Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)

I support this legislation in principle, as it makes good social and economic sense. However, I would like to hear what linkages are intended to provide valuable work to match the community service audit. What agency will supervise that work?

I understand there are 4,500 people in prison in the State. That figure has grown consistently since 1997 when there were 3,500 in prison. I do not think anyone would suggest Ireland has become a safer place since 1997 just because more people are locked up. The United States which has less than 5% of the world's population has one quarter of the world's prison population. Some 2.3 million people were behind bars in the United States in 2008, which clearly shows that prison is not the deterrent it is often made out to be.

It is fair to say society benefits from imprisoning those who are a danger to it. I support that approach. In 2009, however, there were 3,601 committals for road traffic offences, which represents 33% of the total, an increase of 59% on the 2008 figure. I do not think fair-minded people would see prison as an appropriate sanction in many of these cases. I doubt that the vast majority would see a need to spend €77,000 per annum in this way. Most of society does not want to see such persons in prison. If there has been a demand within society for custodial sentences for crimes in recent years, it has been for white collar crimes, particularly those that have affected ordinary families and caused young people to go into exile of emigrataion. The attack on the living standards of the people has largely been caused by white collar crimes. People want to see punitive measures in that context because of the impact such behaviour has had on their lives.

The estimated cost of keeping a prisoner locked up for one year used to be approximately €100,000. The decrease in that figure in recent years - it is now approximately €77,000 - is accounted for by the level of overcrowding - 20% - in prisons. I do not think it is something of which we should be particularly proud. Overcrowding poses risks to prisoners and the staff who work in prisons. Overcrowding, insanitary conditions and practices such as slopping out in Mountjoy Prison are bringing the country's human rights record into disrepute.

The average cost of a community service order is €4,295 which is a fraction of the cost of imprisoning a person. As I said, it makes good economic sense. The potential benefits in terms of the work undertaken are not factored in. There is a growing body of evidence from countries such as the United Kingdom and Spain that reoffending rates are substantially lower among those who have received community service orders compared to those who have received custodial sentences - even short sentences. Our penal system should be seen as a deterrent and also as a system of rehabilitation. It is clear that the use of community service orders as a sanction, particularly for minor offences, can make a contribution towards this aim.

When we consider reforms to public services, it is essential not only that we ensure we get value for money but also that we put systems in place to reflect the society we want to create. We should look at the long term to complete the picture. It will be possible to save considerable sums by replacing prison sentences with community service orders as long as they are appropriately used. I am concerned by the suggestion that it is intended that the measures proposed will be cost neutral. The Probation Service is already stretched. I am concerned that unless the service is allowed to expand to make this measure work, it will not produce the desired results. It may also affect other work done by the service. If we do not provide for proper supervision of the work that will be done in communities, the change we are making will quickly fall into disrepute.

Previous speakers referred to anti-social behaviour orders. When they were being introduced, we all made the point that they could end up being a badge of honour. We pointed out that a considerable amount of supervision would be required to impose properly the system that was intended. In this case, it will be up to the judge to ask the Probation Service to assess each convicted person to ensure he or she is suitable for such an order. The service will have to state whether work is available to be done. Obviously, there needs to be a link between the various services. What agency will provide the work and the supervision? Will FÁS, for example, be required to do so? If so, how will its current workload be affected? I am trying to think practically about the effects of the operation of this proposal. Will those seeking retraining be displaced? It is obvious that the age and perhaps the gender of the offender will be an issue, too. The probation officer will need to be able to rely on those supervising the work to ensure the number of hours of work specified in the order is completed. If the person who receives the community service order is unwilling to carry out the work, the probation officer will need to return to court for an alternative sanction. I think it will be determined at the same time, as that is how it currently works. If the person who receives the sentence is willing to do the work but there is inadequate work to be done, what will happen?

It concerns me that we are going about this in a fragmented way. The change is worthwhile, but we are not joining the necessary links. We are not specifying how the work will be done in practice. I am not sure that is a function of the legislation, but it would be useful to hear about the linkages that could meaningfully be made. There is also the lack of a linkage between the Garda, the Courts Service and other agencies. This fragmented approach is part of the problem.

In many cases, earlier intervention would cost the State much less than is currently the case and cause much less grief to communities. For example, the Youthreach programme is oversubscribed in some areas, which means young people who have been expelled from school are walking the streets. The level of investment required to address this problem is a tiny fraction of the cost of imposing a community service order. Youngsters who find themselves in these circumstances are at risk of going to prison. Early intervention makes a significant contribution towards keeping potential young offenders out of trouble. While the Garda juvenile liaison offices do good work, their workload is often much too large. Community service orders are a good sanction, but achieving real success would mean eliminating the need for sanctions through early intervention.

In 2009, 70% of committals were for six months or less. In some cases, the sentence was considerably less than six months. The Irish Penal Reform Trust has stated the following:

Ireland systematically overuses imprisonment as punishment. While the average prison population on any given day in Ireland is close to the European average, the rates of committal to prison on sentence — the 'flow' of prisoners through the system — means that Ireland has one of the most punitive criminal justice systems in Europe.

Additionally, high numbers of people are sent to prison for short term sentences, often for less than 6 months. Significant numbers of those who are sent to prison are committed there for non-violent offences, for fine default or for relatively minor road traffic offences.

This is not a question of do-gooders complaining about particular sanctions. I would not make the case that sanctions should not be imposed for certain offences. However, in 2008 there were 2,254 committals related to road traffic offences, the majority of which were for non-payment of insurance. Under the law, for very good reason, one cannot drive unless one is insured. However, it may be open to the courts to impose instalment orders under which the cost of insurance would be deducted from a person's income, rather than locking up the individual in question at the taxpayer's expense.

While I support the Bill in principle, I reiterate my concerns about how it will work in practice. I am also concerned about its cost neutrality, an issue on which I would welcome a response from the Minister.

See this speech in context