Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)

As I stated on Second Stage of the Prisons Bill 2005, there will be no objection from this side of the House to the provision of a modern and humane prison service. I restate my reservations about the privatisation of certain prison services. In July 2002 the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Irish Prison Service published the report of the prison service staffing and operations review team. This report argued that privatisation of these services will not save money. This section of the Bill is a response to the Minister's commitment to take on the Prison Officers' Association and I welcome his initiative to reduce the unsustainable level of overtime paid to that group. However, the taxpayer should not have to pay for high-priced solutions to problems that do not exist.

In other jurisdictions the experience of prison services that have been privatised has not been positive. In Britain a private security firm, Group 4, took over the running of an asylum detention centre. Shortly afterwards, there were numerous cases of detainees escaping or rioting within the complex. This was due to the inexperience of Group 4 staff. The Minister is not proposing that we privatise the running of prisons in Ireland but private operators will necessarily have to compromise on quality of service and experience of staff. In matters of prisoner transfer, the shortfall in the quality of service and professionalism provided by a private firm, compared to a state operator, will result in decreased security, staff who may not have the requisite training and private prison escorts who may commit human rights violations for which the State would be vicariously liable.

Furthermore, the involvement of the Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces will still be required for the transfer of high security prisoners, unless the Minister is planning to sanction the arming of private prison escorts. There will not be a net saving to the Exchequer and we should seriously consider these provisions before taking such an important step towards privatised prison services.

Fine Gael supports Part 3, which will allow the governor of a prison "to hold an inquiry into the alleged breach" of prison discipline by prisoners. Perhaps this should be extended to all persons in a prison including staff. More importantly, it gives the governor the power to impose punitive sanctions to deal with problems that arise.

I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify some aspects of this part of the Bill. As matters stand, decisions on prison discipline are made by the prison visiting committee. Is the new scheme outlined in the Bill designed to marginalise the prison visiting committee and further centralise decision making in this area? How will this improve the system?

I welcome the safeguards, such as the potential to petition the Minister against a finding or sanction, and the provision for an appeal to an independent appeal tribunal where a sanction involves forfeiture of remission of portion of sentence. However, the qualifications required for a person to sit on that appeals board are unnecessarily restrictive. Under section 16(3), only persons who have been practising as solicitors or barristers for at least seven years may sit on the tribunal. This may be modelled on other tribunals but it overlooks the pool of experience of former prison governors or people who have worked as chaplains, doctors, teachers or a range of other positions in prisons. A person who worked as a prison chaplain for 20 years is sufficiently qualified to deal with the kind of questions that would be addressed by an appeals tribunal.

On reading the Bill, I was struck by the arrogance of the Minister in respect of Part 4. He has removed the construction and modification of prisons from any planning scrutiny or independence. As recently as last July the Houses passed the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act. The development of prisons was not included in the extensive list of projects that can now be fast-tracked in the interests of national strategic infrastructure development. Why is the Minister so afraid that An Bord Pleanála be allowed to consider prison development? This provision removes any accountability, independence or transparency to the process of prison building and modification.

There may be security concerns in releasing designs or plans of the internal layout of a prison but it is not necessary to divulge any secure data to bring a prison building programme into line with normal planning procedures, or even strategic infrastructure development. Does the Minister not accept that this amounts to a further extension of a dictatorial regime?

There is no reason another section could not be added to the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act to include prisons. They may be even included without further amendment since prisons can be regarded as being of social importance, one of the criteria used in the Act to determine whether the Act is relevant to a project. The Minister has excluded any independent oversight of his decisions by An Bord Pleanála in respect of new prison development or developments on sites of old prisons.

The Minister should explain why he should be treated differently from other Ministers with major infrastructural projects. Independent oversight by An Bord Pleanála is an essential ingredient in the checks and balances of good planning and development. Nobody, not even the Tánaiste, should be above this oversight. The Minister is setting himself up as judge and jury on planning and building prisons. He is behaving in an arrogant and self-serving way. The Bill flies in the face of policy decisions of recent years that maintained a critical independent role for An Bord Pleanála regarding our built environment.

I welcome the provision that puts the inspector of prisons on a statutory footing, something for which Fine Gael has been calling for some time. The current inspector, the Mr. Justice Dermot Kinlen, has been rightly critical of the Minister and the current prison regime. I admire him for highlighting some serious issues in our prisons. The manner in which his important reports have been treated by the Minister is deplorable. For the past three years the Minister has held off publishing the inspector's reports until the end of the Dáil session, stifling any debate on them by the Oireachtas. It is cowardly and petty and I hope the change in the status of the inspector's office will cause the Minister to revise his attitude.

Under section 32(3), the Minister will be obliged to publish and lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas, the annual report of the inspector on the performance of his or her functions. Unfortunately, section 32 does not indicate a timeframe within which that requirement must be fulfilled, and I will table an amendment on Committee Stage to ensure it is not delayed as has been the case in recent years. Section 35(1) allows the Minister to "make rules for the regulation and good government of prisons". I was not aware the Minister had to put this in legislation; I thought he already had the power to do this.

As stated on Second Stage of the previous Bill, I share the Minister's views on drug-free prisons, with the proviso that proper rehabilitation and modern medical facilities are set up in prisons. In this regard I am pleased to see the measures in section 35(2)(i) that allows for the testing of prisoners for drugs. However, I have doubts about the effectiveness of mandatory drug testing as it has been unsuccessful in solving prison drug use in other jurisdictions. For example, Scotland recently terminated a mandatory drugs testing programme after ten years because it found it simply had little or no effect on the number of prisoners taking drugs, was costing a substantial amount of money and was proving to be very bad value for money. I am interested in hearing the Minister's response to remarks by the governor of Mountjoy Prison, John Lonergan, that a drug-free prison cannot exist without denying prisoners fundamental rights of access to and physical contact with family members, children and spouses. Is it the Minister's opinion that we should restrict physical contact between prisoners and visitors?

Given that drugs are routinely passed to prisoners in children's nappies, gifts and food and inter-orally, and accepting that there is no foolproof way of non-invasively searching all visitors, what is the Minister's view on balancing prisoners' rights to see their families in person rather than over a telephone line through a Perspex screen with the rights of prison authorities to put in place strict measures to prevent drug infiltration for the good of prisoners and that of the wider community and society as a whole? How does he perceive a scheme to eradicate drug use in prisons operating. Drugs in prisons are a major problem. Leaving aside the apparently tolerated illegality involved, the scope of this problem means non-drug users who are sent to prison are in enormous peril of becoming drug addicts, thereby further exacerbating the significant drug problem. For example, I know of a drug-free wing in Mountjoy Prison where the non-use of drugs is strictly enforced. If a prisoner is found using drugs in that wing, he is transferred to another wing that is not necessarily drug-free. Does the Minister believe this kind of double standard is tolerable and is he convinced the introduction of mandatory drug testing would solve the problem?

I do not have a difficulty with the provisions of section 36. The most important words in the amendments to the 2000 Act are "non-commercial". I would be opposed to any other scheme. However, as long as it pertains to non-commercial work, such as the activities outlined by the Minister in his press release of 14 November 2006, namely, cleaning or kitchen work; educational, training or work experience activities; and the production of goods or services which are for the purposes of raising funds for charitable purposes or are provided without charge or with nominal charge, I am happy for the amendment to the 2000 Act to be passed.

With regard to the provisions in section 37 which allow the Minister to provide for charges to be made to prisoners for goods or services that are not generally available to prisoners, the section as drafted is unduly broad and unspecific. For example, section 37 currently includes telephone calls, access to electronic devices, private medical treatment or escorts provided outside the prison for matters not related to their imprisonment, but there are many other undefined services for which a prisoner could be charged. Furthermore, it is not clear what is meant by some of the specified services. Paragraph (b) refers to access to electronic devices. I or another person might immediately think of the Internet, a computer or even a personal stereo, but someone else might decide paragraph (b) refers to a toaster, a television, a radio or a kettle. Surely the devices included in this section should be clearly specified to remove any doubt. Will it be the case that prisons, notwithstanding the last part of the section, will forbid prisoners from owning their own electronic devices in order that they will have to rent them from the prison? I pose this question for the Minister.

Paragraph (c) is particularly worrying because it covers medical treatment. Does it mean prisons will no longer provide access to a doctor? For the purposes of the section, what does requesting a service mean? What does the Bill mean by "private" medical treatment? Are we talking about an optional visit to a doctor for a check-up or some unspecified reason or are we talking about a prisoner who is experiencing chest pain? At the risk of sounding facetious, if someone collapses and is unconscious, can he or she be deemed to have requested the private medical treatment? I am worried about the precedent that would be created by a legislative proposal that effectively suggests prisoners should not have access to medical treatment unless they are willing to pay for it.

Paragraph (d) allows prisons to charge prisoners for escorts provided outside the prison for matters not related to the imprisonment of those prisoners. I understand the logic behind this and am aware it can be costly for prisoners to be gallivanting around under the supervision of highly trained prison officers. However, I cannot think of many examples where a prisoner who requires a security escort would seek and obtain permission to be out and about. The examples I can think of include attendance at weddings, funerals and other exceptional events. Does the Minister propose a prisoner should have to pay a potentially substantial sum in order to attend his or her father's funeral or his daughter's wedding? There is a substantial lack of clarity in this provision which must be resolved.

Finally, I assure the Minister that Fine Gael supports, in broad stokes, this Bill. However, I have many reservations about its specifics and, as I previously stated, will table amendments to effect changes in this regard on Committee Stage. I hope the Minister will take time to consider them carefully and seriously.