Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister after his marathon here last night. There will be no objection from this side of the House to the provision of a modern and humane prison service. Many of our prisons urgently require demolition, which will happen in the case of Mountjoy.

I share the Minister's views on drug free prisons. However, there must be proper rehabilitation and modern medical facilities in the prisons. By all means let there be drug free prisons but the other facilities must also be put in place. There will not be a drug free prison unless that is done.

The Bill is short and has three objectives, namely, to privatise certain prison escort services, to provide for live video links for pre-trial hearings and to allow the State to close Mountjoy Prison. I am generally in agreement with the Minister on the provision of live video links for hearings. This measure is primarily designed to reduce the number of prisoner transfers to and from the courts, thereby reducing the cost to the State through the use of video conferencing for certain preliminary court hearings. Instead of being physically brought to court and incurring the necessary expense and security risks, a prisoner can interact with the court by video or television link. We support this provision.

The use of new technology, especially where it has a proven track record, is welcome. However, it is essential that the prisoner be able to interact with the court, that is, to hear and be heard and to consult confidentially with his lawyer. These matters must be catered for as well. This provision should result in significant cost savings, which is welcome.

That is more than can be said for the Minister's aim to privatise certain prison escort services. I am glad that agreement was reached eventually with the Prison Officers Association and that the deal incorporates a co-ordinated prisoner escort service, but the Minister's response to privatise the system in his row with the Prison Officers Association was the result of the high overtime bill. His answer was to reduce the prison officers' hours by outsourcing prisoner escort services. This has been done in other jurisdictions and no doubt it can save money — the Minister mentioned a figure of €25 million — but it could also cost more eventually. What the Minister was suggesting on outsourcing goes directly against the interdepartmental report on staffing and the operation review team, dated July 2002, which states that privatisation of these services will not save money. According to the remarks made by the Minister at the time of publication of the Bill, his motivation in bringing it before the Oireachtas was to allow for a more cost effective and efficient system within the Prison Service, but there is no basis for this belief and the opposite may happen. The bigger problem with this outsourcing and privatising is that the quality of service could decrease when a private company gets its hands on it. Profit will become the primary motive in a situation like that.

Sections 2 to 7, inclusive, deal with the provision of the prisoner escort service, the certification of prisoner custody officers and their functions, etc. I have grave reservations that the level of security could decrease if this ever happens. As we are dealing with the Bill, as published, we must speak about it. I wonder what will satisfy the Minister as regards the suitability and fitness of the prison custody officer to carry out his or her duties. What checks will be put in place to ensure these people are properly trained and have relevant experience? There is also the intention to issue a certificate of fitness for five years for a prison custody officer. Who is the arbiter on fitness, training, good character, etc.? Will the private contractor or the State be responsible if officers commit human rights violation? Not enough thought has been put into this system. If the Minister could not handle his fight with the Prison Officers Association, he should not have started it because the taxpayer should not have to pay for the high price solutions. If it comes to that, it could be a high price solution and it is of the Minister's making.

There is an inherent contradiction in the Minister's actions on the proposed move of Mountjoy Prison to north Dublin, where the prison will be further away from the courts and prisoner transfers will be more expensive and probably more dangerous. Is it intended to provide for a court building near the new prison? Would it make sense to provide for a court building adjacent to the new prison? That could possibly save money in the long run.

My party has consistently stated that the conditions in Mountjoy Prison are untenable and we have repeatedly called for something to be done about them, but the Minister's responses on the issue have been disjointed and inconsistent. The women's prison, which cost over €18 million and is a good facility, will be knocked down and the State will spend a fortune on Thornton Hall.

I could speak about Thornton Hall for the next half hour but I have no intention of doing so. The site at Thornton Hall was bought by the Department at considerable cost to the taxpayer. Serious questions were raised about the suitability of the site and the manner of the purchase thereof. The Minister has doggedly stuck to his decision — he did so again here today — to purchase this particular site despite the availability of potentially more suitable sites which would be less expensive. No matter what he states, that is the case.