Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

Overcrowding in prisons was much worse in the past than it is now. In so far as temporary release is an indication of overcrowding in prisons, in the mid-1990s between 15% and 20% of prisoners were on temporary release at any given time. This is no longer the case. I intend to continue to provide adequate prison space, not in the hope that it will be filled but in the confident expectation that no prisoner will be released in circumstances in which he or she should not be, that is, owing to the absence of prison space. That is the policy I am trying to pursue.

I indicated on Committee Stage that I would review amendment No. 30. Having re-examined it with the Parliamentary Counsel, I am advised that I should not accept it as it does not improve the text.

On amendments Nos. 31, 32, 35 and 36, amendments Nos. 32 and 36 provide that time limits be inserted into the provisions relating to the publication of reports. Having indicated on Committee Stage that I would re-examine this issue before Report Stage, I have tabled amendments Nos. 31 and 35 to address the matter.

As I indicated, unforeseen issues sometimes arise in respect of the publication of reports. I noted on Committee Stage, for example, that legal advice had to be sought in a particular instance. For this reason, it would be wrong to impose an inflexible and unachievable deadline for exceptional cases. However, I do not want it suggested that a Minister would purposely delay publication, which I have never done. The amendment I propose provides for a statutory duty that the reports concerned be published as soon as practicable. This provision has a legal meaning as it imposes a duty on the Minister to publish reports as soon as it is practicable to do so. In drink driving legislation, for instance, a sergeant must send off samples as soon as practicable, although one might require that this be done in 24 or 48 hours.

My amendment imposes a strong duty on the Minister to publish reports as soon as practicable and makes it improper for him or her to leave them unpublished for no good reason. I assure the Senator that the formula stated is a strong requirement that it is not open to any Minister in future to leave a report unpublished because it is politically inconvenient for the Minister or because the Department is administratively burdened by publishing the report. This will no longer be possible.

Precedents exist for that wording. For instance, in the Garda Síochána Act, the Minister must lay before the Oireachtas a three-year review from the Garda Commissioner for the efficiency, effectiveness and the management and deployment of resources of the Garda Síochána and this must be done as soon as is practicable.

Amendment No. 33 proposes an addition to section 31(6) to clarify that the Inspector of Prisons and Places of Detention can examine the circumstances surrounding a complaint by a Minister for the purpose of fulfilling his or her functions under the Act. I indicated on Committee Stage that I would review this proposal and revert to the House. I have received advice that there are good grounds not to do it but I am persuaded by the Senator's amendment that it is reasonable to say that if the inspector receives a particular complaint, in certain circumstances — although his function is not to investigate the complaint, he can do it along the lines suggested by the Senator's amendment — he shall have the right to examine the circumstances surrounding the complaint for the purposes of fulfilling his other functions. I think this is a reasonable statement of the law as I would like it to be and I will accept that amendment.

I do not propose to accept amendment No. 34. I do not wish to start creating offences because there would be all sorts of arguments whether the request was reasonable or not. I do not wish to criminalise this. The Inspector of Prisons and Places of Detention has the moral authority to ensure compliance with his or her directions and requests. I do not want a situation in which people are being arrested for failing to comply with his request as that is not usual in these circumstances. Inspectors are not usually given that kind of power to impose criminal liabilities on others. This would almost make him into a judge with a contempt jurisdiction and I am not happy to go that far. However, I believe the present inspector has, as a matter of course, received every co-operation from the Prison Service. If he arrives at any given time and asks to see any particular place, he will be shown it. I do not believe that he is being held out or obstructed in the carrying out of his duty. I prefer not to introduce an element of criminalisation into this issue.