Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

I am happy to be back in the Seanad for a second time today to present this Bill to the House. As I am sure Senators know, the purpose of the Bill is to encourage the greater use of community service as an alternative sanction to imprisonment. The Bill reflects the commitment set out in the national recovery plan to extend the use of community service orders by introducing a requirement on judges when considering the imposition of a sentence of 12 months or less, to consider first the alternative sanction of community service.

Imprisonment - the deprivation of a person's liberty - is the most serious sanction available to the State in punishing a person convicted of a criminal offence. It is rightly regarded as a sentence of last resort. In the area of penal policy non-custodial or alternative sanctions are an essential part of the sentencing options available to a court when imposing a sanction on a convicted offender. Many minor offences, while carrying potential sentences of imprisonment, may not warrant a sentence of custody. This is where non-custodial sentencing options form an essential part of the judicial discretion in sentencing.

The most common non-custodial sanction used by the courts is the imposition of a fine. Other alternative sanctions include suspended sentences, application of the Probation of Offenders Act, the imposition of a restriction on movement order, or the imposition of a community service order, on which we are focusing today.

Before addressing the Bill, I would, first, like to briefly outline the existing framework for community service. As an alternative sanction to imprisonment, community service was first introduced under the Criminal Justice (Community Service) Act 1983, the provisions of which were first introduced in a Private Members' Bill which I published as long ago as 1982. Under that Act, a court may make a community service order in respect of an offender who is over the age of 16 years and has been convicted of a criminal offence for which a sentence of imprisonment would be appropriate. A community service order requires an offender to perform unpaid work for between 40 and 240 hours. There are a number of conditions which must be met before the making of an order. A court may not apply a community service order unless satisfied, on the basis of an assessment report of a probation officer, that the offender is a suitable person for the purposes of such an order, that appropriate work is available and that the offender has consented to the order.

Increasing the use of the community service scheme was one of the main recommendations of the value for money and policy review of the community service scheme which was published in October 2009. As noted by the review, community service as an alternative sanction to custody achieves several goals benefiting the State, the community and the individual offender. Community service delivers significant financial savings as it is a considerably cheaper sanction than imprisonment. An analysis of the costs involved indicate that the comparative cost of a community service order is unlikely to exceed 34% of the alternative cost of imprisonment and may be estimated to be as low as 11% to 12%.

Community service benefits offenders by diverting them from prison, allowing them to maintain ties with family, friends and community, including continuing in education or employment, as the case may be. It also offers reparation to the community which benefits from the unpaid work of those serving these orders. However, despite such benefits, the value for money and policy review identified a significant shortfall in the capacity utilisation of the community service scheme. Nationwide, capacity utilisation was estimated at only 33%, although, as I will shortly outline, there has been an increase in the number of community service orders, particularly in the Dublin area, in the last year. That low capacity utilisation, identified by the value for money review, was a reflection of the fact that a very small number of courts were responsible for the majority of community service orders made. In 2006 only 29 courts, of 108 court venues, accounted for 80% of the total number of community service orders, while just 12 courts accounted for 60% of the orders for that year. Notwithstanding the recent increase in the use of community service, it is a fact that a relatively small number of courts continue to be responsible for the majority of orders made.

Today the probation service published its 2010 annual report, following its submission to Government. The report highlights the prioritisation given to community service in 2010, in particular the development of a new model of community service which was piloted in the Dublin area, prior to extending it nationwide to all appropriate courts. The model, based around a dedicated community service team with enhanced administrative support, was successful in producing a number of major benefits including more timely and efficient assessments, prompt starting of court orders, improved attendance at work sites and an increased number of orders made. The annual report identifies that eight out of ten community service orders were commenced within ten days of induction, that seven out of ten were completed within six months and that the greater focus in the Dublin pilot area saw an increase in community service orders of 34%.

Given the purpose of the Bill before us today - to encourage greater use of community service orders - it is extremely encouraging to know that the probation service has in place the necessary structures and procedures which will support and manage the growth in usage. I have mentioned the beneficiaries of community service - be it the offender or the Exchequer. The positive impacts extend into our communities and I would like to outline some of those projects undertaken throughout the country. In 2009, the community service graffiti removal project was piloted in south Dublin. Using specialised equipment, it was successful in removing unsightly graffiti in local communities. It delivered significant savings for communities and councils together with providing a positive and visible benefit for communities. For the offenders, a sense of job satisfaction was experienced, particularly given the appreciation shown by the communities for the work done. The positive impact on offenders manifested in consistent attendance, good performance and reductions in warnings. In 2010, the project was extended to the Dublin City Council area, further rolled out to Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown Council area and expanded in Cork.

Community service has also proved useful in reacting to events in local areas. In late 2009, following significant flooding in Athlone and Ballinalsoe, those engaged in community service assisted in the local response with flood relief and clean up work. A significant number of community service projects involve environmental improvement programmes such as the graffiti removal, which I have mentioned, as well as picking up litter, gardening and other environmental improvements. The positive social and community impacts of these projects mean the probation service actively pursues environmental work projects. As well as working with local authorities, partnerships are formed with tidy towns groups and others. Since 2007, the probation service has worked in association with Monaghan Tidy Towns to utilise persons on community service. As a resource for local communities, the importance of community service should not be underestimated and every effort to extend its use should be encouraged.

I have mentioned the lead role taken by the probation service in seeking to increase the number of persons that could potentially be placed on community service. There continues to be scope, however, for greater use of community service. As I stated at the outset, imprisonment is - and should be - a sentence of last resort. This Bill is focused on those sentences of up to 12 months, recognising that there has been a significant increase in sentences of up to this period of time. In 2009, 9,216 persons were committed to sentences of up to one year, representing 85% of committals that year. As these sentences indicate, the offences involved are generally of a minor nature, 40% were for road traffic offences and I believe these offenders should be considered for community service. I believe if the courts gave greater consideration to community service, without the necessity for this legislation, a great many people who have been sentenced to short terms of imprisonment could by now have undertaken such service.

The primary purpose of this Bill is to introduce a requirement on the courts to consider first imposing a community service order as an alternative to custody in certain circumstances. The proposed amendment provides that a court before which a person is convicted and in circumstances where a sentence of up to 12 months would be appropriate,shall consider, as an alternative to that sentence, the imposition of a community service order. This requirement to consider imposing a community service order in such cases will be the primary new feature of the community service process. However, the obligation introduced by this amendment is simply an obligation to consider making a community service order. Whether the court proceeds to make an order is entirely a matter for the court. It may be substantially influenced by the probation report that assists the court to make such a decision. To impose any further obligation on the court would be an inappropriate interference with the judicial function. The decision to impose a community service order will also remain dependent on the satisfaction of the conditions for the imposition of such an order as set out in the 1983 Act and to which I earlier referred.

This is a relatively short Bill and I do not intend to outline its main provisions simply because I have essentially covered them in my speech. Before concluding, I would like to address the impact of the Bill on prison capacity. The motivation to deliver the proposals contained in the Bill is not to deliver prison spaces, although in the short term, it may well provide some benefit in this regard. It is true that the number of committals for sentences of less than 12 months has increased in recent years. In 2009 85% of the total number of sentenced prisoners committed to prison that year received sentences of up to 12 months. According to monthly statistics the proportion of people in custody on a daily basis who are serving short sentences is around 15%. The short nature of these sentences results in quick turnaround of such prisoners with little or no cumulative effect on prisoner numbers for the following year. Increasing community service will not necessarily significantly impact available prison space. This Bill is about diverting those persons receiving these relatively short sentences away from prison and making them subject to a sanction which benefits them and their communities. Community service as an alternative sanction to imprisonment is not new. Today, we are merely seeking to increase the use that is made of this sentencing option.

This Bill is a further step in diverting persons from prison where it is appropriate to do so. The Fines Act 2010 provided a balanced and more humane approach to the determination and collection of fines. That Act also provides for alternatives to imprisonment, including community service, in the event of a failure to recover a fine or its value in seized goods. It delivers a key commitment of the Government programme and is a step in our delivering a sentencing system that provides a safer society at a lower cost to the taxpayer.

I again emphasise that the positive impact of community service is far-reaching - delivering at a national, community and individual level. Financial benefits will accrue to the Exchequer from the significantly lower costs associated with community service as compared to imprisonment. The community obtains a measure of reparation and the benefit of unpaid work. Community service allows offenders to remain in work or education, to maintain links with family and community and to deliver reparation for the offence. There are persons sentenced to short terms of imprisonment that could, and should, be subject to a community service order. This Bill seeks to focus attention on and encourage greater use of this non-custodial sentencing option. It has also been the experience that a significant number of persons, sentenced to short terms of imprisonment, subsequently reoffend and again are subjected to a custodial sentence. It is my hope that greater use of community service orders will result in a different perception from some of these individuals and to some extent reduce the level of recidivism.

I appreciate that the Seanad sat late to take the Bill. I am conscious that it was more than one year ago when as Opposition spokesperson for the Fine Gael Party I made a speech urging that we have such legislation. My predecessor, the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, former Deputy Dermot Ahern, announced some six weeks later the then Government's intention to publish legislation of this nature. He published a measure of a similar nature, which applied only to persons whom a judge was considering sentencing to a period of up to six months. I think it is appropriate that it apply to those who are being considered for sentences of up to 12 months. I think it is correct that we seek to direct those engaged in minor offending, who up to now have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment, to make reparation to the community in the hope it will generate a different perception on their part of the consequence of their offending and redirect the manner in which they consider their behaviour vis-À-vis, the local communities in which they live or whom have been impacted upon by their criminal conduct.

I hope the Bill will have the support of the House.