Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

I begin by thanking everyone who has participated in the debate. In particular, I thank Deputies for the support they have expressed for the Bill. Also, I congratulate the speakers who have made their maiden speeches. I congratulate Deputy Flanagan for temporarily becoming Leader of the Opposition in the House. I thank Deputies for the kind comments they have made and for their good wishes in the coming months in the job I have been given. I hope that the other measures I bring before the House get a similar welcome and similar support from Members.

Several Deputies made the point that prison should be the last resort. I agree with this as does the Government. There are circumstances in which, due the nature of the crime committed, it is absolutely appropriate and correct that people are sentenced to prison. There are occasions when it is appropriate for the protection of the community that people are sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. However, prison should be a last resort. There are several circumstances in which short prison terms are imposed and which, I do not believe, benefits either the community or has any impact by way of rehabilitation on the person who is sentenced.

I share the view that we have a substantial problem of recidivism which we must address. This is in the interests of the wider community as well as those who come in touch with the prison services and who are involuntarily guests of the State in the prison system. I realise Deputies share the goal of diverting from prison those for whom an alternative, non-custodial sentence is appropriate. In that context, an analysis of the prison population has shown that the increase in prison numbers is primarily as a result of an increase in the number of persons who have been committed and sentenced to longer sentences for serious offences. Although there has been an increase in committals for shorter sentences, it remains the case that our overall prison numbers, in the context of the rate of imprisonment, are on a par with the European average.

In the context of the Government's programme, there is a commitment to delivering a sentencing system that provides a safer society at a lower cost to the taxpayer. The Bill is one of several initiatives which, I hope, we can take, not all of which require legislative reform, to provide alternative methods of dealing with those convicted of crimes in respect of those who do not pose a risk to the community. I intend to bring forward proposals to end the practice of imprisoning people who cannot pay fines or debts and to introduce a system of attachment orders allowing a small amount of money to be taken from wages or social welfare, facilitating the payment of debt or fines over time. This, together with fully implementing the Fines Act 2010 and extending the use of community service orders form part of that commitment.

I turn to some of the points raised by Deputies during the debate. Several speakers have proposed that a provision should be included which would place a requirement on a judge, when opting to sentence a person to imprisonment as opposed to community service, to provide written reasons for that decision. A similar proposal has been made by the Irish Penal Reform Trust which has carried out so much valuable work in this area. I believe it is desirable that a judge gives reasons. As many Deputies have pointed out in the context of this legislation the objective is to ensure that where a judge is considering imposing a prison sentence of 12 months or less as a consequence of a conviction, he or she should be obliged to and does direct his or her mind to the appropriateness of community service as an alternative.

Giving reasons as to why one makes a choice on the part of the judge is of importance because it indicates that attention has been paid to this particular aspect of matters and it gives some insight to the general public in the context of the criminal justice system operating in public as to the circumstances in which, the Judiciary believes, it is appropriate that community service orders be applied and, in the alternative, the circumstances in which sentences of imprisonment are imposed and the reasoning behind the choice made. However, I question the necessity of introducing a requirement to provide written reasons. Without exception, a sentence of imprisonment should be reasoned and there is an obligation on all courts to give adequate reasons for their decisions. There is a well established jurisprudence to this effect. Practised reasons behind sentences are being clearly set out in our courts by our judges every day. Should there be failure to do so, redress in the form of appeal and judicial review are available to the affected person. Therefore, I am not yet convinced that further action in the context of the Bill is necessary but it is a matter that can be further teased out on Committee Stage.

Another consideration is the resource implications the requirement to provide written reasons would create, especially at District Court level. A balance between the benefits and any adverse implications must be achieved. In the context of our giving additional consideration to this, we can discuss the matter on Committee Stage and further tease it out. However, I am keen to ensure that we get over what appears to be the anomalous situation whereby one could readily identify within our court structure those District Courts within the State where it is more likely that community service orders would be made than others. As Minister for Justice and Equality, I must be careful of the extent to which I comment on the issue because, under the Constitution, the Judiciary is independent and it cannot be influenced by what I say. However, it must apply legislation enacted by the House. In the context of dealing with the issue of community service orders I am keen to see a uniform approach, in so far as it is possible, taken by the Judiciary throughout the country.

One of the issues about which we must always be careful as Deputies is that in the context of the media reporting of court cases, there is often only a limited amount of information given. Cases that appear similar in which sentences are imposed for an offence that has been committed are often rather different. In the context of the events surrounding the offence, the impact of the offence or in the context of assessing an appropriate sentence, the background of the individual offender can substantially influence the discretion exercised by a judge. The factors that have been applied in that context are not always published and are not always part of the public consideration of the appropriate sentences. I assume in the context of dealing with community services orders that there should be a uniform approach to the judicial consideration given as to when the making of such orders is appropriate. The Bill, when enacted, will ensure the judiciary focuses on the issue.

On the capacity and resources of the Probation Service, I assure Deputies I am fully satisfied that increased reliance on community service can be met within existing resources. I inquired into this specifically some time prior to my appointment as Minister. In the summer of 2010 I first proposed on behalf of Fine Gael that legislation in this area should be changed in this way. I deliberately held meetings to ensure there was capacity and if legislation of this nature was enacted, the Probation Service would be able to deal with it. The Probation Service has recently separately advised my Department that it currently has the capacity to supervise the additional community service orders that will arise following enactment of the Bill.

Many Deputies have said community service orders should only be used when appropriate. This Bill does not and should not interfere with judicial discretion in sentencing. It merely asks a sentencing judge, under certain circumstances, to consider the imposition of community service. Nor do the provisions of this Bill preclude a judge when sentencing an offender from imposing any of the other available non-custodial sentencing options. That has been put beyond doubt through the provisions in section 3(c) of the Bill.

Deputies also stressed the need to ensure the suitability of an offender for community service is carefully considered. Section 4 of the 1983 Act, as amended by this Bill, provides that a court will not make a community service order in respect of an offender unless the court considers the person suitable to perform work under such an order. In making this determination, the court must give consideration to the offender's circumstances and the assessment report prepared by the probation officer.

Deputy McNamara questioned the requirement for the consent of the offender to a community service order. Notwithstanding the Deputy's comments, it is widely considered that to impose community service on an offender in circumstances where he or she did not consent to such an order could be regarded as punishment by compulsory labour, which is prohibited by the European Convention on Human Rights. I would be reluctant to remove this requirement without further consideration and advice. In the context of seeking an offender's consent, it may be more readily given in circumstances where it is blatantly clear to an offender who has been convicted that the alternative is imprisonment.

Requiring the consent of an offender also confirms his or her willingness to make a positive contribution to the community. To force an offender to complete community service would most probably increase the likelihood of the offender breaching an order and, therefore, requiring it to be revoked and the offender dealt with in an alternative manner. This involves the associated resource and financial implications of court applications, the issue of warrants and the involvement of the gardaí, with their time taken up in implementing a warrant.

The Deputy also raised the issue that the Bill does not require judges to state the period of imprisonment the community service order is in lieu of. When sentencing an individual to community service, the judge will specify the sentence to be served if the offender fails to complete the community service order. In circumstances where an offender reneges on the order with regard to community service, the nature of the sentence that must be served is quite clear.

Deputy O'Brien suggested that victim impact statements might form part of the assessment process when the court is considering making a community service order. Our law already contains provision for consideration by the courts of victim impact assessments. The Criminal Justice Act 1993, as amended, requires the court in all relevant cases to consider the effect of an offence on the victim. For the purpose of Deputy O'Brien's proposal, no further legislative provision is required.

That said, I have long been committed to promoting and supporting victims of crime. As indicated in the programme for Government, I intend to introduce legislation to strengthen the rights of victims of crime and their families. Victims of crime and their needs should be a focus of the justice system and I am determined through the enactment of victims' legislation to ensure the proper status is afforded to those who suffer at the hands of criminals. Victims legislation is in place in several countries and it is a major gap in our legislative structure that we do not have an overall Act detailing the rights and protections available to the victims of crime.

Deputy Daly mentioned the need to ensure community service orders are not used to undermine real and proper jobs. Community service does not replace paid employees; in assessing suitable community service projects, the Probation Service is careful not to undertake any work that might displace someone from paid employment. Deputy Ó Snodaigh correctly listed the type of work that could be undertaken in the current circumstances. Work at local level, particularly with local authorities, where there are not the resources or personnel to undertake some work, can quite properly be undertaken by way of community service to the benefit of the community. This type of work undertaken is normally at community level, where resources will not be available to pay for the work done and that will remain the case.

Deputy Cowen asked if persons sentenced to penalties other than community service might be able to appeal their sentence and seek a community service order instead. Anyone who has a penalty imposed on him by the courts already has the right in law to appeal the decision. It would be for an appellant court to determine if community service was an appropriate alternative to another sentence that had been imposed.

A number of Deputies suggested community service orders could be augmented by the use of restorative justice. The restorative justice schemes were referred to today and on earlier occasions during the debate. Through the Probation Service, the Department already funds two restorative justice projects that have been the subject of comment during the course of the debate, one in Nenagh and another in Tallaght. The Nenagh community restoration project is being extended to Limerick and Tipperary while the Tallaght restorative justice service will be extended to the Criminal Courts of Justice. This expansion will test the model's ability to manage up to 100 adult offenders by community reparation and up to 300 by the restorative justice service. The Probation Service will monitor, oversee and evaluate implementation of the schemes and will provide a report on the effectiveness and value for money of the model after a 12 month operational period. If, as I expect, these schemes are a success, I hope they will be further expanded.

Deputy Ó Cuív stated we should try to reduce the prison population and use alternative methods of sentencing. I appreciate the support he has offered this Bill, along with that of others in Fianna Fáil. I share Deputies' views and the debate on this Bill has been informed and mature. The prison system is under pressure and there are people in prison who could have been better disposed of in other ways following their conviction. I hope during my period as Minister for Justice and Equality that we bring about change in that regard in a manner that enjoys public support while not giving rise to public concern. We must do this in a manner that focuses on reducing rates of recidivism.

Prisoner training was mentioned by Deputies, including Deputy O'Brien. There are training schemes in our prisons to provide skills to prisoners. I intend, through the Irish Prison Service, to look at the expansion of these schemes and the extension of additional skills to those in prison that they may use after their release. The fact that in the region of 440,000 people are unemployed adds an extra layer of difficulty for former prisoners who, while incarcerated, obtained training - which in normal economic circumstances would create for them the possibility of employment - from obtaining employment. This extra layer must be confronted and addressed and it could well be the subject of further discussion in the House.

A number of Members, including Deputy Ellis, referred to getting to the root of the causes of crime. As Minister for Justice and Equality, I am under no illusion that solving the problems we have in the area of criminality can be achieved simply by the handing down of prison sentences or through disposals of people who are found guilty of crimes. If one examines our prison population from the perspective of crimes which do not involve a terrorist dimension, one can identify the communities from which 90% to 95% of inmates come. There is a link between the conditions and circumstances in which people live and the causes of crime. There are, of course, many people who live in difficult social circumstances in communities which we would recognise as being deprived and who do not engage in criminality. Too frequently, those within the communities to which I refer who do engage in criminality make life extremely difficulty for others in those communities. Whereas there is a link, there is also an issue with regard to how people conduct themselves and exercise their choices.

A number of other issues were raised during the debate. Deputy Seán Kenny referred to Mountjoy Prison and suggested that it has not changed since he last visited it 20 years ago. I am of the view that it has changed substantially. Within ten days of my appointment as Minister, I visited the prison and noted the very substantial changes that have been effected there. I wish to pay tribute to the new governor of Mountjoy Prison for the considerable work he has done in tackling some of the problems that exist within the prison. The important work the governor has done deserves to be acknowledged. We should also acknowledge the contribution made by the prison officers who work within that institution. There is a changing environment within the prison.

I look forward to the establishment of a joint Oireachtas committee on justice and defence. When the latter comes into being, I hope its members will avail of the opportunity not just to visit Mountjoy Prison at some future date but also to visit some of the other prisons throughout the State. It is important that Deputies and - when the new Seanad has been elected - Senators should be made aware of the good things that are happening and also the nature of any difficulties which have arisen and how such difficulties might be addressed over a period.

Deputy O'Donovan referred to the need to ensure that the victims of crime will not in any way be intimidated by those who engage in criminal activity and who are undertaking community service. It is certainly my understanding that the probation and welfare service, in considering where to place individuals in respect of community service, takes account of that type of problem. In the context of community service, there may be particular occasions when someone who is the victim of a crime can obtain some remedial assistance from an individual who is required to do community service in circumstances in which - as assessed by the probation and welfare service - this would not give rise to difficulties.

I appreciate the care and attention Deputies have given to this measure. I hope Committee Stage will be taken very soon after the Easter recess. The Bill may require amendment. If Deputies have constructive amendments which they wish to propose with regard to the area of community service to which the Bill is confined, then I look forward to taking a somewhat different approach on Committee Stage than that which held sway for many years during the lifetime of the previous two Governments. I see Committee Stage as an opportunity to facilitate Members of this House in truly acting as legislators and in contributing to the improvement of legislation.

This is only a small Bill. However, it is an important measure in the context of changing our approach and in signalling a new method of dealing with criminal justice issues. I will welcome any constructive amendments which Deputies may wish to bring forward.

For the information of Deputies, I want to highlight a matter in respect of which we may engage in further discussion. I am giving consideration to extending the use of community service in another circumstance. A legislative change may not be required in this regard but I have asked my officials to consider the position. As Deputies will be aware, the parole board currently operates as a non-statutory agency. It is my hope to bring forward legislation to place the board on a statutory footing. It may not be possible to introduce the relevant legislation this year but it may be possible to do so next year. At present, the board's remit involves considering granting parole to those who are sentenced for serious offences where the sentence is for a period of seven years or more. I am examining the possibility of allowing the board to consider granting parole to those who are sentenced to terms of five years or more, with the possibility of its requiring those granted parole to undertake community service for a period following their release. This may require a statutory change in the context of the parole board, although it may be possible to deal with that issue by way of prisoners granted parole being required to undertake community service subject to conditions. In other words, it will be a condition of the release that the prisoner engages in community service. As is the case where someone fails to comply with certain conditions of his or her parole, if a prisoner fails to comply with a community service requirement of his or her parole, he or she would be returned to prison.

There are a number of ways in which we can use the concept of community service as both an alternative to prison and as a means of reintroducing prisoners who pose no threat to people to their communities in a manner which benefits those communities and which saves taxpayers' money. This is an issue which we might, perhaps, tease out further on Committee Stage. I again thank the Deputies who contributed to the debate.

See this speech in context