Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1990 > Committee of Public Accounts > Final Report - Appropriation Accounts 1988

AN COISTE UM CHUNTAIS POIBLÍ

(Committee of Public Accounts)

Déardaoin, 26 Aibreán, 1990

Thursday, 26 April, 1990

The Committee met at 11 a.m.

Members Present:

DEPUTY G. MITCHELL in the chair

Mr. P. Graham (Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General), called and examined.

APPROPRIATION ACCOUNTS, 1988 — JUSTICE GROUP.

Mr. D. Mathews, (Secretary, Department of Justice) called and examined.

Chairman.—The Committee of Public Accounts is examining Mr. Desmond Mathews, Department of Justice, in his capacity as Accounting Officer for that Department, on the 1988 audited accounts on Vote 20, Office of the Minister for Justice; Vote 21, Garda Síochána; Vote 22, prisons; Vote 23, Courts and Vote 24, Land Registry and Registry of Deeds. The Comptroller and Auditor General is not with us this morning, he is absent on other important business, but Mr. Patrick Graham, Secretary, Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, is standing in for him, as we agreed. I will ask Mr. Graham to lead us in on paragraph 28, Vote 22, dealing with the Prisons.

Paragraph 28 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

Subhead D. — Buildings and Equipment

Reference was made in my 1982 Report and in the Public Accounts Committee’s Report for 1982 and 1983 to the increase in fees resulting from major changes in the design of four prison projects, including a proposed place of detention for juveniles originally intended to accommodate 120 offenders. My Report also referred to significant specification changes and additional works which arose on a contract to carry out siteworks and to erect a perimeter wall and service buildings for both the place of detention and a women’s prison which were to be erected on adjacent sites at Wheatfield, Clondalkin, Co. Dublin.

The site had been purchased in 1979 at a cost of £0.45 million and the final cost of the siteworks, perimeter wall and service buildings, which were completed in July 1984, was £8.61 million.

In July 1984 the Department of Finance sanctioned the redesign and construction of the place of detention for juveniles with accommodation extended to 320 offenders for a total of £31.32 million, including fees totalling £4.2 million and VAT of £2.36 million. In accordance with the procedures prescribed by the Department of Finance in 1983 for the planning and controlling of public capital projects, a cost control/ supervisory committee comprising representatives of OPW, Department of Justice, Department of Finance and of the professional consultants involved in the contract was set up to oversee the execution of the project and to monitor expenditure on an ongoing basis to ensure that costs were kept within budget.

The contract was completed in February 1988 at a total cost of £36.36 million including fees of £4.59 million and VAT of £3.82 million. The increase over the originally sanctioned sum was mainly due to adjustments to provisional sums, increases in the cost of labour and materials provided for under the terms of the contract and the consequent increases in fees and VAT. The overall total cost to date for the place of detention and for works common to it and the proposed women’s prison is £45.42 million. A decision to proceed with the construction of the women’s prison part of the complex has not yet been undertaken.

In October 1987. the Department of Justice submitted proposals to the Department of Finance for the staffing of the place of detention stating that it was scheduled for completion in January 1988.

The Government decided in October 1988 that the facility should be partially opened from June 1989 to accommodate 160 offenders. The first 16 offenders were transferred to Wheatfield in June 1989 from St. Patrick’s Institution and the total number transferred at 30 September 1989 was 48. The present plan is that 160 offenders will be accommodated in Wheatfield by 18 December, 1989.

Mr. Graham.—Some years ago the Committee were concerned with expenditure incurred on planning a number of major capital projects for the prison service. This paragraph was included in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report for 1988 because of the Committees previous interest and because this is the first of those major projects which has been delivered.

The expenditure was subject to monitoring and the construction was completed broadly in line with the contract price, the £5 million variation being attributed to more or less normal extra costs. The Committee will know the time scale involved in bringing this facility into service and the reasons for this. As the Committee are aware, the Comptroller and Auditor General does on occasion refer to the cost implications or the effect of policy decisions. In this case, the effect was the under-utilisation of an expensive asset and, of course, the spin-off costs which follow from that.

Chairman.—You are very welcome. Mr. Mathews. The total cost up to the time of this account was £45.42 million. Is that the total cost to date?

Mr. Mathews.—That is right. I would just like to expand very slightly on some of the details provided in the paragraph. Just to reiterate the point which the Comptroller and Auditor General has acknowledged, this is the biggest contract ever undertaken by the Office of Public Works and it was completed on schedule and within .01 per cent of budget. This is a fact that should not go unacknowledged. It is acknowledged also that the increase over the original sanctioned sum was mainly due to adjustments in provisional sums, increases in the cost of labour and materials provided for under the terms of the contract and the subsequent increases in fees and VAT. This was all part of the original contract price variation clause so there is virtually no increase over the original sum. The total cost referred to, of £45.42 million, is not all apportionable to Wheatfield as it stands at present. The cost of the place of detention at Wheatfield is £39.84 million and the balance of £5.58 million is apportionable to what is generally referred to as the women’s prison on the adjoining site. A lot of work has been done on that adjoining site. The site was purchased for a start; the site has been developed; it has been enclosed by a wall. A lot of preliminary work, to the cost of £5.58 million, is already done on that site and that is not properly apportionable to what stands up there at Wheatfield at the moment.

Chairman.—So there are two things, one, the place of detention for juveniles and, two, a women’s prison being erected on an adjacent site.

Mr. Mathews: Yes, the place of detention is there and is in the course of being occupied. There is an adjoining site which is walled in. That is colloquially referred to as the site for the women’s prison but perhaps I should just make it clear that it would not be economic to have the site and the size of prison it could accommodate, solely for a women’s prison. While it is colloquially known as the women’s prison, it would accommodate, and our plans would be that it should accommodate, a prison for women but it would also take in quite a number of other prisoners.

Chairman.—Right. The paragraph states that the Government decided in October 1988 that the facility should be partially open from June 1989 to accommodate 160 offenders. I understand that 160 offenders have in fact been transferred and that sanction for the transfer of a further 160 have been obtained. Is that correct?

Mr. Mathews.—Yes, that is right. We reached our target of 160 by the end of December as planned and the number there, as of today, is 236. It is being filled up gradually.

Chairman.—What is the total number detained?

Mr. Mathews.—Three hundred and twenty.

Chairman.—Where are they being transferred from?

Mr. Mathews.—Most of them from St. Pat’s. The idea is that St. Pat’s, as it is freed of prisoners, will be every sustantially refurbished and as it is refurbished provision will be made for a major refurbishment of the present women’s prison which is also part of that complex.

Chairman.—It says that a decision to proceed with the construction of the women’s prison part of the complex has not yet been taken. That was at the time of the audit. Has that decision been taken since?

Mr. Mathews.—No final decision has been taken about what is to be done there. Various possibilities are being examined.

Chairman.—But the juvenile detention area is completed?

Mr. Mathews.—That is completed and is in course of occupation.

Deputy Rabbitte.—At the time this prison was being planned it was the object of a lot of protest, and so on, in the area. At the time the Department made it very clear that what was being constructed at Wheatfield was a women’s prison. That is not what has happened. Would you mind commenting again on the rationale behind that and what led us to the position we are in now?

Mr. Mathews.—I am briefed here on the 1988 accounts, as appear on the agenda, and before I could answer that in any authorative way I would have to look back on the files you are referring to, to the very early eighties. However, my understanding is that while there was talk of a women’s prison, I do not think it was ever the intention that it should be a women’s prison only. I am speaking at a disadvantage as I have not looked up those papers in recent times.

Deputy Rabbitte.—You can take my word for it that it was definitively claimed by your Department at the time and by your Minister at the time that it was to be a women’s prison. I am just anxious to know why we had to go about constructing a prison like this without stating openly what its purpose was.

Mr. Mathews.—I cannot accept that. With due respect, I do not think it was ever stated that it would be a women’s prison solely. I have not got the benefit of the papers here, but my understanding is that there was always the understanding that there would be two institutions there, one for juvenile offenders and the other the women’s prison. Right from the beginning, as I explained, the planning was for two separate enclosures.

Deputy Rabbitte.—Well, like yourself, Mr. Mathews, I do not have the paper work with me either but I can assure you, as somebody who was the subject of a lot of representation at the time, that this was the position taken up by your Minister and by the Department. I raised the question really, because of your remarks now about the intention to provide a detention for women adjacent to the existing Wheatfield prison. How real is that? At the time the audit was done no decision was made to do it; there is still no decision made to do it. Is it just something that we would all seem to be in favour of rather than something that we are actually going to do?

Mr. Mathews.—Sorry, I do not want to make an issue of this but just to revert once more to this business of what it was intended to put in at Wheatfield. If you refer to paragraph 28, the intention is acknowledged there, in the very first sentence, to make major changes in the design of four prison projects including a proposed place of detention for juveniles originally intended to accommodate 120 offenders. It seems clear that right from the beginning there was always an intention of having a detention centre for juveniles at Wheatfield. In relation to the question about a women’s prison, there was talk right from the beginning about having a women’s prison there. As I said, colloquially the adjoining site is known as a site for the women’s prison. As of today, no decision has been taken to put a women’s prison there. What has been decided in the short term is that the present women’s accommodation will be refurbished to a very major extent. That is the immediate proposal. What will happen down the line is a policy matter that has not yet been decided.

Deputy Rabbitte.—I do not want to pursue this either but I want to make the point again that what was promoted for Wheatfield was a women’s prison. We do not have a women’s prison at Wheatfield in 1990; what we have is a detention centre for juveniles. I am just curious as to why one has to express the objectives in that fashion. Quite a lot has been written about it, as I am quite sure Mr. Mathews is well aware. Can I ask you, finally, in regard to the difficulties in the prison service, and specifically in Mountjoy, that we are reading about at the moment will the particular facility now in Clondalkin really make any impact on that situation?

Mr. Mathews.—It will. It will make a very decisive impact on it. It is making available to the prison service additional accommodation places. One of the things that is commonly put forward as causing unrest in prison is overcrowding. I would not say that it is the only thing, but it is probably one of the factors and it is one of the things we are conscious of and this provision of 320 places, of course makes a major impact on that problem: it enables the freeing out of all the other institutions. It is enabling improvements in the short term. Its benefits will possibly not be as dramatic as we would like. It is not just a question of adding 320 places straight on to the stock of accommodation because, as I say, the accommodation that has been vacated in St. Pat’s has to be substantially refurbished before it is again put back into use. It is enabling us to do that and therefore it is making a major impact on the available stock of accommodation.

Deputy Rabbitte.—Just on the point, specifically, of Mountjoy, any of us who has visited Wheatfield has been very impressed by the standard of accommodation — is that the right word, Mr. Mathews? — as compared to what one hears about in the other prisons. Specifically in regard to the difficulties at the moment in Mountjoy would Mr. Mathews be patient with me for a moment longer and explain how it alleviates the crisis at Mountjoy in the sense that, as I understand it, the people already transferred, as I think you have confirmed, are from St. Pat’s? Does it mean that some people presently incarcerated in Mountjoy will be transferred to St. Pat’s in due course or what is the situation?

Mr. Mathews.—Sorry, what I said was that most of the people transferred to Wheatfield are from St. Pat’s, but not exclusively. Quite a few other, including some of what are known as protection prisoners, have been put out there also. That is leading to an alleviation of the situation in Mountjoy. I do not know that I go along with the use of the word “crisis” in relation to Mountjoy. We have severe problems there and it is no use pretending that they are not there, but I would not like to say anything or let anything be said here that would heighten the tensions that may be affecting any of our prisons.

Chairman.—We do not want this to widen out into a discussion on the prison service; we will be coming to the Prison Vote later on.

Deputy Connor.—It has been a very costly project — that has to be said — and I take it that the facilities in it are very good. In recent years we have become used to protests in prisons taking the form of rooftop protests. Could I ask, in relation to the security of the prison, is access to the roof of this prison difficult? Is it roofed with slates which are easy missiles for people who wish to protest on the roof?

Mr. Mathews.—The design of this prison was done deliberately to try to avoid that type of problem.

Deputy Connor.—You are taking into account that this is a usual form of protest in a prison — through access to the roof?

Mr. Mathews.—Yes, it has been designed to try to prevent that. We all hope that the design will be successful. It is not a particularly high building, in any event. It is not like some of the buildings we see on television where rooftop sieges can be maintained for a very long time.

Deputy Connor.—The roof itself is made up of some kind of mass material rather than pieces of material, like slates, which are very easily broken up, removed and used as missiles?

Mr. Mathews.—That is my understanding. That is the way the roof is constructed.

Deputy Taylor.—The construction work on this juvenile section is fully completed now, is it?

Mr. Mathews.—Yes.

Deputy Taylor.—What is its full capacity?

Mr. Mathews.—320.

Deputy Taylor.—How many are in it at the moment?

Mr. Mathews.—The arrangement we reached with the Government was that it would be staffed to enable half of it to be occupied by the end of last year. This was done — 160 up to December last year — and it will be finished before the end of this year. As of today it houses 236. It is gradually filling up.

Deputy Taylor.—How many staff are working there now?

Mr. Mathews.—As far as I know, the total staff required there would be 160 — sorry, the full staff requirement there would be 240 and we have about 160 there at the moment.

Deputy Taylor.—They are all males there?

Mr. Mathews.—Yes.

Deputy Taylor.—You mentioned juveniles. What is the age involved?

Mr. Mathews.—They are not exclusively juveniles, but most of them are. There are some adults there but the majority there are 16 to 21, under 21.

Deputy Taylor.—Are there any special facilities there to cope with possible AIDS positions or HIV positive positions, or is there testing, or is that provided for and, if so, how?

Mr. Mathews.—Not there specifically. We have very active plans to provide a unit in Mountjoy. The site has been cleared for it and work is progressing on the design and it is hoped that it will be ready within the next 12 months or so — a unit to deal with AIDS and, indeed, other infectious diseases that affect the prison population.

Deputy Taylor.—You are saying that at this time there is no facility in the prison service to cope with this position?

Mr. Mathews.—There is, of course, but what I am saying is that a special unit, a specially designed medical unit, is in the process of planning at the moment and it is hoped to have it up and running within the next year.

Deputy Taylor.—But there is no special facility provided for at Wheatfield? Was that not considered at the construction stage?

Mr. Mathews.—It was considered whether a section of Wheatfield should be kept aside for that purpose, but as an operational matter it was decided to go the way I have described it. There were good operational reasons for the decision that was taken.

Deputy Taylor.—What were they?

Mr. Mathews.—I would ask you to accept that there were good operational reasons. I do not think it would be appropriate or useful for me to go into what those reasons were. I would ask you to accept what I am saying.

Deputy Taylor.—Are any of the prisoners in Wheatfield HIV positive cases or AIDS cases?

Mr. Mathews.—I could not give any definitive answer to that. The answer is that we do not know, because the testing that is done in prisons to detect HIV is voluntary, so if people do not volunteer or are unwilling to come forward there is no way of telling.

Deputy Taylor.—Are they all invited to volunteer?

Mr. Mathews.—The facility is there and they are all aware of it. They are aware that medical treatment is available.

Deputy Taylor.—How many have volunteered out of the numbers at present in Wheatfield?

Mr. Mathews.—I am a bit inhibited in answering questions on this subject, not for purposes of concealment but just because it is a personal matter to a number of prisoners. But in general terms the number that has been identified is around 50.

Deputy Taylor.—Fifty have been identified in Wheatfield?

Mr. Mathews.—Oh no, in the whole prison population.

Deputy Taylor.—Have any been identified in Wheatfield?

Mr. Mathews.—No. Any that are identified as HIV are housed in Mountjoy.

Deputy Flood.—This place of detention in Wheatfield was started with the intention of accommodating 120 offenders. Is that right?

Mr. Matthews.—That is right.

Mr. Flood.—Then at some stage, around 1984, it was decided to double its capacity?

Mr. Mathews.—It eventually arrived at 320.

Mr. Flood.—Originally, I presume, when this place of detention was designed the professionals advising the Department probably came to the conclusion that it was the correct size for 120 juveniles and then, two years later, we find that number is more than doubled. That does not seem to be good planning from a social point of view, apart from the structural changes that would have taken place in the design of the building. Why was it more than doubled?

Mr. Mathews.—When Wheatfield was originally planned it was one of four major capital projects. Three other prisons were to be built at the same time. The plan was changed in that the extension of accommodation in the other prisons, Cork and Limerick, would not go ahead and that instead there would be a major increase in accommodation in Wheatfield. One of the factors that has bedevilled the whole prison service is that since the early eighties the number of prisoners we have to cater for has increased from roughly 1,200 to over 2,000 at the moment, so it is not surprising that the plans had to be changed. One of the reasons plans had to be changed was that other prisons were not extended as planned.

Deputy Flood.—Deputy Rabbitte referred to the strong local view on this project when it was first mooted to be located in Clondalkin which, in itself, was essentially a transferred site from the north side of the city. At the time community leaders and individuals were assured about the size and eventually accepted the size of the prison. It was unfair that two years later plans were changed as far as numbers were concerned, without taking into account the views of the local community who had expressed strong views on the project at the time it was mooted for Clondalkin and who eventually had acquiesced on the original size of the project. It does not seem to have been a good thing that a project which started out with 120 juvenile offenders in view was more than doubled. Probably advisers who are competent to advise in this area would have suggested that a place of detention for juveniles would probably be best served by at least not being expanded over 120, then the numbers suddenly go up to 320. This is an enormous increase.

Mr. Mathews.—The only thing I can say is that what is under discussion is really a policy decision that was taken in the early eighties. The only other comment I can volunteer— maybe I might be considered to be out of place in volunteering this because you and other people are in a better position to judge — is that I have been present at functions in Wheatfield where the assurance was given by the local governor that relations between the prison management and the local residents’ associations were excellent; various meetings had been called with them. Indeed when I was there we attended a play which was very widely attended by local residents. I am only just putting this information forward, I am not an expert in this area.

Deputy Flood.—That would be the case now. I am just referring to the change. When we speak about juvenile offenders, what age limit are we speaking about?

Mr. Mathews.—Generally 16 to 21.

Deputy Flood.—When an offender in Wheatfield reaches 21 years of age what happens to that offender? Does the offender remain in Wheatfield?

Mr. Mathews.—He can still be accommodated there. Each case would be decided on the particular circumstances of the prisoner and how soon he was due for release. The prisoner could at that stage be transferred to a different institution if it was considered appropriate.

Deputy Flood.—Are there juveniles presently housed in Mountjoy?

Mr. Mathews.—There are some in Mountjoy and in St. Patricks.

Deputy Flood.—Is it intended to remove the juveniles from Mountjoy to Wheatfield?

Mr. Mathews.—As many as possible, to fill up the remaining accommodation there.

Deputy Rabbitte.—While we are on this subject, is there an identifiable category that accounts for the phenomenal increase of 1,200 prisoners to 2,000? Over what period did this increase occur?

Mr. Mathews.—From about 1982 onwards.

Deputy Rabbitte.—Is there a particular category that makes up the majority of that increase?

Mr. Mathews.—The short answer is no. We have not been able to identify any particular category responsible for making any dramatic impact on the increase. Iit seems to be generally across the board.

Deputy Rabbitte.—Have the Department a view on why this explosion in the numbers of prisoners has occurred over a relatively short number of years? I know it is a complex question.

Mr. Mathews.—It is a very complex question and I am sure we have views. I am sure our views are the same as everybody else’s views, that it is due to a number of factors. Apart from the numbers in prison we have a very high number of people who have been through the court system and who are subject to non-custodial arrangements, either on probation or under some kind of community service. There are a total of 3,000 of those outside the prison system.

Chairman.—Paragraph 29 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

Prisons Sub Accounts.

A person serving a prison sentence may deposit cash with the Prison Governor which may be used to make personal purchases in the prison shop. Such deposits are recorded in a prisoner’s deposit account opened for each prisoner and the cash is lodged to the General Cash account of the prison through which all official disbursements and receipts, including the monthly imprest issued by the Department, are accounted for. Purchases made by prisoners are charged against each individual prisoner’s deposit account and the total of all prisoners’ deposits and purchases is summarised in a control account and recorded as cash receipts and payments in the General Cash account of the prison which the Governor furnishes each month to the Finance Division of the Department.

An examination by my officers of the monthly accounts for Mountjoy prison and the Finance Division record showed the cumulative balance of prisoners’ deposits as extracted from these accounts by the Finance Division as overdrawn to a total extent of £5,878 at 31 December 1987 and £8,898 at 31 December 1988. Subsequent to the results of the audit being communicated to the Department, an examination by departmental staff of the prisoners’ deposit account records held in the prison showed that the balances on these accounts appeared to be in credit to a total extent of £12,171 at 31 December 1987 and £17,452 at 31 December 1988. I was concerned that this discrepancy between the Finance Division record and the records held in the prison might indicate a large and growing cash deficit in the General Cash account of the prison; on the basis of the figures shown in the departmental and prison records, the total deficit would amount to £26,350 at the end of 1988, of which £8,301 would have arisen during 1988. I have therefore asked the Accounting Officer how the discrepancy arose and how it grew to its present size without being detected and investigated under the supervisory, control and inspection procedures operated in the prison and in the Department, whether the discrepancy was a result of an irregularity and whether there was any loss of public moneys. I have also asked whether the matter had been fully investigated and if so the outcome of the investigation. In addition I inquired whether the procedures for the handling, control, checking and inspection of all cash and accounting records at Mountjoy prison had been examined and all necessary improvements made and whether the prisoners’ deposits accounts and all other accounts at other prisons were correct and in order.

I have been informed by the Accounting Officer that the investigation is still in progress and that in, the meantime, steps had been taken to prevent irregularities of the type that appeared to have occurred in this case.

Mr. Graham.—Paragraph 29 arises from discrepancies which came to light during an audit examination by my staff of monthly accounts for Mountjoy prison. The follow-up examination by departmental staff revealed a shortfall of £26,000 at the end of 1988, between the amount shown and the prison records for total cash held for all prisoners and the actual cash as stated, in departmental records, this shortfall had increased by over £8,000 during 1988. At the end of the paragraph it can be seen that the Department’s investigation was still in progress at the date of the report. The Accounting Officer has recently informed the Comptroller and Auditor General that the investigation involves detailed checking of a vast volume of material — about 7,500 accounts are open in Mountjoy each year — involving 100,000 transactions. A thorough analysis of the 1988 transactions which accounted for a third of the total discrepancy had so far been completed. The investigation brought to light evidence of misappropriation of moneys during 1988 by a prison officer who is now suspended. It also brought to light evidence which suggested that falsification of records had taken place over a number of years. The Accounting Officer stated that further investigation of the matter by the Garda was still in progress and that the departmental investigation had not been completed.

Regarding the controls in operation to prevent such occurrences, he explained that as a manual system was in use until recently the control procedures, which involved regular and detailed comparison between the Department’s records and the prisoners’ deposit accounts, were very time-consuming because of the volume of accounts and transactions and that available staff resources had not been adequate to carry this out. The Accounting Officer, however, has indicated that the system has now been completely redesigned and computerised to enable daily balancing of the prisoners’ deposit accounts. For misappropriation to occur under the new system collusion between a number of staff in different areas would be necessary and the daily balancing would bring any misappropriation to notice immediately. He has given an assurance that prisoners’ deposit accounts and all other accounts in all prisons were being fully examined and that no further irregularity had come to light but that as a safeguard for the future the new computerised system would be extended to all other institutions.

Chairman.—This appears to have been a breach of trust on people who were not in a position to do anything about it themselves. Would you tell the Committee has the money been recovered and were any prisoners out of pocket as a result of the misappropriations in 1988, or in previous years?

Mr. Mathews.—First of all, I want to assure you that no prisoner has been left at any loss as a result of what happened. In regard to the amount we are talking about, it has not yet been possible to determine exactly the amount involved. It may be as high as is stated here but that has not yet been confirmed. Of necessity I have to be extremely reticent on commenting on this whole matter at this stage. I have provided the Comptroller and Auditor General, as you read out, with some further information which I hope will be reassuring in relation to what happens from now on, that the computer system should be very efficient in preventing anything like this happening again. But, in relation to what may have happened in the past, the position is that the investigations by the staff of my Department are still in progress and the investigation by the Garda is still in progress. The stage had been reached where an officer has been suspended, where a file has been prepared for the DPP and, as a result of that position, the possibility is that charges will eventually be prepared which will result in court proceedings.

I would ask you to accept that it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on this matter. There is a danger that anything I might say could be held to be in some way prejudicial to any court proceedings that might take place. I will readily undertake, if this is agreeable to you, to communicate with the Comptroller and Auditor General and with your Committee on this matter and give you a full, detailed explanation of all that it is about when the investigation is fully completed and when any court proceedings are out of the way.

Chairman.—Was there any loss to the State, Mr. Mathews?

Mr. Mathews.—That cannot, as of now, definitely be stated, but it looks as if there is.

Chairman.—I think it would be unwise of the Committee to in any way take any steps which would be prejudicial to the proper judicial proceedings surrounding this case and in the circumstances I think we should accept the suggestion made by Mr. Mathews, note this account for now and await a final reply from Mr. Mathews when the DPP’s instructions have taken their full course. Is that agreed? Agreed.

VOTE 20 — OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.

Mr. D. Mathews further examined.

Chairman.—Are there any questions? On paragraph F.2 — Legal Aid Board (Grant-in-Aid) — are you, as Accounting Officer, Mr. Mathews, satisfied that the accounting system and the organisational arrangements of the grantee are adequate to ensure the proper administration of this particular grant-in-aid and would you elaborate for the Committee on your view in this regard?

Mr. Mathews.—The accounting system in operation there is fully in accordance with what was approved by the Department of Finance and, indeed, they are subject to audit by staff of the Comptroller and Auditor General. So I have no reason to think that anything there is any cause for worry. Sorry, Chairman, what was the remainder of your question?

Chairman.—The accounting system and the organisational arrangements? The proper administration of this grant-in-aid, are you satisified that the proper structures are in place?

Mr. Mathews.—I am, yes. I have no reason to think there is anything there that should cause me worry.

Chairman.—The staff shortages there have not caused any problems in the area of accounting or proper administration of the grant?

Mr. Mathews.—Certainly nothing that has come to notice.

Deputy McGahon.—On subhead H. — Garda Complaints Board — there is a very small grant of £150,000. Could you tell us, Mr. Mathews, how many complaints were dealt with in this particular year and are staffing arrangements there sufficient to carry out the intended functions of this board?

Mr. Mathews.—About the number of complaints——

Deputy McGahon.—How many are pending?

Mr. Mathews.—I can give you some information on that. The board was set up in April 1987 and the total complaints received to date, say, up to the end of March, is roughly 2,800 — 2,756 is the number I have but that was up to 21 March which was the last day I was to appear here. You can take it that it is about 2,800. The cases that are waiting to be disposed of — arrears at the moment — number 834; I would not like to swear that that figure is right, but it is in the region of 830.

Deputy McGahon.—There is no significant backlog? These cases will be dealt with this year, will they?

Mr. Mathews.—It is hard to be very precise about it, but I would think that 834 would represent less than a year’s work, so they should be.

Deputy McGahon.—Could I just go back to legal aid — £2,600,000 was provided for this board — could you tell me for the man-in-the-street, who benefits from legal aid? How exactly does it work and do victims of crime have money made available from this source?

Mr. Mathews.—No, there are two things here which are sometimes confused. The Legal Aid Board which attracts the grant-in-aid administers a scheme of civil legal aid and advice and it is to make legal services available to persons who genuinely need them and are unable to afford them. The other thing you mentioned is criminal legal aid, which is allocated by the courts when a person is up on a charge. Your question relates to the Legal Aid Board. That is funded, as you see, by the grant-in-aid. It is funded by costs and damages that are recovered as a result of legal action taken and it is funded also by contributions, where appropriate, from the persons who receive the aid. There is a means test applied to people who are applying for that aid. There are 12 full-time law centres. This service is administered through 12 full-time law centres and 19 temporary clinics. There are four full-time centres in Dublin, two in Cork, one each in Limerick, Waterford, Galway, Sligo, Tralee and Athlone and 19 temporary clinics are manned. It employs 28 solicitors and it got a recent injection of funds which should enable it to provide seven extra solicitors and 13 extra administrative staff.

Deputy McGahon.—I note there is no centre in Dundalk, where there is a great need for it, as I am sure you would agree. Can I ask you do victims of crime have access to free legal aid if they wish to procees a charge against somebody? Is it just for people who are accused of crime?

Mr. Mathews.—No, no. The civil scheme, which is the province of the Legal Aid Board, is not related to crime at all; it deals with civil matters. Subhead F.I — Legal Aid — Criminal — that refers to criminal legal aid, available to a person accused of a crime — anybody who is injured in an accident and wants to prosecute that claim, there is no scheme for that, if that is what you are asking?

Deputy McGahon.—I am talking about a person who suffers seriously as a victim of mugging or burglary who may wish to pursue a claim against the person involved. Can such a victim have access to free legal aid?

Mr. Mathews.—Yes, that person would be embarking on a civil case and could get assistance, if needed, from the Legal Aid Board.

Deputy Taylor.—The Legal Aid Board is audited independently. Does the Comptroller and Auditor General audit the accounts of the Legal Aid Board?

Mr. Graham.—Yes.

Deputy Taylor.—Up to when have they been audited?

Mr. Graham.—The audit of the accounts for the last four years, from 1983 to 1988, is almost complete. We are awaiting some information from the board on certain matters and we expect the accounts will be signed and certified within the next few weeks. The audit fieldwork has been completed.

Deputy Taylor.—It is notorious that the system of civil legal aid we have is totally inadequate in a number of very material particulars. It is not sufficiently broadly based and a lot of aspects are excluded, there are waiting lists and so on. Do your Department monitor the waiting lists and the number of people who are seeking the service and cannot get it?

Mr. Mathews.—Certainly we are made aware of what people perceive to be the inadequacy of the scheme through representations and other means. The situation is that the Government are fully committed to having a national service. They have expressed this commitment several times.

Deputy Taylor.—I wonder why they do not do something about it.

Mr. Mathews.—It is a question of available resources and there are so many other demands to be met, but this is a question of policy.

Deputy Taylor.—I fully appreciate that. Have your Department carried out any estimates or assessments as to what moneys might be required to provide the kind of service that the Government are talking about in their commitment? Seeing that the Government have indicated that they intend to provide a proper service, have they asked your Department to assess what the cost would be?

Mr. Mathews.—No, I am not aware that such an exercise has been carried out. I imagine it is like what length is a piece of string. I suppose it could be any length depending on how exhaustive you make the scheme. We have not been asked to carry out any such exercise.

Deputy Taylor.—I think that speaks worlds for the Government’s intentions. They are talking about bringing in a scheme and they have not asked for an assessment to be carried out.

Chairman.—I think that is running a bit beyond the remit of the examination this morning. Have we completed Vote 20? On page 57 — Tribunal of Inquiry into “Kerry Babies Case” — that figure given here is £1.368 million. Was that the final cost?

Mr. Mathews.—Yes, that is right. The only reasons why that is mentioned here in the 1988 Accounts is that there was one outstanding account of £8,000 due to two solicitors who had to be paid. Apart from that I thought that had long been put tidily away, but there was this one further payment made in 1988 which means it has to appear here.

Chairman.—It is completed now?

Mr. Mathews.—Yes.

Deputy Taylor.—Is the criminal legal aid scheme directly administered by the Department?

Mr. Mathews.—That is right. When you say “administered”, we pay the accounts but we have no control over the allocation of the legal aid. That is a matter for the courts.

Deputy Taylor.—I understand that. Is tax deducted at source from the payments under the scheme?

Mr. Mathews.—No, it is not made at source but a return is made to Revenue.

Deputy Taylor.—Why is there a differential in these fees? I thought that doctors’ and professionals’ fees, under the Finance legislation, were subjected to deduction at source. Is there any reason why there is an exception here? Is this specifically included in the Finance Act?

Mr. Mathews.—Sorry, I misinformed you. The tax is deducted at source at the lowest rate.

Chairman.—The standard rate?

Mr. Mathews.—Yes.

VOTE 21 — GARDA SÍOCHÁNA.

Mr. D. Mathews further examined.

Chairman.—On the last occasion we went to have a look at the stocktaking arrangements at Garda Headquarters. Could you tell the Committee what improvements have taken place there since our visit?

Mr. Mathews.—The main criticism of the Committee related to the lack of stocktaking. After we last discussed this, a full stocktaking in the barrackmaster’s stores was carried out in October 1988. Despite the fact that there had not been a full stocktaking there for many years before that, the discrepancies that were discovered were very minor in nature. That was done in October 1988 and the next full stocktaking was carried out in October 1989. That also revealed that nothing is amiss there.

Chairman.—That is the Barrackmaster’s stores?

Mr. Mathews.—That is the Barrackmaster’s stores?

Chairman.—Are there other stores there?

Mr. Mathews.—In the transport stores, which was the other place we visited, stocktaking started, taking 1 October 1988 as a base date, on that date and the 1989 stocktaking was carried out in November 1989. We are back on course carrying out annual stocktaking.

Chairman.—Annual stocktaking has been resumed?

Mr. Mathews.—Yes. There were two other things that we mentioned to improve the maintenance of stores. One was a computer package and the second thing was the appointment of a fleet manager. These two things were interlinked because we wanted to have the fleet manager installed and involved in the implementation of the computerisation programme. Progress can be reported on both of these. We had great trouble trying to get a fleet manager, as a result of redeployment, within the service. That did not work out and we received sanction from the Department of Finance sometime ago to hold an open competition. The interview for that has been held and the procedures are in train for medical examination. We hope to have our fleet manager within the next week or two, or very shortly. As regards the computer packages, the specification for what is needed has gone to Finance for approval. We are hoping to get that approval and then we will be in a position to advertise to buy the package.

Chairman.—All the loose ends have been tied?

Mr. Mathews.—I would like to think so.

Chairman.—In relation to subhead C. — Postal and Telecommunications Services — you overestimated your needs by £1,046,000. Does that mean that certain telecommunications services you intended to provide were not provided?

Mr. Mathews.—The main saving was on the telecommunications side.

Chairman.—But the note says that the expenditure on telecommunications was less than anticipated. Was the spending less than anticipated because there were new systems you intended to introduce that you did not introduce, or was it that you were more economical with the ones you have? In other words, was there a whole programme that you did not go ahead with, or what was the reason?

Mr. Mathews.—I have not focused on this figure before but one of the things that has been introduced that would make an impact on that is a new Garda network which has meant economies in telecommunications traffic, but there was not anything that was planned and did not go ahead.

Chairman.—The new network had economies to that extent?

Mr. Mathews.—To be honest with you, I have not studied exactly how this arose. That would have an impact on it.

Chairman.—Would you send the Committee a note on that?

Mr. Mathews.—I will.

Deputy Connor.—The overall expenditure on policing in Ireland comes to something like £280 million. Garda representatives very often complain about their lack of proper modern equipment for combating crime. We have spent £4,500,000 on radio and other equipment. Do you think that is an adequate or realistic sum to spend in that area, given what the Garda have said about inadequate equipment out of a budget of £280 million? Do you have comparisons with other police forces in the world? I know it would be very difficult to get one with exactly the same kind of expenditure, but you could adjust your figures to show how good are we at expenditure on equipment as opposed to police forces elsewhere?

Mr. Mathews.—We have not carried out that type of comparison because I think it would be extremely difficult to do it in any meaningful way. Our policing system is unique, certainly in Europe and, indeed, in British terms, because we have one national police force. They have three or four different types of police force in many continental countries and in England they have something like 40 different Constabularies. The type of policing we provide here and that we are required to provide is different in ways from what is required on the Continent. We have only a few cities of any substantial size. Most of our population is rural and widely dispersed.

That type of comparison has not been carried out because I do not think it is particularly relevant. What I can say is that there are daily communications between the Department, the Garda Commissioner and the senior officers of the force and there are no instances that I can think of where the Commissioner has come looking for equipment and has given a realistic, reasonable explanation as to why it is needed and where he has not been able to get it, whether it involves radio, transport or anything else.

Deputy Connor.—This criticism has very often been voiced by the Garda Representative Body or the representative body of Garda sergeants and inspectors, and they would not appear to have great grounds for it, according to you, Mr. Mathews and in the opinion of the Department of Justice.

Mr. Mathews.—On the radio scene, for example, which is the one under which you raised the question——

Deputy Connor.—All equipment used in combating crime — the use of modern equipment that they talk about in combating crime?

Mr. Mathews.—I do not want to be critical of the associations or the things they say or the points they make. They have their job to do and management have their job to do. I think if you ask them to be specific about just what exactly they have not got which they should have, they may have difficulty thinking of a reply. I do not wish to be criticising the representative bodies and it is not in my interest to do so. They have their own furrow to plough.

Deputy Connor.—In other words, you are satisfied that the Garda in Ireland have the best possible available equipment for combating crime whether that be computers, vehicles, or whatever?

Mr. Mathews.—When you say the best possible, that is being more confident than I would like to be, but certainly on the radio side I know for a fact that what they have is the most up-to-date that is available anywhere. That applies to a wide range of technical equipment. Also the Forensic Laboratory, which is an independent laboratory but which works very closely with the Garda, is provided with the most up-to-date laboratory equipment, irrespective of what it costs. If they say they need something and we see that what they are saying makes sense, they get it. I would hesitate to say that they have the best in the world but certainly they are very well equipped.

Deputy McGahon.—Earlier you mentioned rural crime. It is an unfortunate fact of life that rural crime is rising. Could I ask how many stations have been closed in recent years and how many small country branches have been closed?

Mr. Mathews.—The answer is none. I think the last station closure took place about 15 years ago. We still have something over 700 stations, 707 or 709, and again this relates back to the previous question. We differ from most other police forces in the number of police stations that we have. For example, in the DMA, that is in Dublin, we have 43 police stations open around the clock. In an equivalent city in the United States or indeed, on the Continent, you might find that there are two or three.

Deputy McGahon.—That also indicates the extent of crime in this country. In fact, it is regularly suggested in newspapers that Dublin is the larceny capital of Europe and I think that answers my own question.

Mr. Mathews.—Sorry, but the 43 stations were there 20 or 30 years ago when crime was not a problem in Dublin.

Deputy McGahon.—It is certainly deeply ingrained now when visitors coming here are stabbed to death on O’Connell Bridge on a spring evening and nobody has, as yet, been apprehended. May I ask are all major Garda stations computerised?

Mr. Mathews.—The answer is yes. When you say computerised, what they have is a VDU and the facility of interrogating the computer in headquarters in relation to incidents, stolen cars and this type of crime.

Deputy McGahon.—In relation to civilian employees, how many would be employed by the Garda and have the Department any plans to augment civilian employment so as to release Garda personnel to fight crime on the streets?

Mr. Mathews.—Yes. The civilian clerical staff attached to the force is something in the region of 570. Some five or six months ago the Minister got authority, despite the embargo on public service numbers, to recruit an additional 250 clerical workers on the basis that these will be put into Garda stations with the direct objective of releasing police from behind the desk duties to patrol work.

Deputy McGahon.—That is progress. Could I suggest that an inordinate number of hours are lost in court proceedings? Very often when you go to court you see a large number of gardaí hanging around waiting to give evidence. Would you agree with that and is there any way in which that situation could be improved?

Mr. Mathews.—Yes, that is a cause of concern, certainly to the Commissioner and, of course, to the Department. It has been tackled again through the aid of computerisation. Very often what happens is that cases are remanded time and time again and the witnesses have to appear each time. It is obviously advantageous to schedule cases to dates that are agreeable to both sides and again to dates when the police witness is on duty rather than to a date that might be his free day and when he would have to attend on overtime. This scheduling is now being done by computer to try to iron out that. Another innovation introduced in the DMA was the extended use of summons procedure as an alternative to keeping people in custody to appear in court on the morning following arrest, which meant that the garda who had been on duty and made the arrest had to come on overtime duty again in the morning to appear in court. The problem is recognised.

Deputy McGahon.—There must be a huge cost?

Mr. Mathews.—It is huge but the summons procedure that was introduced some six months ago has already had positive effects.

Deputy McGahon.—I see that £7.5 million was spent on cars and obviously I do not begrudge any penny spent on the fight against crime, but what about hobnailed boots? The most effective measure I believe, and which the man-in-the-street believes, is the presence of gardaí on the streets not four floating around in cars. What do you say to that situation and are there any plans to put men back on the beat?

Mr. Mathews.—The answer is yes. We touched on that a few minutes ago when we were talking about civilianisation. The direct objective of that policy is to get people out on the beat. Another scheme that has been tried is the community policing scheme where a small number of gardaí are designated to be the police presence in a particular patch. The rostering system, as you can understand, can lead to different Gardaí being on duty at different times and they never get to know the people. Community Policing is designed to overcome that and to get back to the old idea of the village policeman who knew everybody and everything that went on. The idea is to try to get back to that, to have a very small number of police, maybe only two or three, who have responsibility for administering police services in a compact area of streets. They will get to know the people there, get to know their problems, who is responsible for vandalism, co-operate with the parents and do the job that was traditionally done by the village policeman.

Deputy McGahon.—Has that been successful?

Mr. Mathews.—Extremely successful and it has been expanded very widely in the DMA.

Chairman.—Just two points, Mr. Mathews. The first one is, I notice a lot when I go to functions in my constituency or even more generally in Dublin or wherever, that there is often a Garda presence in terms of participating in the function, and I think that is a very welcome development. Since I was vice-chairman of the Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism I have always held the view that it would be a very good use of resources for gardaí more and more to mix with the public. It is a very good use of their time. Perhaps you might communicate that to the Garda Commissioner because we do not often get an opportunity to communicate these views. Where we have problems about bad communication in an area we complain about them and I have noticed more and more that gardaí do turn up at youth clubs, turn up at community events. I think that counts for something, because where there is good morale and good relationships between the force and the locality it helps in the use of resources and in the defeat of crime.

Mr. Mathews.—I am delighted to hear you say that, Chairman, and I will be only too delighted to convey what you said to the Commissioner. I should say there is quite a positive move to encourage this during all training. It is inculcated in gardaí, that this is one of the most valuable services they can provide, and I am delighted to hear that you see that it is bearing fruit.

Chairman.—Secondly, I just want to ask you a question on the presence of gardaí abroad. We did have gardaí in Namibia in 1989. I do not know if we had any there in 1988. Presumably their cost is recouped from the UN?

Mr. Mathews.—That is right.

Chairman.—Do we have gardaí in any other countries abroad?

Mr. Mathews.—Not at the moment. They have done United Nations service on previous occasions, maybe seven or eight years ago, but as of now we have them all home.

Chairman.—In recent years the drugs problem has been brought under control, but from what we hear from Central and South America the world is about to have unleashed upon it a cocaine epidemic and the experience was in the past — again I am harking back to my time on the Crime Committee — that Rotterdam was the port and Amsterdam was the warehouse for these drugs, for their distribution throughout Europe. From my experience at that time, as well, we were told that Ireland and Britain was a two-way route, that if they imported them into Britain they could then send them on into Ireland, or sometimes they would change the route, into Ireland and on into Britain, as the Garda and British authorities caught up with them. We spend a lot of money fighting various areas of crime, including having a Garda drug squad in situ — I think it is still there specifically as a drug squad — and on training gardaí in the drugs area. Do you not think there would be benefit in assigning a garda to the embassy in The Hague in order to liaise with the authorities there, since that is the centre of the distribution of drugs, and to act as an intelligence officer on the spot? I understand that Scotland Yard specifically do have somebody there in that sort of capacity.

Mr. Mathews.—This matter of drug liaison officers serving with police forces abroad is becoming quite topical at the moment. As we go closer and closer to Europe we are involved very frequently in different fora, with police administration, justice and law agencies of the other EC countries. Particular attention is being focused on this whole drug scene. We are very conscious of what you have referred to: that while the drug problem may be less now than it was, and hopefully under control, we cannot rest assured that that situation is going to continue. Secondly, if we do not have any major drugs problems, as we do not, compared to most other developed countries, that we should not be seen as an easy passage into the rest of Europe. We are very conscious of that. This business of the exchange of drugs liaison officers has come up for discussion. There is co-operation between all countries on the drug problem and I would say there is co-operation with us from the drug liaison officers who are serving with other police forces. There is a complete exchange of information between the whole group involved in this. So far, the Commissioner has not seen it necessary to advise putting a garda as a liaison officer in any place. I would think that the situation is that, as we are getting sufficient co-operation from other countries, as of now it is not deemed necessary.

Chairman.—Prevention can be better than cure and in view of the possible economic, effective and efficient use of resources, you might just look at the idea again just to see. From what I read there is about to be unleashed on us another attack, on this occasion by cocaine, and it just might be an area you would look at without getting involved in the policy side on it but on the economic use of resources.

Mr. Mathews.—I take your point, but again it is a vital aspect of Garda work. It is an area where we would be advised by the Commissioner. If he thought that this was necessary we would certainly have to support it.

Chairman.—Perhaps you would discuss it with him.

Mr. Mathews.—I will.

Deputy Rabbitte.—I wanted to underline a point made by Deputy McGahon concerning the necessity to evolve a more comprehensive policy on community policing and to ask Mr. Mathews, as you did, Chairman, to communicate to the Commissioner the outstanding success of the community policing pilot scheme in Tallaght, the only shortcomings of which are that there really are not enough gardaí devoted to such a vast area, but it is a distinct improvement in community relations and an outstanding method of combating crime. I think it has been unequivocally successful.

Mr. Mathews.—I am delighted to hear that and will be delighted to convey what you say to the Commissioner.

Deputy Taylor.—Could I ask about Garda patrols and policing in the Border areas. Is that a very major absorbing factor of Garda time, costings, money and energy?

Mr. Mathews.—There is no doubt about it that the Garda strengths in the Border divisions are considerably heavier than they would be in an equivalent division further from the Border. So there is a fair amount of expense there, but again when you talk about Border security, it is not all centred along the Border. Quite heavy resources are allocated to security duties in Dublin and indeed in every division.

Deputy Taylor.—As far as the Border areas are concerned, could you give the Committee some approximate guide, say in the year we are talking about? What proportion of the money spent on salaries, wages and allowances would have been attributable to the additional volume of energy, work, hours and so on that would have been put into the Border areas?

Mr. Mathews.—I have not got any figure for that and it would be quite difficult to work it out. Any garda along the Border will do anything that comes along. He will deal with ordinary crime as well as subversive crime.

Deputy Taylor.—I know that, but I am thinking in terms of what would be over and above normal?

Mr. Mathews.—I have not got any figure that I would usefully give you as of now.

Deputy Flood.—I notice that there is no reference here to any expenditure on the Neighbourhood Watch Scheme. Would I be correct in coming to the conclusion that the Garda appear to have lost interest in this whole scheme? It proved very successful in the past, or appeared to be very successful, and could well be successful again through the community policing programme.

Mr. Mathews.—Any such impression would be completely wrong. The Neighbourhood Watch Scheme is very active and expanding all the time. I do not seem to have any note on it. The reason there is nothing special shown in the accounts relating to it is that there are no particular expenses relating to it. This, as you know, is a voluntary effort by well meaning people in any neighbourhood who come together and the salary and expenses of the Garda who liaises with them comes under the general subhead. The fact that there is no particular subhead dealing with it should by no means indicate that interest has been lost in it. I hesitate to give you figures that would be wrong but the number of Neighbourhood Watch schemes is something in the region of 600 or 700 and growing all the time. There is no reason to think that interest in it has been lost in any way.

Deputy Flood.—When you say that there are no expenses involved apart from the salaries of the Garda personnel directly deployed to help out in the schemes, there are really. There are expenses involved and that is where we come up against difficulty sometimes. This would relate to publicity material and various sign notices requiring to be erected to indicate to people that there are Neighbourhood Watch schemes in operation. Frequently, there are Neighbourhood Watch schemes in operation but nobody seems to know anything about them. That is an area where expenditure could be looked at.

Mr. Mathews.—I will certainly look at it and raise it with the Commissioner. I am surprised because I know that it was the particular responsibility of one of the Assistant Commissioners who was promoting the scheme very strenuously. My understanding is that all the literature, the brochures, signs and so forth that any group might need were provided for them by the Garda. If there is a problem I will certainly look into it.

Chairman.—You might send on a note on that subject, Mr. Mathews.

Mr. Mathews.—I will do.

Deputy McGahon.—Deputy Taylor raised a question about policing in the Border area. I would just like to remind you that recent statistics have shown that there has been an increase of 29 per cent in the Louth-Meath division and that underlines the need for policing in the Border region which suffers from a spill over of people from the North involved in crime in the Border area. There is one point in relation to that. I asked a question yesterday in the Dáil with regard to how many people were killed in Country Louth in recent years, where every year we head the list of fatal statistics in this country. I was told that 37 people had been killed in the last five years: 24 of them involved Northern drivers and only seven were prosecuted. There seems to be a real problem in that area. Two years ago two young girls of 19 and 20 years of age were killed in Dundalk. The driver of the car was a Northerner and he was given bail and has never been prosecuted.

Chairman.—Mr. Mathews does not have any responsibility——

Deputy McGahon.—Is there a difficulty in prosecuting people from the North of Ireland? It is extraordinary that of the 37 people killed in Dundalk, 24 of the drivers responsible were Northerners and only seven were prosecuted.

Chairman.—These are questions which relate to the Director of Public Prosecutions and not to the Secretary of the Department of Justice.

Deputy McGahon.—Perhaps he could give me some insight, because the DPP is as inaccessible as the Dalai Lama and is answerable to nobody. I would like to know who he is. where he lives and to whom he answers.

Chairman.—That is a question which needs to be addressed by the Legislature but it is not a question for us here this morning.

Deputy McGahon.—I would like to know. I am eight years up here now and I would love to know what age he is, who is he and how does he arrive at his decisions and who is he answerable to? It must be the Turf Club.

Chairman.—You have raised a point but it does not arise here as it is a matter for the DPP. We will note Vote 21.

VOTE 22 — PRISONS.

Mr. D. Mathews further examined.

Chairman.—In relation to subhead H — Community Service Orders Scheme — could you tell the Committee the types and numbers of community service orders under the various headings made during the year? Presumably you have various categories of these. Would you give the Committee what information you have?

Mr. Mathews.—I can give you details of the numbers. Provision for these is made under the Criminal Justice (Community Service) Act, 1983, which came into effect at the end of 1984. This provides a new sanction which the courts can apply in appropriate cases. They provide for a specific number of hours unpaid work which has to be undertaken in agreement with the offender. He has to show a willingness to do what he is told to do. It must be work to the benefit of the community for which the beneficiary would normally be unable to pay. There is a minimum assignment of 40 hours’ work or a maximum of 240 hours. The work is carried out under the general supervision of the probation and welfare service of the Department and it is directly under the supervision of part-time sessional supervisors, who are paid £5 an hour. To date 4,600 people have been assigned to this type of community service and the number is growing. In 1985 it was 698; in 1986 it was 966 people; in 1987, 918; in 1988 it was 1,080 and in 1989 — we only have provisional figures — but it was over 1,000. All of this, referring back to a discussion we had earlier, is keeping people out of prison and putting them on work which is designed to benefit the community.

Chairman.—Could you give an example of the sort of work that has been carried out? Repairs to community halls, work for old people or what?

Mr. Mathews.—That kind of thing. Tidying up graveyards, keeping public places tidy, community halls and scout halls.

Chairman.—The judge actually makes a sentence for so many hours of community service work and the offender agrees to carry out the work with the section of your Department responsible, is that correct?

Mr. Mathews.—Yes, the probation and welfare service. They would assign the work and if he was not willing to do the work he would be given some other type of sentence. It is done in agreement with the offender.

Deputy Connor.—I notice that on subhead A — Salaries, Wages and Allowances — you made a saving of £2.2 million which is explained later on as being due to a strike in the prison. Perhaps you would explain how the saving was made because of the strike. I have an idea that it was because staff were not at work. Was the security of the prison service vulnerable during that period of the strike? That should bring us on to the next question, in view of what has appeared in the media recently about the security of Irish prisons. Are you satisfied, given what we have seen happen on the other island recently, that our prisons are well enough equipped, or secure enough, that there would not be a repeat here of that kind of thing? We had an incident in Limerick this week, in fact.

Mr. Mathews.—To start with the strike. Normally a strike is a very negative type of thing and this one was no exception. But there was a very positive side to it that I think I should mention briefly. Up until this strike occurred, a particular duty in the prisons was done completely on overtime and the overtime bill attaching to this duty was £4 million per annum. The Department saw an opportunity where that £4 million could be saved by the expedient of recruiting 200 additional prison officers. The effect of that would be to enable a new roster to be introduced which would enable this duty to be done without overtime. The 200 extra prison officers, of course, had a cost attached. The cost, in round terms, was £2 million, but the net result was that there was a saving of £2 million. Instead of paying out £4 million on overtime you were saving £2 million and paying out £2 million in salaries and giving employment to 200 people. This proposal was put to the Government and they agreed despite the embargo, that the 200 could be recruited.

In our attempt to negotiate the new roster we ran into difficulties with the prison officers and the strike took place. The saving you refer to there, is practically all, if not all, as a result of the strike, during which the Garda and the military went in and the prisons were managed very effectively. The strike lasted for just about four weeks. I am glad to say that it was possible to sit down with the prison officers and work out the new roster, within very difficult terms of reference. The roster was to be acceptable to management, it was to be acceptable to the prison officers and was to involve no extra cost. That was accomplished, which was no mean feat. The new roster is being worked by the POA. They are happy with it and very good relations have been resumed between ourselves and the prison officers. We needed this good relationship before we could open Wheatfield and where normally you look back on a strike as a very dismal affair, this one had very positive results. During the strike the prison was managed by the Garda and the military stood by and did the cooking. The prison management was preserved effectively. As a result of all that, the prisons’ overtime was cut from roughly £13 million to £6.3 million, which is an accomplishment that should not go unacknowledged. As regards your question about how our security compares with other places——

Deputy Connor.—Are you happy about security? Are we capable of dealing with a Strangeways incident in Ireland? Would we have to deal with it in the way that it was dealt with in Manchester?

Mr. Mathews.—I think prevention is better than anything like that, and that is the aim.

Deputy Connor.—Is security/prevention good enough, given the fact that we are spending £57.5 million?

Mr. Mathews.—What you have to do is try to create a regime that is as humane and as acceptable as possible, within realistic parameters. That is the first point. You do the maximum you can there. You must always be ready for something to happen. You can never think that everything is just all right. You must always be ready for the crisis that may arise. We are as prepared as we think it is prudent to be.

Deputy Connor.—What is the prison population in Ireland at present, in all the places of detention?

Mr. Mathews.—I was going to mention one matter. You saw the recent happening in Limerick where a situation was defused very quickly, with great credit to the people involved.

Deputy Connor.—You only lost a few slates.

Mr. Mathews.—We only lost a few slates.

Deputy Connor.—What is the total prison population at present?

Mr. Mathews.—It is just over 2,000. It generally varies between 2,000 and 2,100 but I think today it is 2,108.

Deputy Taylor.—Could I ask you about the Probation and Welfare Services? They are often regarded as the cinderella service of the prison system, which is to be very much regretted. I have had complaints, and I would like to put it to you, that the officers from the Probation and Welfare Services, who supervise the community service orders that you were talking about, are very poorly paid, and yet I see that the amount granted for these services was not used in full, and that £152,000 of it was not used at all. Would you comment on that? Also, it has been put to me that the Probation and Welfare Services do not have the facilities within the prisons for providing re-education of prisoners, group sessions, particularly in the case of sex offenders, and that sort of thing. They do not have the faciities they need in the prisons for the rehabilitation, in particular of sex offenders, where group therapy and this kind of thing would be an essential part of treatment for them rather than just having them locked up, and they complain about that. Would you accept that the prisons fall short of what is required by way of facilities for rehabilitation programmes and are there any plans to do anything about that?

Mr. Mathews.—You have raised a number of points there. There are facilities available for group sessions and anything of that nature that is required. I agree that for education and rehabilitation there is no end to the facilities that you would like to have, but we have some there. I am not aware that there are any major grievances on the part of the Probation and Welfare Service, if they are looking for something. In relation to pay, I suppose they are like everybody else, they would agitate that they are not getting as much as they should but again——

Deputy Taylor.—What is the rate per hour for a supervisor looking after community service order cases?

Mr. Mathews.—They are not full-time. They are temporary sessional supervisors who would be supervising one of these jobs we are talking about, for example, cutting grass or helping to build a scouts’ hall or something like that. They get £5 per hour. They would be local people engaged for that purpose. They are not part of the permanent welfare services.

Deputy Taylor.—Is that not an incredibly low rate of pay for that kind of employment?

Mr. Mathews.—They are approved by FÁS and again, as I understand it, they would be people who would probably be getting social welfare benefits.

Deputy Taylor.—Of that number of 2,000-plus prisoners, how many would be in prison for civil debt?

Mr. Mathews.—This is a kind of allegation that is made regularly, that a lot of people are in for non-payment of fines and civil debt who should not be there.

Deputy Taylor.—Not fines, civil debts.

Mr. Mathews.—All right, civil debts. The number of people at any stage is about 20 and again most of them would be of fairly short-stay duration. About 20 out of the 2,000.

Deputy Taylor.—If there are 20 people in our prisons today for civil debt, I think it is 20 too many. The idea that in a modern society people would be imprisoned for civil debt— not fines, civil debt — just rebels against one’s sense of civilisation and something ought to be done about that. That ancient system ought to be done away with now, once and for all.

Chairman.—I have to say, Mr. Mathews, that I strongly support those sentiments and I wonder should we be using resources of the State for these purposes at all. Does the taxpayer even know they are spending money on this? It is an ancient responsibility we seem to have inherited.

Mr. Mathews.—The only thing I can say about that is that these commitals are made as a result of full consideration of all the circumstances by the courts. That is all I can say.

Chairman.—The courts apply the law as they find it and I think we have allowed this law on the Statute Books for a very long time. As legislators, perhaps we are initiating it here this morning by raising it in this way.

Deputy McGahon.—First, I would just like to endorse Mr. Mathews’ comments about the success of the community order scheme. It is very successful and I have seen it working very effectively in Dundalk. In relation to prisons, there is a body of opinion — and I am very much among them — that feels that modern day prisons are guesthouses or rest homes and that they are too bloody comfortable. Could I ask what is the percentage of recidivists out of that figure of over 2,000 who are currently in jail?

Mr. Mathews.—I could not give you a figure.

Deputy McGahon.—It is very high, is it not?

Mr. Mathews.—It is quite high.

Deputy McGahon.—This illustrates the belief, underlines the belief, that these modern day prisons have moved very far from the original penitentiaries, the ball and chain method, and that they are too bloody comfortable. They are no deterrent. I think that is part of the reason we have a huge crime problem in this country. Some of the demands by prisoners — demands for conjugal rights, among others — are unbelievable. I do not know where they will end. I suppose some of the bleeding hearts in society will opt for no prisons at all, or open prisons. I think that life is too easy in prisons and that that is one of the reasons for our ever escalating crime situation. The other point I would like to ask Mr. Mathews about is how many Garda personnel — I know I am drifting but I am sure the Chairman will allow me this little indulgence — how many gardaí are involved in the transportation or the security of cash consignments for banks?

Mr. Mathews.—I have no figure for that.

Deputy McGahon.—It is very considerably. I believe the cost is in excess of a million pounds.

Mr. Mathews.—I do not know where that figure came from. It is certainly not the figure I have, but this scheme of gardaí accompanying large cash consignments is actually there at the suggestion of the Government. It is not there at the suggestion of the banks.

Deputy McGahon.—That may be so, but I understand there is a very large cost and I do not know why we should underwrite the banks. On one occasion I said they would screw Maude Fricker — they would screw 40 Maude Frickers if they had the chance. I do not believe that, given the huge profits they are making off the backs of Irish people, they should have this facility, no matter what Government is in power. I resent the use of gardaí and Defence Forces personnel. They should be paid for.

Chairman.—A serious reflection on the reputation of Maude Frickers. We will note the Vote.

VOTE 23 - COURTS.

Mr. D. Mathews called.

No question.

VOTE 24 — LAND REGISTRY AND REGISTRY OF DEEDS.

Mr. D. Mathews further examined.

Chairman.—I understand that a new Registar of Titles has been appointed. Mr. Mathews. Is that correct?

Mr. Mathews.—That is right. That appointment was made earlier this week. We now have a lady Registrar of Titles.

Chairman.—Why are receipts by way of fees returned as an extra Exchequer receipt in lieu of appropriation-in-aid to this Vote? Is that merely a convention?

Mr. Mathews.—That is right; it is just a convention.

Chairman.—It is presumably because the income is so substantial in comparison to the expenditure. Presumably that is the reason that it is not taken as an appropriation-in-aid, which is the normal course.

Mr. Mathews.—Yes.

Chairman.—Small offices such as the Charitable Donations and Bequests and the Attorney General’s Office and others have a separate Accounting Officer. In this particular case, given that it is an entity on its own, how does it come that the Secretary of the Department of Justice is the Accounting Officer for this particular Vote? Is this not a Vote that should have an Accounting Officer of its own?

Mr. Mathews.—I really cannot answer that. The only answer I can give is that I was appointed Accounting Officer.

Chairman.—Your predecessors have always been as well, I think. Have Finance any comment to make on that? There are small areas that have Accounting Officers. This is a particular area where there has been a lot of unease expressed about delays and the use of resources there on a number of occasions. Some colourful descriptions have been given of the industrial operations there on one or two occasions.

Mr. N. McSweeney (Department of Finance).—I think on the question you raised about the appointment of a special Accounting Officer that it might be less easy in the case of the courts to identify a single individual who might be automatically appointed like the case of the Office of Charitable Donations and Bequests. You can immediately identify——

Chairman.—I am talking about the Land Registry not.

Mr. McSweeney.—We will have to look into that, but I think the general question of appointing sub-offices as Accounting Officer was considered in a very general way about ten to 15 years ago in some cases where Accounting Officers had a large number of Votes. However, no change was made in the system whereby the Secretary of the Department of Justice was the Accounting Officer for the Land Registry.

Chairman.—Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Mathews. We can note the examination for now.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.