Jerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Cuirim fíor fáilte roimh an Aire agus molaim é as an Bille atá molta aige inniu. As the Minister observed, the criminal justice system is about more than just crime and punishment. It cannot be focused solely on society exacting retribution from those who are found guilty by the courts. Clearly we must hold those convicted of offences to account in a manner proportionate to the crime of which they have been found guilty and, in doing so, must ensure that, as a society, we recognise the impact each crime has on its victim. However, our courts must also have the option of providing those who come before them of the opportunity for reform and, where the crime is of a minor nature, this should be done without necessarily imposing a term of imprisonment.

At present, the options available to a court range from the use of the court poor box to community service orders and imprisonment. I welcome the Bill that is before us today. I congratulate the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, on his appointment and wish him well in his tenure. He has commenced his work with great vigour and enthusiasm. The Bill affords an opportunity to expand the use of community service orders. These are provisions which not only deal with punishment, but enable those convicted to give something tangible back to society and allow society to see the positive impact a progressive criminal justice system can have.

In 2010, the total number of community service orders issued by the courts was 1,949, representing a mere one third of the overall capacity available for the use of such orders. The probation and welfare service's Value for Money and Policy Review Report, published in October 2009, shows that just 29 courts account for 80% of the total number of community service orders issued. In other words, community services orders are being significantly underutilised. There are several possible reasons for this. It may be that legal practitioners are not petitioning the courts to grant these orders; it may be that the Judiciary has not been made aware of the spare capacity within the system; and it may be that many of those involved in the justice system do not see the positive impact these orders can have on the individuals involved and the wider benefit to society.

This Bill proposes that the courts must consider imposing a community service order where it has deemed that the appropriate term of imprisonment is 12 months or less. The obligatory nature of this provision will undoubtedly increase the usage of community service orders. Statistics from the Courts Service show that in 2006 there were 4,607 committals on sentences of 12 months or less. By 2009, this number had almost doubled to 9,216. The increase in committals during that period was not matched by an increase in available prison capacity, further burdening a system that was already struggling to cope. If we are to avoid a revolving door prison system, then short of increasing capacity, which has a long lead-in time, our only option is to provide for alternatives to imprisonment where deemed appropriate by the courts.

Last Monday, I attended a meeting of the local policing forum in Cork city where we received a presentation from the Garda outlining figures for juvenile offences in Cork. These show that it is predominantly young men, rather than young women, who offend, with the exception being in the case of shoplifting where 49% of offenders are male and 51% are female. It is important that we examine the figures for juvenile crime throughout the State. It is predominantly petty crime in which young men are engaged. It is imperative that they are encouraged to become active citizens by participating in society and taking ownership of local projects. The problem at present is that they are instead choosing to partake in activities that have a negative impact on themselves and on the communities in which they live.

If these young men are sentenced to serve time in prison they will only be exposed to further criminal activities and will be less likely to become active citizens who play a positive role within local communities. As a former teacher and someone involved in sporting and community organisations I am aware of the onus on all of us to show example, to educate and to reform. The Bill before us today will assist in this regard by encouraging young people, particularly young men, to play a positive role within local communities. The enhanced provisions of the Bill will ensure the option is available to the courts to show these young men the positive impact of participating in community activity with benefits not only for society, but for those who choose to participate. There are many people who would, if given the opportunity, participate in such schemes.

The Bill is timely in that our society is at a crossroads. It offers the courts the opportunity to increase the use of non-custodial sentences and to reduce the burden of over-crowding within our prison system. If the community service order system were used to its full capacity, it could take 3,800 prisoners out of our prisons, immediately reducing the problem of overcrowding. As the Minister outlined, the provisions are cost neutral. Given the financial constraints under which this Government has been forced to operate, opportunities to make improvements from within our existing resources must be grasped and used to maximum effect.

The benefits of community service orders for those on whom they are imposed are not simply the avoidance of a custodial sentence and the harsh realities of life in prison. The orders can also provide convicted individuals with an involvement in civic and charitable projects, enabling them to take ownership of such activities and to contribute positively to society. Nor are the benefits of these schemes confined to those carrying out community service; the wider community also derives tangible benefits.

In Cork city and county, at any one time, there are between 320 and 350 people carrying out community service. These people are working on projects that produce visible social benefits to the area. For example, the graffiti removal project that was piloted in Dublin has been rolled out to Cork and is currently in operation in the designated RAPID areas of Togher and Mahon. The projects, which are run in conjunction with the local RAPID co-ordinators, are successful and are making a strong statement with regard to the public realm in both communities. In Mahon, the project is driven by the local community association under the stewardship of the manager there, Mr. Denis Coffey. Within the community of Mahon, a great and commendable initiative to remove graffiti is being undertaken. The success across the RAPID areas has meant the pilot scheme being operated in two areas will hopefully be extended across the city, which constitutes progress.

At a time when there is a need for greater liaison between central and local government, both Cork City Council and Cork County Council are working closely with the probation and welfare service in Cork to ensure the successful completion of works that would not otherwise be funded or carried out. To date, this has included projects such as litter removal, foreshore cleaning, cutting briars and general cleaning, which have had immense tangible benefits in local communities. Moreover, people serving community service orders have assisted many of the local tidy town associations. I met a couple of them last week before speaking on this debate and they speak highly of the community service orders. Young people become involved with the tidy towns groups, assist in preparing streets and amenity areas for the competitions and take pride when given their own small areas and projects to look after. In many areas of Cork city, the probation and welfare service is driving an allotments initiative, which again pertains to responsibility and creating a benefit to committees. In addition, local schools in Cork have benefitted from community service orders through an initiative to paint schools in such areas.

These benefits are not confined to State-funded bodies as charitable organisations also are benefiting from the wide use of community service orders in Cork. A local chapter of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul has obtained assistance from up to eight people carrying out community service projects, which enables it to carry out its clothes recycling project. Again, this is of benefit both to the charity involved and to those working within the system and the service. A similar task is being undertaken by participants working in conjunction with the Greater Chernobyl Cause in Togher. Moreover, in my local area of the south-west ward in Cork, elderly citizens have benefited from the provision of kindling made from broken-down pallets by the Togher Community Service Project that are supplied to them when they receive their meals on wheels. These projects are being funded in conjunction with the probation and welfare service. They involve young people who are paying their dues for their wrongdoing by being obliged to participate in activities that are of benefit to the community.

The Criminal Justice (Community Service) (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill will ensure the expanded use of community service orders, which provide much benefit to those participating in the schemes and to wider society. It is important that Members embrace this Bill and understand it can and will have a positive impact that, as the Minister noted, can be achieved on a cost-neutral proposal. It is to be welcomed and it is important that Members send out the right message, namely, the court system is about the victim and the community and about having greater common purpose. When this Bill is enacted as legislation, it will be important that all parties involved within the criminal justice system will ensure that community service orders are used to their maximum effect and benefit. It is important that this Bill be enacted and that there will be an opportunity for rehabilitation and punishment.

While I hate using the word "punish", those who do wrong must be punished. However, as a teacher and as someone who was involved with young people, I have in mind a number of past pupils who have been through the justice system and the important point is that this is about rehabilitation. It is about allowing people to make amends for what they have done wrong and to repay society. The Minister noted that offenders' responsibility will not be forgotten and they will be obliged to pay their dues but it is imperative that prison is not considered to be the only option. It is important to have an alternative that has accountability and which places responsibility on the person who has done wrong and committed an offence. Our communities deserve to be respected and people deserve to live in a society that has respect for law and order. The Bill will change the landscape of how low-level crime is considered. I commend the Bill to the House and commend the Minister on his initiative.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The next slot was to be allocated to Sinn Féin but as no one is offering, the following slot was allocated to the Government and consequently I call Deputy O'Donovan, who has a maximum of 20 minutes.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I assure the Ceann Comhairle that I will not available of all 20 minutes. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate because from my perspective and that of many recently-elected Members, a number of public order issues have arisen in our constituencies at a local level in housing estates and so on that have caused massive problems. I refer to people being kept awake at night or having damage done to their property, as well as general causing of nuisance and so on. In many cases, people feel powerless when seeking assistance from their public representatives or from the Garda.

From my experience as a member of the joint policing committee in County Limerick in recent years and from speaking to practising solicitors in the District Court in County Limerick, I have noticed the volume of people who come repeatedly before the courts for what might be called petty or minor crimes and that the same people appear time and again. However, it can be an extremely difficult experience for the victim who must endure what might be called a minor crime. As recently as last week, I encountered a constituent who is a widow and who lives alone. She is being kept awake constantly at night because of youngsters who know they are acting irresponsibly and know they are driving her mad. Although they are aware they are behaving in a completely unacceptable fashion, they seem to get off on it. Moreover, they know she will not go to the Garda because she is petrified. Were she to complain to the Garda, she would be obliged to make a statement before anything could happen. It is a vicious circle.

The legislation introduced by the Minister is part of a series of measures that seek to tackle such crimes against people. In a previous Dáil, an exponent of zero tolerance promised Members the sun, moon and stars in respect of what would happen in the criminal justice area but of course that did not happen. There was much talk of zero tolerance, from which came discussion on anti-social behaviour. From my perspective, the latter is a nice way of dressing up in a crime against an individual. It might involve depriving someone of their sleep and while some may not regard this to be important, such deprivation is a huge imposition on those who must get up for work at 6 a.m.

The Bill being sponsored by the Minister will oblige judges to consider community service for those crimes that would incur a penalty of a prison sentence of one year or less. This is a positive measure because if one examines the Irish penal system's recent past, one need only consider those who return to it on a repeat basis. The figures for committals speak volumes when one notes the number of people who wind up in the prison system for crimes that will fall under the ambit of this Bill. Although the Minister stated that this legislation would be cost-neutral, I believe that ultimately, it will lead to a considerable cost saving to the Exchequer. One inevitable consequence is that there will be a freeing-up of prison spaces because of the numbers of people who no longer will serve prison sentences, which in turn will exert less pressure on the State to take up some of the options that were being pursued by the previous Government, namely, the creation of two super prisons. I welcome an aspect to which my colleague, Deputy Buttimer, referred, namely, the willingness to consider what will be covered under the community service orders. However, will the Minister take on board one matter of which I am conscious? I hope the courts will be cognisant of the possibility of an interaction in the community between someone who is on community service and his or her victim. We do not want a bad situation made worse by the victim or the person who reported the offence being intimidated. There will be a degree of temptation. Most of those on community service orders will be repeat offenders. The statistics speak for themselves.

Deputy Buttimer referred to rehabilitation, which is essential. People must feel that they are giving something back to society. Speaking as a teacher, the sad reality for many children is that they get into a rut and wind up before a District Court when they are older. Some of them are on a path to crime from the age of six or seven years. During the coming years, the Government will face the challenge of breaking that cycle via the Departments of Health and Children, Education and Skills, Transport, Tourism and Sport and Justice and Equality.

The Government advocates support for the Garda and its fantastic members. People who are pursued through the courts cannot be put anywhere currently, which means they are out on the street and causing further problems. This Bill will give offenders an opportunity to repay their debts to society in public, so people will see that doing the crime means doing the time.

Deputy Buttimer was correct about the initiatives in his area. I can see some of the benefits that would accrue in my area, particularly given the difficulty in accessing funding for local authority work on parks, amenities and so on. As regards other countries, the research from New Zealand speaks for itself, in that community service orders have proven successful.

The initial statement in the Bill is that the orders do not constitute a major change, but that is wrong. To the many people who contact me, other Deputies and local councillors, this provision will make a difference. Where they have been victimised, they will see penalties being served by the people who perpetrated acts against their communities. This must be welcome.

As I have not had an opportunity to do so yet, I wish the Minister well in the coming years. This is a significant challenge. As for all line Ministers, financing will be a difficult issue for him. This Bill is cost neutral and the initiatives it contains will help. Given the good will built up by the Government by taking measures like this, there is an opportunity to make a real difference in the area of criminal justice. I commend the Bill to the House.

Luke Flanagan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When I was sitting in a cell in Castlerea Prison approximately 15 years ago, I did not believe I would see the day when I made up 50% of the Opposition in Dáil Éireann. When my brother was doing the shuttering on the wall around the prison's wall, I did not believe I would be inside it either, but I was. If one wants an education-----

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The rest are on temporary release.

Luke Flanagan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I also learned the term "TR" when I was in there. It was a popular one. People ran up and down the corridor to the governor every five minutes looking for TR.

To get an education on how the prison system works, one can do a degree in criminology or so on. Another good way to see how it works - or, rather, does not work - is to be with those people in the pit, as it were, and to listen to why they are there. Once one discovers the why, one can start to work out how to ensure they do not return. For this reason, I commend the Bill's initiative. It is a fantastic idea. I am somewhat baffled that it is revenue neutral, as I cannot see how it is not revenue positive. According to the Irish Penal Reform Trust, IPRT - my thanks to the wonderful Oireachtas Library and Research Service, which I discovered in the past week - this initiative could reduce the cost from €77,222 to €2,500. While the physical building will still be provided and there will be many other costs, it is also clear that a great deal of money will be saved.

Public support is necessary. Much of the reason for going down the road of jailing anyone who picks his or her nose, so to speak, is that the media has driven us in that direction. The media seems to forget that, in the United States of America where one can get jailed for not covering one's nose when sneezing, the more people who are put in prison, the more problems the US seems to have. As such, it is great that we are going down this road instead.

I would make certain exceptions to the Bill, for example, white collar crime. A young hardy lad who is sent into prison will need to deal with it all. He might just be able to manage it. However, some white collar criminals might be more deterred by prison. In such cases, prison sentences might not be a bad idea. I am curious about the limit of 240 hours. I do not see why the time could not be extended.

This initiative would affect approximately 14% of prisoners. In light of the IPRT's figures, this would accrue significant savings. If we are to bring the public on board, these savings should be reinvested in the community. For example, there is a prison in my town. To get support, one could say how, if ten people were given community service, the State would be saved approximately €500,000, which could be spent on putting a roof on the swimming pool in Castlerea. Those ten people could even help with the construction. They would be taught new skills, a new service would be brought to my area, the money that would have been spent would instead be saved and the new facility would create employment and render it more likely that young people would get involved in sport, become more active physically and mentally and, as a result, be less likely to end up in prison. If one can show the public it will be a win-win situation, it will receive support and quieten those among the media who want to flog and hang them all, an approach that does not work.

I spent a short time in Castlerea Prison, but I was also moved to Loughan House where I met many young people who, at great cost to the State, were sitting around and discussing with people who they had never met previously what they were going to do when they got out. Invariably, they discussed how to get together and do a better job of robbing some place. Under the community service system, though, they could actually learn something. Research shows that community service does not pull people out of the education system, keeps them in close proximity to their families and so on and is of considerable benefit to their communities.

Since entering Dáil Éireann a couple of months ago, I have heard much that would not send one out of here in great humour or leaping and bounding with hope for life, but great hope could come from this initiative were it carried out in the right way. I understand that we only utilise one third of the capacity of the Probation Service. If so, the initiative is even more revenue positive, given our existing capacity to deal with many of the cases in question.

The initiative is positive, although I will make a suggestion. I am not a hard man and do not proclaim to be one. The most terrifying experience I have had was being brought to prison for the first time. I admit I was terrified. By the second day I was not quite so terrified and after the third day I was anything but terrified as I had acclimatised. I have a suggestion, although it may not fit within the remit of this debate. People can be given community service but they can also be given the experience of one night in prison. On foot of one night in prison an alternative can be explained as the learning of a skill or helping the community. Potentially, somebody could turn turf for the person he or she robbed a couple of months earlier, providing benefit to the victim. People can make a choice, whereas if they go straight to community service without knowing the terrifying prospect ahead of them if they do not toe the line, the effect will not be as powerful. If people are put in jail for a night, they can be shown what it is like. From my experience, I know it to be scary, so people would be far less likely to want to go to prison.

I went to prison twice for non-payment of fines. When I went the second time it was like water off a duck's back and I was not scared. I was never going to be forced to pay a fine anyway as it was a matter of protest. If somebody commits a crime, such a procedure would make that person think twice. I was put in a remand cell on my own and experienced the torture of being able to listen to only one radio station, Midwest Radio, which was playing country and western music. How that did not put me off it for life I do not know. It makes one think. I was correct in what I did but I asked myself why I was there and why I had done what I did. It gives people the chance to think. After a day a person can go out to help Mary, who that person might have robbed. That person could turn her turf. Such action might illustrate which way is good and which is bad. This Bill brings good news and I hope it will be implemented well.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Seán Kenny has ten minutes, although he may use up to 20 minutes.

Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will probably not use the full ten minutes. It is fitting that Deputy Broughan is in the Chair as I thank the electorate of Dublin North-East for electing me again to the Dáil after a 14-year absence. Unlike Deputy Flanagan, I did not have to complete a community service order, although losing a seat is somewhat like it. I pay tribute to those who lost seats in the last general election, of which there were many. I am sure they are going through a difficult time and I empathise with them, having gone through the process myself. I assure them that it is possible to be returned to the House.

I welcome the Bill and, in particular, the section requiring that if an offender has been convicted and the court is of the opinion that a sentence of imprisonment of up to 12 months would be appropriate, the court will consider as an alternative to that sentence the imposition of a community service order. This is a progressive improvement on existing legislation.

I understand a review of community service orders on a value-for-money basis was conducted in 2009, with the review indicating that the scheme was not being used to its full extent. There was potential for significant financial savings by imposing community service orders as an alternative to custody in sentencing for minor offences where a sentence of up to 12 months may be appropriate. The imposition of community service orders would also have a positive impact on an offender and the community benefiting from work carried out.

The Irish Penal Reform Trust has welcomed the introduction of the Bill, and it has indicated the proposed Bill can make a real difference to a number of problems within the justice system. It points out that the Irish prison population has doubled since 1997, with sentence committals rising by 35% in 2009, which is the last year for which it has figures. The figures rose from 8,000 in 2008 to nearly 11,000 in 2009. The trust also points out that 70% of sentenced committals in 2009 were for six months or less. They also point that over 3,600 committals were for road traffic offences in 2009, representing a third of the total. That was an increase of almost 60% from 2008. The trust also argued that community sanctions are much cheaper than imprisonment and, with certain categories of offenders, are demonstrably more effective with lower levels of reoffending. That is of crucial importance in consideration of the Bill.

In 1991, I was Lord Mayor of Dublin and I was granted permission at the time by the Minister responsible for justice to visit Mountjoy Prison following a number of deaths by suicide in the prison. Deputy Flanagan spoke about his experience in Castlerea so I will talk about my experience in visiting Mountjoy, although I visited the facility under different circumstances. I met the prison governor, Mr. John Lonergan, and his prison staff, who allowed me to visit all the areas of the prison I wished to see. At that time I was appalled by the conditions I saw there and, regrettably, little has changed in the intervening period except that overcrowding in the prison has increased. The building of a replacement prison in Mountjoy is still awaited despite all the concerns expressed.

I met prisoners at the time who were there for not having car tax or motor insurance. I found, through discussions with the prisoners, that literacy problems seemed to play a large part in their issues with tax and insurance, etc. I also met a number of Travellers who were imprisoned at the time. Such people would have been better served by being placed on community service orders rather than being incarcerated in Mountjoy Prison. I take this opportunity to commend to the House the record of John Lonergan as a humane and fair governor of Mountjoy Prison.

Luke Flanagan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was a member of Dublin City Council up to six weeks ago so I will discuss the use of community service orders by local authorities and my city council in particular. I was a member of the joint policing committee of Dublin City Council and I am aware that sanctions are needed to deal with cases where people are involved in anti-social activity or crime. There is no getting away from that.

A former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Michael McDowell, introduced a scheme to remove graffiti in Dublin through his Department, although unfortunately it was withdrawn in 2009 because of cuts. In 2008 alone in the council's north-central area - which I represented at the time - €250,000 was spent on removing graffiti. The withdrawal of the scheme in 2009 left a gap in the services provided to remove graffiti and the implementation of such a scheme through community service orders would be welcome. Currently, preparations are being made for the visit of the Queen of England to Dublin. Unfortunately, there is recent evidence of the daubing of graffiti in public areas by people opposing the visit. Extra resources must be put in place to stop this kind of activity.

Dublin City Council's public domain officers have told me there is a list of community projects which could be implemented through an expansion of the community service order scheme for the benefit of the community and the voluntary sector. There is plenty of capacity to utilise the scheme more efficiently in order to complete work in the voluntary community sector.

I can provide one or two examples of the kind of work has been done. The Stardust park in Coolock has been repainted recently. The railings in St. Anne's Park have been repainted. The local communities in these areas are appreciative of such work and of the effort that participants in the schemes have put in. They think it is a positive thing. There is also anecdotal evidence that dialogue sometimes takes place between the participants in the scheme and the youths who created the graffiti or litter in the first place, which can have the positive effect of ending the anti-social activity.

I am aware there have been some objections to works carried out under the scheme, mainly from painting contractors and so on. However, we must bear in mind that the type of work carried out under the scheme is in the community and voluntary sector; it is work that would not otherwise be done. I do not think it can be argued that it is doing anyone out of a job. It must also be said that local authorities often provide many of the materials used in the schemes, so there is little cost to the community and voluntary sector, which is the main beneficiary of this work. I welcome the Bill.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan is on the list, but he is not in the House. He has already spoken. There is nobody from Fianna Fáil present, so we will go back to the Government side. Is anyone else offering to speak on the Government side? No. Then I will turn to Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As soon as possible after the Easter recess. I cannot provide an exact date. Unfortunately, we must await the formation of the committees before Committee Stage can be taken.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister should say that the Bill is being taken on Tuesday, 3 May 2011.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Okay. On Tuesday, 3 May 2011. I will stick with the formula.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, it is the traditional formula.