asked the Minister for Justice the offences for which solitary confinement is imposed; by whom it is imposed; the maximum period for which it is imposed; and whether there is any appeal procedure against its imposition.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Solitary Confinement.
8.
The breaches of prison discipline for which punishment may be awarded are set out in Rule 68 of the Rules for the Government of Prisons, 1947 (Statutory Rules and orders 1947, No. 320). The periods for which close confinement may be awarded as a punishment are prescribed in Rules 69 and 71 of those rules and in paragraph (16) of the Schedule to the Prisons (Visiting Committees) Order, 1925. The maximum period for which close confinement may be imposed by the Minister for Justice or a Visiting Committee for a breach of discipline is 14 days and the maximum period that may be imposed by a governor is three days. A prisoner may apply to the Minister for mitigation of any punishment imposed or may apply to the Visiting Committee to recommend such mitigation. Prisoners regularly avail themselves of these procedures.
I should like to take this opportunity to explain that close confinement is seldom imposed. In 1976, for example, only 13 persons in custody, out of a total of 5,631 committals to custody throughout the year, incurred close confinement and that was for three days only. The 13 instances arose from two occurrences—one involving three persons in custody and the other ten persons—when prison officers were attacked and injured. Neither of these two disturbances took place in Portlaoise Prison. As a matter of fact close confinement has been imposed in Portlaoise Prison on only one occasion since November, 1973. That was on 29th November, 1975, when, during a search which disclosed concealed explosives, six prisoners combined to burn the contents of their cells. All six received two days close confinement.
I must explain, however, that due to a combination of factors, including in particular their positive refusal to work, it can happen that prisoners having lost privileges for breaches of discipline are confined to their cells during the period of their punishment save for the time spent on outdoor exercise. Apart from their refusal to work, a contributory factor in making this situation unavoidable has been pressure on accommodation, due in large measure to the necessity to keep separated groups of prisoners who are hostile to one another. Structural alterations which are currently in progress in the prison may ease this problem somewhat.
By way of further clarification may I say that the need to keep prisoners under punishment in separation on the basis I have described has only arisen in the last 12 months or so, that apart from one occasion I shall mention, there were never more than a very few prisoners in separation at any one time.
The only occasion when a large number of prisoners were in separation on the basis described followed the burning out of their cells by 99 prisoners on the day the British Ambassador was murdered. Apart from that, the number of prisoners who have been in separation has been 20 in all.
There are two supplementaries I wish to put to the Minister. First, will he not agree that the distinction between close confinement and solitary confinement is largely a verbal or dictionary distinction?
There is no such thing as solitary confinement because when a prisoner is in close confinement, if he is prepared to take part in the normal regime of the prison, he is not at any time in solitary confinement.
I do not accept the distinction but is the Minister aware that rule 31 of the UN document of 1955 on the standard minimum rules for close confinement, provides that a prisoner should not be subjected to close confinement other than with the consent of the medical officer? Is the Minister aware, also, that there is at least one prisoner in Portlaoise who has been in and out of close confinement so consistently that with the concurrence of the authorities he is to be transferred to the central criminal lunatic asylum?
I am not so aware.
If I supply to the Minister the name of the person concerned will he have the matter investigated?
Yes.
Can the Minister tell the House whether involvement or participation in a hunger strike constitutes grounds for solitary confinement or for being kept alone?
Participation in a hunger strike—in other words, the refusal of food—is a breach of good order and discipline in prisons and gives rise to loss of privileges but not necessarily to close confinement.
In the present instance has this occurred?
It would occur to the extent that people who are on hunger strike are confined to bed. In that sense they would be alone in their cells.
Without taking into consideration the merits or otherwise of the reasons for such actions, would the Minister appreciate that the stress of mind which results from a hunger strike can be aggravated considerably by reason of a person being alone?
That may well be but if the prisoners choose voluntarily to refuse food, they are in breach of prison discipline and if they are confined to bed because of their weak condition it is illogical for them to complain of being left alone.
Is it true that those prisoners on hunger strike have been denied visits both prior to and since transfer to hospital?
We are getting into the realm of another area.
I understand that even wives have been refused visits.
That is not so. The prisoners' families have been invited to visit the men during the last day or so.
But only during the past day or so.
I am calling the next question.