Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

Tacaím leis an mBille seo. Measaim gur Bille maith é, ach is trua gur thóg sé an fhad seo orainn an staid seo a shroichint. Ní chóir go mbeadh orainn reachtaíocht ar leith a chur i bhfeidhm chun go mbreathnódh breithiúna ár gcúirteanna ar obair dheonach mar bhreith. Ba chóir go ndíreodh siad ar sin gach lá, go háirithe mar go bhfeiceann siad cad a tharlaíonn do dhaoine óga a cuirtear i bpríosún. Go minic nuair a cuirtear duine i bpríosún, tagann athrú iomlán ar a saol ach ní ar son a leasa ach a mhalairt. Bheadh breith mar seo oiriúnach go háirithe do dhaoine nach raibh baint acu leis an gcóras dlí agus cirt roimhe seo agus nach bhfuil ach botún nó dhó déanta acu. Nuair a chuirtear pionós príosúin ar dhaoine mar seo, nuair a thagann siad amach as an bpríosún bíonn siad gafa nó ceangailte le grúpaí de barúin drugaí nó a leithéid.

Aontaím gur cóir i gcónaí féachaint an bhfuil a mhalairt de phionós nó de threo ar fáil do dhaoine nach bhfuil ach ciontaithe do choireanna bheaga nó ar chiontaíodh toisc nár íoc siad fíneáil nó ar chiontaíodh ar chúis road traffic offences. Ní cóir go mbeadh gá ann dúinn an Bille seo a chur i bhfeidhm, ach is léir gur gá é a dhéanamh toisc nach raibh na breithiúna sásta é a dhéanamh gach uair a tháinig daoine os a gcomhair. Mar sin, táim sásta tacú leis an mBille seo.

I agree with this Bill wholeheartedly, although it should not have been necessary, as judges should have been trying to apply community sanctions as much as possible anyway. In many cases, judges did consider this, but because of under-investment in the Probation Service the opportunities were not always available to divert people away from spending a couple of months or years in prison. Judges had to impose prison sentences because the supports were not there to allow for greater use of community service options. That is one of the key responsibilities of the Minister. If we are to impress upon judges that they must consider to a greater extent the use of community sanctions, we must ensure the Probation Service is properly resourced. One mechanism for doing this would be to divert some of the money that is currently used to incarcerate people towards the community service option. It would pay dividends in the long term. I am not saying prison budgets should be cut, but if there are fewer prisoners it will allow for budgets to be cut. We could divert to the Probation Service some of the money that was ring-fenced by previous Governments to invest in a super-prison at Thornton Hall. We are not talking about a large amount of money compared to the cost of incarcerating prisoners. It is relatively cheap.

Another important point about community service orders is that justice can be seen by the public to be done. Time and again one hears constituents at community groups or policing forums ask why so-and-so is back on the street after being sentenced a few weeks or months ago. With community sanctions as part or all of a sentence, the offender will be seen to be doing work that is of benefit to the community. In some cases, it is to be hoped, community service will change the attitudes of people who have been guilty of criminal damage, robbery or road traffic offences, and they will have a greater degree of respect for their surroundings, their neighbours and businesses in their communities. It might have a better effect than locking them up and throwing away the key. Because prisons are so overcrowded, the services that are required to rehabilitate prisoners are not able to cope with demand, which means that many of those in prison do not benefit from increased literacy, knowledge of a trade, or the ability to work as part of a team and communicate with people on a personal basis. However, offenders will gain some of these benefits through the community service option, because they will be forced to work as part of a team and in public.

I was asked a number of years ago to become a director of the Liberties recycling training and development project, which has a drugs rehabilitation programme in which 50 recovering addicts work in clothes recycling. The board was informed recently that the project had contacted the Probation Service offering to allow a number of people to work at the project for the period specified by the judge. Other companies and projects will do the same including, as Deputies mentioned, Dublin City Council and community groups. There will be a benefit from the use of community service orders to pick up the slack from the lack of investment in city and county council areas where money is not currently available to clean up public spaces. If we are trying to attract tourists into the country, would it not be useful to have a squad of people, under the direction of the Probation Service, carrying out works that cannot currently be carried out because of a lack of funds, including the painting of railings, school buildings and community halls? None of these tasks requires a large amount of skill. Some of the people who will come under these orders may have considerable skills. Some might be diverted to the community service option because they were involved in road traffic offences and should not have been in prison in the first place. This is especially the case for non-violent offenders. In most cases there must be a way of addressing those types of crimes other than by incarcerating people. We will see a benefit from that. There is a range of options.

Since this is a probation and welfare service, we must ensure that the welfare of offenders is taken into account and that judges will divert offenders to the care of the probation and welfare service not only to be used as cheap labour or to carry out work that otherwise would not be done. The service must have a role in identifying the problems some of these people will have and the roles that exist for them, so that they can be pointed in the right direction. In that way, if the problem is addiction, the person will be brought to the attention of the local addiction services. If a person presents with a literacy problem and has removed himself or herself from the normal day to day community because of that it and the consequent lack of self-esteem, that also can be addressed. Supports need to be available to help those people. In the vast majority of cases the people we are discussing are unemployed and many believe themselves to be unemployable. Such issues can be addressed. The probation and welfare service officers will have an opportunity to spot something which might not be spotted in prison and can try to help people to rebuild their lives away from whatever crime was committed. There is an opportunity.

There were two restorative justice projects in this State - one in Tallaght, the other in Nenagh. Both made presentations to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice and Law Reform five or six years ago. The people involved were very enthusiastic about the projects. The principal person behind the restorative justice programme in Nenagh was the local judge who identified the very concerns I mentioned. Rather than putting a person in prison where problems would be exacerbated, he identified likely persons and put them on a restorative justice programme that dealt with the victims of crimes such as burglaries, thus engaging them with those they had offended. He used that method in a similar way to what is suggested in this Bill. We should look again at having more such projects. In terms of cost effectiveness, in common with most restorative justice programmes, they proved very successful in every jurisdiction in which they have been developed when compared to other costs such as those involved in sending a person to prison and the effect that has on the person, his or her family and on society. I urge that when a justice committee is established in the Oireachtas we look again at restorative justice. It is not something that must necessarily fit into this Bill; I want this Bill to be passed as quickly as possible.

One of the few positive measures the last Government took in the past six to eight months was to increase from a very low point the number of probation and welfare officers. That was welcome but if there is to be an increase in programmes such as community service we must ensure there are enough probation and welfare officers. If that means diverting people from other parts of the justice system that must be done. I hope judges will listen to what is being said in the House concerning this Bill and that they will start diverting people towards community service and, as a society, we will see the benefit of that in the near future. It will not happen overnight but will eventually happen.

The big problem in our jails is the significant levels of overcrowding. The answer of the previous two Governments was to build more prisons. They closed some of the better, smaller prisons which were more inclined to help offenders address some of their problems and moved towards a super prison regime. This has not worked in other jurisdictions. The level of overcrowding is scary, as is the increase in numbers of people convicted and sentenced to prison for short sentences for minor crimes. We must re-examine this issue rather than having an increase of more than 50% in the numbers of people sentenced to from six to 12 months as we have seen in recent times. That is part of what this Bill is about. We must look at the whole area of non-violent offence. There was an increase of 40% in the numbers sentenced to less than 12 months for non-violent offences and a 17% increase in sentences for road traffic offences. That is a range of people who probably should not be in jail. However, there are people who need to be in jail, those who are a danger to society and those who need to be punished.

I am not 100% sure if the following measure could be achieved in this Bill or at all at this time. At present if a judge suspends part of a sentence in a high profile case there is resultant furore. In the main, there is logic behind suspending a sentence. Judges should consider whether, after sentencing people to a certain period in prison, then, as part of the sentence, they could sentence them to subsequent community service rather suspending the sentence. Again, there is a double effect. If the crime is so bad that the person must be punished by being imprisoned, afterwards society and the community from which the person came could see justice being done upon the prisoner's release. This might be a better mechanism to use in such cases.

Violent crimes in the community seem to be on the rise and young criminals are intimidating older residents. They travel in gangs. When we were young we travelled in groups or little gangs but we had respect for our community. We did not carry knives, which seems to be a significant trend among young people nowadays and accounts for the rise in the number of stabbings. There was not the access to the type of weaponry young people regrettably seem to have now. That must be examined.

Rather than locking up people involved in criminal damage and blatant vandalism, the vandals should have to make good the criminal damage done by them and perhaps by others. It is a welcome part of the legislation that people would be seen to help to make amends publicly for criminal damage, intimidation and robberies, of which there has been a spate in recent years, most likely linked to unemployment. There has been an increase in the number of robberies, in particular of older people.

I reiterate my support for the Bill. There are major issues involved. When the Government introduces cuts to drug projects, community groups and so on in society it must be mindful of the need to address the many underlying problems.

John Lonergan, the former governor of Mountjoy Prison was mentioned earlier. He was a shining light for many years on how society should address offenders. One key point he often made was that many of those who were in Mountjoy Prison came from specific districts of Dublin. He maintained the problem was that those areas had underlying problems including drug abuse, deprivation, unemployment and low educational standards, problems that remain to be addressed. The more we address these issues, the less chance there is people will come before the courts and fewer people will end up in our jails. I urge the Government to keep this in mind in the current economic crisis. If we do not address these problems we will end up with the same cohort of people from the same areas making up the majority of prisoners.

A vast range of areas should be considered including graffiti removal and chewing gum removal. These are not high skill jobs. A look at any of our footpaths throughout the country would indicate these are tasks that should be carried out. A great number of derelict sites are under the control of NAMA. These could be cleaned and tidied up and changed into allotments or public spaces until such time as the economy bounces back. The parks department of the county council and the OPW could be involved. Canal walks, community halls and all the public demesne could benefit from a clean up. Another possibility is the replanting of forests. The Probation Service should examine ways to progressively and positively use some of the skills of the people who come before it. Hopefully, in the future they can be put to use.

See this speech in context