Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)

-----have done since 1997 regarding the building of prison places.

The Irish Prison Service has introduced a range of enhanced security measures in all closed prisons to prevent the flow of and assist in the capture of contraband such as illicit drugs and mobile phones. These include advanced security screening for all visitors and staff, the establishment of a drug detection dog service, the establishment of operational support units to search and gather intelligence, the introduction of body orifice security scanner, BOSS, chairs for the searching of prisoners, and the erection of netting over exercise yards to counteract drugs being thrown over prison walls.

Other preventative measures include cell and area searches, which take place in all prisons on a daily basis. These include random targeted and intelligence-led searches. These measures have had considerable success to date. I am determined to support prison management in taking all reasonable steps to stem the flow of contraband, including drugs, weapons and mobile phones, into our prisons. I leave it entirely up to the experts in this area to determine security requirements in our prisons. It is entirely a matter for management to install whatever security measures it deems necessary within the resources provided by the Oireachtas to ensure contraband does not get into the prisons.

I accept that good accommodation must be accompanied by a diverse range of facilities for prisoners. The Irish Prison Service places very strong emphasis on the provision of education and vocational training activities for prisoners. Training activities are chosen to give as much employment as possible in prison and to give opportunities to acquire skills that help secure employment on release. A wide range of training workshops operates within the institutions. There are classes available covering printing, computers, braille, woodwork, metalwork, construction, industrial contract cleaning, craft, horticulture and electronics. Training in catering and laundry services is also available.

During 2009, new workshops and activities were developed in a number of prisons and a refurbishment and equipment replacement programme continued in others. Over 800 prisoners, or 21% of the daily average population, participated in work training activities on a daily sessional basis during the year. A constant emphasis on quality assurance and care standards in work and training services and programmes was reflected again in 2009, with one prison winning a national award for hygiene for its catering operations. Arbour Hill Prison won the Excellence Ireland Quality Association Emerald award for hygiene in the public service. External accreditation of certified training is also available for a number of courses run within the institutions. Members, on visiting any of our prisons, will be very surprised by and delighted with the investment in training and educational facilities.

There have been significant developments in health care service provision in our prisons. The health care focus has been on improved quality of care, made possible through a number of initiatives, including the implementation of the recommendations in Irish Prison Service Healthcare Standards, the introduction of nurse managers and of nurse-led initiatives such as health screening, diabetic and vaccination clinics, the further development of in-reach services, the establishment of clinical multidisciplinary teams and the provision of enhanced through-care processes in respect of community services.

There has been much adverse comment about slopping out in our prison system, and I do not for one moment seek to minimise the fact that in some of our older prisons this practice still exists. That said, it must be acknowledged that our newer prison accommodation is dealing with this issue to a significant extent. At present, 72% of our accommodation has in-cell sanitation. As Minister, I want to ensure that percentage is increased as much as possible. This can only be done through the building of new, modern state-of-the-art prison cells. In this regard, I must make what one may call a political point, but a very important one nevertheless: one cannot just build a prison or prison cell overnight. Two or three decades ago, there was a certain prison design according to which prisons were built. I am thankful there is now a greater opportunity to build purpose-built infrastructure on prison sites. The Irish Prison Service has learned a considerable amount recently on foot of the rapid increase in the number of cell facilities in prisons. While the issue of procurement has been the subject of investigation by the Committee of Public Accounts, the Irish Prison Service must put cells in place as quickly as possible. It has done so to the best of its ability and has done a marvellous job. It must achieve value for money for the taxpayer and, to the best of my knowledge, has done so.

I will not accept any criticism of the staff of the Irish Prison Service regarding the way they have reacted to a situation which has come about as a result of further investment aimed at increasing Garda numbers. The latter has led to a rapid rise in the number of people being processed through and sentenced in the courts.

In the context of the current building programme, with the development of new prison spaces at Castlerea and Portlaoise and the proposed extension at the Midlands Prison - which is due to open in 2012 - the proportion of prisoners with access to full sanitation facilities will rise to in excess of 80% of the total prison population. The final elimination of the remaining outdated accommodation - mainly at Mountjoy and Cork prisons and, to a lesser extent, at Portlaoise and Limerick - is dependent on the progress of the Thornton Hall and Kilworth prison projects.

Despite the constrained economic circumstances in which we find ourselves, we are proceeding, full steam ahead, in respect of Thornton Hall. The access road is almost complete, a number of on-site services will have to be put in place before development takes place and the building of the perimeter wall will commence in the new year. The construction of the first of three phases, which will comprise 400 cells, will then take place. I am confident that, in the context of the difficult Estimates process relating to next year and succeeding years, the Department of Justice and Law Reform and the Irish Prison Service will have adequate resources at their disposal to enable the development at Thornton Hall to proceed as quickly as possible. I am also confident that resources will be made available to allow construction on phase 1 to proceed in the not too distant future.

I am informed that a new camping-style toilet, which will assist in improving hygiene, is currently being tested on a trial basis at Cork, Limerick and Mountjoy prisons. The initial feedback from the prisoners is positive. The aim behind using toilets of this type is to try to address the situation which obtains at Mountjoy and a number of other prisons in respect of slopping out. I completely accept that the latter issue must be dealt with. As a society, we must try to ensure, to the greatest degree possible, that proper in-cell sanitation is available in our prisons. The ultimate answer in this regard is to build new prison accommodation as quickly as possible, particularly at Thornton Hall, which will provide up to 2,200 prison spaces in the future. This will be of assistance in dealing with the long-term issue of an increasing prison population.

Significant efforts are being made to ensure that an effective, multidisciplinary approach is taken to the management of offenders. The Irish Prison Service is developing and rolling out an integrated sentence management, ISM, system to ensure there will be a prisoner-centred approach to how inmates are assisted during their sentences. ISM was piloted at Arbour Hill and Wheatfield prisons in 2008, extended in 2009 and by the end of this year all newly-sentenced committed prisoners serving one year or more will be participating in the system across the entire prison estate.

When debating penal policy, it is important to remember that non-custodial or alternative sanctions offer an important menu of additional disposals to the courts. In that context, we are always considering measures to keep minor offenders out of prison. I have heard it said on many occasions that I do not possess a strategy. That is not the case. My strategy is to modernise our prison estate while ensuring that people who heretofore were sent to prison in respect of the non-payment of minor fines or civil debts should not be incarcerated. I again place my record on the line in that regard. I have taken a number of legislative initiatives to ensure that what I have outlined will no longer happen. My Department, along with various criminal justice agencies, has been examining alternatives to custody. Community service is one such option which offers a real alternative.

As Senators will be aware, the Criminal Justice (Community Service) Act 1983 provides that a court may make a community service order as an alternative to a sentence of imprisonment in respect of a person over the age of 16 years who has been convicted of a criminal offence and who consents to such an order being made. A community service order requires an offender to perform unpaid work for between 40 and 240 hours, usually to be completed within 12 months of sentencing.

The community service scheme provides a very useful disposal option for the courts. A value for money report showed that it could be used much more widely. Based on this, and other recommendations contained in the review, the probation service of my Department is leading the drive to substantially increase the number of persons that could potentially be placed on community service. Initial indications from the Dublin area show a marked uptake in the scheme. This new model of community service will be rolled out nationwide in the coming months. Having regard to the independence of the Judiciary, I am confident that the work of the probation service to encourage greater use of the community service option by the courts will result in greater numbers being placed on the scheme.

I have checked the position with the probation service, which has indicated a willingness to take greater numbers of people onto the community service scheme. I was assured, during preparations and discussions relating to what has become the Fines Act, that the probation service has additional capacity and will be in a position to cope with the placing of extra people on community service. I have also indicated that I will be making an additional legislative change with regard to sentencing policy in order to make provision in respect of community service.

The Legislature has set out a range of sentencing options in respect of offences, including fines, the Probation of Offenders Act, community service orders and the ultimate sanction of imprisonment. I am of the view that there is scope for greater use of community service orders in respect of relatively minor offences and I have prepared legislative proposals in this regard. Senators may recall my comment to the effect that, under the 1983 Act, the courts may make community service orders. In the next week or so I will be bringing before the Cabinet a short Bill which is designed to ensure that, subject to certain conditions, judges will be required to examine community service as an option when they are considering imposing sentences up to a certain level of severity.

The legislative change to which I refer will be introduced in the near future and will require courts to consider imposing community service orders in cases where they envisage imposing prison sentences of six months or less. Until now, it has been entirely a matter for judges - under the provisions of the 1983 Act - to consider whether community service orders should be imposed. In the future, there will be a mandatory requirement on judges who are considering imposing prison sentences of six months or less to examine the option of making community service orders. It is obvious that not all those who appear before the courts would be suitable to have community service orders handed down to them. Judges will, therefore, be obliged to establish whether people will be suitable candidates and also whether there will be places for them.

I again suggest that Senators peruse the probation service's annual report, which clearly outlines the type of work done by those who are placed on community service. I am sure those on all sides of the House will agree that it would be far more preferable to have certain individuals do some service to the community rather than having them committed to prison at further expense to taxpayers. I am not in any way suggesting that people should be let off scot free. If, in lieu of a prison sentence, a person is directed to carry out community service for whatever number of hours and if he or she does not comply with the terms of the relevant order, he or she would then be obliged to serve time in prison.

In the Criminal Justice Act 2006 it is provided that a court may suspend any portion of a sentence, or full sentence, on condition that the offender complies with probation supervision and any other specific conditions which are intended to reduce the likelihood of re-offending. The courts frequently use pre-sentence assessment reports from the probation service in order to inform themselves of the suitability of the defendant for such an order and the conditions that might usefully be attached to supervision rather than imprisonment. In 2009 the courts imposed 528 part-suspended sentence supervision orders and requested over 6,000 pre-sanction reports from the probation service in order to inform sentencing.

I wish to draw attention to the published discussion document No. 2, entitled Criminal Sanctions, in the White Paper on Crime series, which includes an examination of the use of non-custodial sanctions generally. I am not sure whether Senators know that we are currently in a very extensive consultation process on a White Paper on crime. Submissions to the discussions on the preparation of the document regarding criminal sanctions were invited and in August 2010 my Department published reports on the submissions received and the consultation seminar held in Dublin Castle on 28 May 2010. The opinions received will feed into the development of future policy in this area.

As the House will know, the Fines Act 2010 was signed into law at the end of May of this year. It provides for an innovative, balanced and more humane approach to the determination and collection of fines. Capacity to pay, equality of impact and payment by instalments are the key features of this legislation. The Act addresses the issue of capacity to pay by requiring the court to examine the financial circumstances of a person before determining amount of the fine. The person on whom the fine has been imposed will be entitled to make an application to the court to pay it by instalment. The Act also provides for alternatives to imprisonment in the event of non-payment of a fine. In such circumstances a recovery order can be activated and a receiver will be entitled to recover the fine or seize and sell property from the person and recover the fine from the proceeds. A community service order is also an option. Imprisonment in the event of default will be a last resort.

The Act was passed some time back and I have to commence it. The reason for the delay in its commencement is because most of the amendments to the process of collecting fines were made at the very end of the passing of the legislation in the Oireachtas. I spent a lot of time with my officials, using my experience from my time when I practised as a solicitor, to go through the types of processes whereby a person who is fined by a court ends up in Mountjoy or whatever remand centre. There is a ludicrous situation whereby when people have not paid for a television licence or dog licence, as happened in my constituency, bench warrants are being executed by the Garda and people are being brought to prison who have never been near a prison or in court in their lives. I am trying to stop that from occurring as much as possible. Of course we all accept that a person deserves to go to prison if he or she continuously thumbs his or her nose at the authorities and refuses to pay even though he or she has the ability to pay, but there are people who do not have the capacity to pay. A lot of time was spent going through many of the amendments to the Fines Act relating to the sequencing of what happens when a fine is imposed and what hurdles must be jumped before the ultimate sanction of imprisonment. These were only finalised shortly before the Act was finally passed by the Oireachtas. It behoves the Courts Service to set up a system to deal with the logistics and practical issues in the District Court. To my recollection, the District Court system handles about 800,000 cases in any one year and obviously needs a lead-in time.

I hope to commence the sections of the Act by 1 January. We have to set up the receiver system and that will take time. There is a tendering process in that respect which the Courts Service must complete. From 1 January the Fines Act would clearly stop a lot of cases where when judges impose fines and say three months in default, which means people who do not pay the fine will get three months' imprisonment. The Fines Act will contain a sequence where people can pay by instalments. If they do not pay within the due date, a receiver will be appointed. The court receivers will go out to a person's premises and seize goods and sell them in lieu of the fine. If they cannot get any goods from the person the courts can impose a community service order if the person is fit, and if after all that the person does not pay the fine, there has to be the ultimate sanction of prison.

We changed the law some time back on civil debt and now, to the best of my knowledge, there are no people in prison for a civil debt. One will find very few people in prison for owing fines or civil debts. If they are, it is because they have the ability to pay but refuse to pay for whatever reason. It is to be hoped that will do away with a myth. On any given day only 0.2% of the prison population, which is one of the highest proportions in recent times, is in prison for non-payment of a fine. There is a myth that there are a lot of people in prison because they have not paid a fine.

We are also testing the use of electronic monitoring technology on a small group of about 20 prisoners. The test phase will run until Christmas and will then be evaluated to see how it may feature as a management tool for offenders, having regard to cost and the overall findings of the evaluation. The issue of electronic monitoring, while it seems simple and I would support it, is not simple in practice. We have looked at the experience across the water, in Europe and in the US and if we are spending taxpayers' money on it, we want to work properly.

Some of the systems in use abroad are not fit for purpose and there are extreme difficulties with some of the systems which are sometimes held up as examples of what could be used. In the pilot phase we are using the latest technology and GPS rather than a fixed line model which is used in the UK and is less than satisfactory. When the pilot scheme is finished and evaluated, we will then decide whether we can roll it out further. Value for money from the taxpayers' point of view will be something that will be examined.

On oversight of prisons, it would be remiss of me not to mention the important role prison visiting committees and the Inspector of Prisons and Places of Detention play in the performance of valuable functions in the oversight of our prison regime. We need to welcome the reports which are received from the Inspector of Prisons and Places of Detention and prison visiting committees. In some commentary people decry prison visiting committees. I am a fan of them. In recent times when budgets were constrained I examined the possibility of abolishing them because we now have a dedicated Inspector of Prisons and Places of Detention who is doing an excellent job, which I very much welcome. He can arrive at prisons without notice and inspect prisoners and is independent of his functions as a District Court judge. I considered the possibility of abolishing prison visiting committees to save money but under an Act of 1925, I understand, any member of a prison visiting committee can knock on the door of the prison to which the committee of which he or she is a member is attached and demand to see the prison. When I became aware of that fact I said prison visiting committees have an important role to play because they comprise Joe and Mary Citizen with no particular experience of prisons. They are entitled to go into prisons and they do a very valid job. They do not pull back from any criticism of what may or may not be going on in a prison. Between them, the Inspector of Prisons and prison visiting committees fulfil an important function. Recently there was a parliamentary question on prison visiting committees which, if my memory serves me correctly, cost approximately €250,000 to run. The cost has dropped from approximately €700,000 in recent years as there has been a dramatic saving in areas such as the payment of expenses.

On prison staff, when we mention the emergency services such as the ambulance service, the Garda, the fire service and staff in accident and emergency departments, we tend to forget that staff in the Irish Prison Service work on a 24 hours a day, seven days a week basis. Working in a prison environment is not easy. It requires a mix of skills to support in a humane way the day-to-day prison regime, mindful of the ethos of the Irish Prison Service to keep offenders in safe custody. I express my appreciation of the work carried out in the prison system. I have witnessed at first hand the work staff do and have been incredibly impressed by the way in which they interact with prisoners and particularly, as I stated, the way in which training and vocational facilities are made available to prisoners.

Senator Bacik welcomed the fact that this debate was taking place. When I heard that statement, I remembered the time I was last here for a debate, if my memory serves me correctly, on the Criminal Procedure Bill 2009 in which we provided for a maximum sentence of five years for a particular offence and the Senator proposed a longer sentence of ten years. When we had a debate in the House, the Senator-----