Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

I am pleased to have this opportunity to open the debate in the House on the Prisons Bill 2005. The purpose of the Bill is to provide for contracting out certain prisoner escort services; the closure of Mountjoy Prison, and prisoners participating in certain court hearings by means of a live television link from prison. The measures provided for in the Bill are intended to provide for a more efficient and effective running of the Prison Service.

Since becoming Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in June 2002, I have been committed to introducing measures to reform and modernise the prison system. While much has been achieved in recent years, we must continue to strive to ensure the State has a modern, humane and cost effective prison service that meets the highest international standards.

I recognised from the beginning that the target I had set for myself was ambitious. It would require major changes in how the prisons operated and significant capital expenditure. In seeking to modernise our prison system I have the full support of the Government in securing the necessary capital investment, for which I am grateful. I am satisfied that the modernisation programme completed and under way will serve us well into the future. It is never easy to bring about change. However, as legislators and policymakers, we must be prepared to look to what is in the overall national interest and beyond narrow local sectional interests.

On examining the prison system, one is confronted with two main challenges. These are the poor physical standards in some of our prisons, most notably Mountjoy and Cork, and the need to ensure our prisons are run efficiently and in a cost-effective manner. That said, I acknowledge other improvements in the prison system are also required and I will address these issues in a proactive way.

The rules governing our prisons date back to 1947. Successive Ministers with responsibility for justice chose to leave the substantive rules as they were. I was determined to ensure that, in tandem with improving and replacing our existing prison infrastructure, the governance of prisons would be set out in modern rules. To that end, last June I published draft prison rules on my Department's website. I intend to bring these rules into use at the earliest possible stage.

The House will be aware that the Government approved a series of measures in November 2003 in the event of failure to reach agreement with the Prison Officers Association on organisational change. Of these measures, the outsourcing of the prisoner escort service is relevant to this Bill. I stress that it has always been my preferred option that organisational change in the Prison Service be achieved through negotiation and with the co-operation of the Prison Officers Association. I am pleased that the proposal for organisational change has been accepted and is now being implemented, allowing for greater certainty in the allocation of resources. In previous years capital investment was curtailed by the constant drain on finances for overtime requirements. Following long and protracted negotiations, a comprehensive proposal for organisational change in the Prison Service was accepted in a second ballot of members of the Prison Officers Association last August. A majority of more than two to one favoured accepting the deal and I welcomed its acceptance. The revised working arrangements stand to benefit both management and staff.

The arrangements agreed in the revised proposal represent one of the most significant change programmes undertaken in the Prison Service in recent years, opening the way for greater flexibility, efficiency and cost effectiveness in every operational area of the State's prisons. Key measures agreed include the replacement of overtime with a new annual "additional hours" system which effectively caps the level of extra attendance costs in the service; the introduction of more efficient staffing and working arrangements backed by new agreed rosters; the establishment of a new Prison Service escort corps, PSEC, which will manage Prison Service escorts more efficiently and effectively through better co-ordination and the use of cellular vehicles; the rationalisation of prison stores and maintenance arrangements; the introduction of a new recruit prison officer grade with modified conditions of service and the elimination of static posts through the use of technology such as electronic gates and closed circuit television to allow the redeployment of staff.

The main benefits to the taxpayer will be greater control of costs, predictable future costs and a more effective service in the future. At the same time, staff will secure attractive, stable and predictable overall rates of remuneration. I am pleased to inform the House that the implementation of the agreed arrangements is proceeding apace. The timeframe for implementation is extremely challenging. Roll-out of the additional hours system which will replace the existing overtime system will begin next month and be completed by February 2006. A co-ordinated prisoner escort service utilising cellular vans will also be activated for all Dublin prisons by mid-November, extending across the service nationally early in the new year.

In accordance with the terms of the agreed proposal, phased payments to staff will be linked to progress on the change agenda. To date, progress has been sufficient to merit payment of an initial lump sum payment and progress is well advanced for the roll-out of the first phase of an annual hours system to replace overtime which will trigger payment of a new operational allowance to staff in the institutions concerned.

Provision has been made for a joint national monitoring and review committee, comprising representatives of management and staff with an agreed independent chairperson nominated by the Labour Relations Commission. It will decide, among other matters, on issues regarding the interpretation of the agreement where consensus cannot be reached. Local monitoring and review arrangements will also be put in place at each institution to oversee the work of the new system and address locally any difficulties that may arise, with recourse to the national committee if required.

Successful implementation of these measures will deliver savings to the Exchequer of €25 million per annum. I have made it clear on several occasions in this House and elsewhere that these savings are essential in bringing order to the cost base of our prisons. I am determined that these savings will be achieved as the roll-out of the change programme proceeds. The new working arrangements will take advantage of technological developments in prison design such as electronic locking systems. The use of video links is addressed in section 11 of the Bill, as well as in relation to visits for prisoners in the new prison rules.

Sections 2 to 7 of the Bill relate to the provision of prisoner escort services. When the Bill was published, it appeared that the proposal for organisational change would be rejected by prison officers. In those circumstances I would have had no choice but to contract out prisoner escort services if the Prison Service was ever to be viable. Fortunately, after further negotiations and a second ballot, we have now progressed to a stage where the proposal for organisational change has been accepted and it incorporates a co-ordinated prisoner escort service operated from within the Prison Service. As this is my preferred approach, I have no plans to contract out the service for the foreseeable future. Agreement is one thing; delivery is another matter. I, therefore, propose to retain sections 2 to 7 in the Bill, although I hope they will never have to be brought into force.

I will give the House a concise outline of the provisions dealing with the escort of prisoners. For the purpose of the Bill, a prisoner is a person in respect of whom an order of a court committing that person to prison is in force. It includes persons remanded in custody or sentenced to imprisonment from the moment the court has ordered their detention. Section 2 provides that the Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, enter into an agreement with a contractor to provide prisoner escort services. Such services would cover the transfer of prisoners to and from prison, their production in court and holding them in detention for those purposes. The service must be provided using persons certified by the Minister to be prisoner custody officers. Under section 3, an individual may apply for a certificate which will be granted only if the Minister is satisfied that the applicant is of good character, has been properly trained and is capable of performing the functions of the position. An applicant who is refused may appeal to the court against the refusal. Conditions may be attached to the issue of a certificate which will be valid for a period not exceeding five years.

Section 5 provides that a prisoner custody officer shall have the same powers as a prison officer, including the power to use reasonable force where necessary. Certain limitations on the power to search are imposed. Prisoner custody officers are obliged to prevent escapes, maintain order, comply with any court order relating to a prisoner and comply generally with the relevant prison rules.

Section 6 makes it an offence for a prisoner custody officer to disclose unauthorised information. Section 7 provides for the appointment of an officer to monitor the performance of contractors and submit a report to the Minister each year relating to the activities of the previous year. If the Minister is of the view that a particular individual, because of his or her behaviour or otherwise, is no longer fit to be a prisoner custody officer, the certificate may be revoked pursuant to section 4. A person who is not properly certified and purports to perform the functions of a prisoner custody officer shall be guilty of an offence.

In section 8 I am providing for the closure of Mountjoy Prison. This is linked to my plans to modernise the stock of prison accommodation. The section amends the Prisons Act 1933 by deleting the provision that excludes Mountjoy Male Prison and Mountjoy Female Prison from its scope. The effect will be to give the Minister the power to close Mountjoy Prison in the future by an order pursuant to section 2 of the Prisons Act 1933 which enabled the Minister to close a prison by order, but was expressed not to apply to Mountjoy Prison. While the effect and motive of this are not completely clear, one interpretation is that in 1933 there was no need to create a statutory power of closure in respect of Mountjoy Prison. Another interpretation is that under current law Mountjoy Prison cannot be closed. This amendment will remove any legal doubt as to whether that is possible. On its own, this measure might be regarded as almost a technical amendment but its importance relates to my determination to provide modern and humane prison facilities for all prisoners and staff.

Senators may be interested to note that Mountjoy Prison was the first purpose built prison in the State. Before its completion in 1850, prisons in Ireland were provided and operated by grand juries, the precursors to county councils. The Prisons Act 1933 originated from the need for legislation to validate an order made in November 1920 closing Tralee Prison. The Circuit Court found in 1932 that the legislative provisions available at the time under the Prisons (Ireland) Act 1877 were not sufficient to allow the prison to be closed and the premises transferred to Kerry County Council. The Prisons Act 1933 was to amend the statutory provisions governing the closing of local prisons and their subsequent disposal which had been contained in sections 30 and 31 of the 1877 Act. Difficulty had been experienced in the interpretation and application of these sections and as a result, there was considerable doubt as to the legal position of some closed prisons, portions of which were retransferred to county councils and others used for public purposes such as police barracks. These doubts were confirmed by a decision in 1932 in the High Court in relation to a prison in Kilkenny. The 1933 Act was to clarify the position for the future. Sections 30 and 31 of the Act of 1877 were repealed and replaced by more explicit provisions. The Attorney General of the time, introducing the Bill on Second Stage, specifically mentioned that Mountjoy Male Prison and Mountjoy Female Prison were excluded from the Bill as there was no reversionary interest in the prison vested in any local authority. The prison was exclusively State property.

Today we need new purpose built prison facilities to provide the range of facilities needed to cater for the type and range of prisoner population accommodated in, for example, the extended Mountjoy Prison campus. Today there are 855 inmates in the Mountjoy Prison complex divided between Mountjoy Male Prison with 499 inmates, St. Patrick's Institution with 184 and the Training Unit with 90, as well as 82 female inmates in the Dóchas Centre. The Mountjoy complex contains some 28% of the total national prison population.

It is neither operationally feasible nor economically sensible to redevelop the 20 acre site at Mountjoy at an estimated cost in excess of €400 million. New prisons will have reduced operational and maintenance costs. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, with the Prison Service and the OPW, set about acquiring a greenfield site in the greater Dublin area in an open and transparent manner. Up to 30 sites were offered and considered, averaging a per acre price of €200,000 with some sites having a price as high as €500,000 per acre. Despite the protestations of some, nobody has identified to me a 150 acre site within ten miles of Dublin city centre which is suitable for a prison site and which would be available to the Department at a lower price than that which has been agreed for the lands at Thornton near Dublin. Five acres of land with planning permission which formed part of the Thornton farm and which were retained by the owner have been priced at €1 million per acre by Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, the Fine Gael spokesperson on justice. Does anyone seriously suggest the remaining 150 acres could be purchased for €6 million? That suggestion has been made. A local estate agent confirmed recently on the RTE radio programme "Five Seven Live" that the price paid by the Department was what he would have expected.