Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

Ba mhaith liom fáilte a ghabháil don Aire Stáit mar gheall ar an ábhar tábhachtach seo do phlé. Táimid ag feitheamh ar na smaointe atá ag an Aire Stáit ar an ábhar seo toisc go bhfuil sé ar a réimse freagrachta aige.

Compared with other countries Ireland's prison population is relatively low, at around 85 per 100,000, as compared with an EU average of 109, while the figure for Britain is 153. On the face of it that is a relatively low prison population. There has been much talk about overcrowding in prisons, but again I believe that the number of places relative to the number of prisoners is more or less in synch at the moment, while obviously there are times when this position is exceeded.

In Belgium the prison figure is 125 per 100,000 of the population. In France it is 130 and in Spain it is 141. Those are the international comparators as regards where we are. More than 80% of Irish prisoners are serving sentences in excess of 12 months, so obviously they are in prison for more serious crimes. That puts in focus the background to the current prison situation in Ireland. There is much emphasis as regards Mountjoy and I realise the former governor has been making comments in that regard. He took a particular approach with which one might agree or disagree. My view is that an over benign approach to the prison population does not necessarily achieve the interests of society generally. It should be a place of rehabilitation, as many Members have said. Also, it should be a place of penance, as it were, for prisoners, many of whom have committed the vilest of crimes.

The conditions in Mountjoy, I know, are not what a civilised society requires. It is a Victorian institution, containing all the elements and indications of that period. However, even in the stringent times we are in, efforts have been made to improve the situation. The acquisition of Thornton Hall, whatever about the costs involved, will afford accommodation for approximately 50% of the current prison population. Value for money comes into this if we are to maximise the facilities based on the very skilled resources that will be available, in all probability, over the next decade or so. In that regard, our tendering systems can sometimes be quite costly. We put contractors who are tendering to a great deal of expense, and obviously only one will be successful. This does not just relate to prisons, as it applies right across the public service. It probably covers the position of the personnel involved, who may not have any expertise in the area, but it does not really serve well the notion of value for money. Many would contend that the system in this regard is overly bureaucratic.

I welcome other developments too. Apart from Thornton Hall there is Kilworth, Dóchas, which will have 70 places in the foreseeable future, Portlaoise, Shelton Abbey and Castlerea, all of which are the focus of capital investment to improve and extend prison facilities. Much discussion has rightly concentrated on the integrated sentence management systems we have. I concur with many who support alternatives to custodial sentences. At the moment there is a reasonable acceptance of that principle through the temporary release mechanism. I believe some 563 prisoners were on temporary release in October, which is similar to parole. The roll-out of electronic monitoring will facilitate this trend further. Obviously, great care must be taken as regards who is on temporary release and who is not. The risk to society and its protection are a fundamental part of that.

Community service orders are playing their part, where people do unpaid work for between one and six weeks. Perhaps there is no reason why that should not be extended, but I am somewhat concerned about the report that while there is a high utilisation of the community service reports by the courts, the scheme is not being used to the extent that it has been in the past. That is a matter of some concern and should be addressed. Community service supervisors are not at full capacity and could provide supervision for three times the number of offenders that have community service orders. There is real scope there and I would like to see this extended. There is no need for people who are not a threat to society to necessarily be incarcerated. However, if the crime is very serious, then obviously they should be, and I do not believe that going to prison should be on a par with entering the Shelbourne or some of our top hotels. They should be a place that one does not aspire to go to, and if one goes there once, one should not have a desire to return.

There are anecdotal stories concerning people who, in winter time, because of lack of accommodation believe that three months in prison might be a nice way to punch in the winter. People involved in the system will acknowledge this. I welcome the fact, too, that a legislative amendment is being made so that judges are obliged to consider community service in cases where custodial sentences are less than six months.

There are a few issues I would like to see tackled, such as the whole remission area of 25%. We should seek to enhance the notion of community work for prisoners along with education. Sex offenders should be obliged to participate in therapeutic courses. I genuinely believe that 25% remission should not apply unless prisoners conform to these norms and one of the criteria should be a sense of confidence in prisoners not reoffending. My understanding is that 50% of those in prison are recidivists within four years. One might argue that 50% are not, but that figure is very high, and while the statistics compare well internationally we should be always seeking to bring that down.