system. The Minister must explain that comment to the House and offer some proper initiatives. Prison does not solve the problem for everybody, as this proves.

The Minister's announcement that new prisons are to be built and that he is going to stamp out crime may sound good to voters but prison does not solve the problem. Many studies have proved that prison is not the answer for everybody. It may work for dangerous criminals and people who should be off the streets. If results show that people are reoffending we are failing and the Tánaiste needs to address that failure. He needs to stop being cool in front of the voters and get down to what actually works.

A high percentage of people imprisoned for non-payment of fines go back into prison for reoffending. This week I dealt with a young single mother who is in dire financial straits. She got a parking fine for €40 but because she missed the payment deadline that has risen to €80 and now she is being brought to court which will cost at least €120. She will not be able to pay that sum and has no family members to help her. She will probably end up in Mountjoy or some other prison, taking up another place and meeting other criminals and learning about crime. This will happen because we could not pass a Bill introduced by my colleague, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, which would attach orders to recover the fine rather than put people in prison. It might sound hard and tough for a Government to announce that it is increasing prison space but that is not always the answer. The Prisons Bill offers an opportunity to discuss these issues.

See this speech in context