Vol. 436 No. 3
8 Mr. Callely asked the Minister for Justice if her attention has been drawn to the problems and drug abuse by certain prisoners in Mountjoy prison; if every measure should be taken by the authorities to stop such problems and abuse; if she will take stringent measures to eradicate this menace within the prison; the new measures, if any, that will be introduced; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
53 Mr. Yates asked the Minister for Justice the steps, if any, she proposes to take to deal with the serious drugs problem in prisons.
I proposed to take Questions Nos. 8 and 53 together.
I am aware that, despite stringent precautions, some drug abuse is taking place in Mountjoy and other prisons. The only way to avoid such drug abuse is to prevent illegal drugs coming into the prisons. Steps which are being taken to keep drugs out of the prisons include a high level of staff vigilance, closed circuit video surveillance, screening of prisoners after visits and regular searches of the prisons.
In this administration we operate a fairly liberal regime for prisoners, including free association between prisoners and free and open contact on visits with families and friends. In that situation there is a real risk that some prisoners and visitors will abuse the freedom by passing illegal drugs on visits and that, later, prisoners will abuse free association by passing drugs to one another.
Where there is a real suspicion that an indentifiable prisoner or visitor is passing drugs on visits, personal contact is not permitted and they can only communicate through a special glass barrier. However, even then there remains the possibility of the prisoner receiving drugs acquired by another prisoner whose visit is not restricted.
Of course, it would, be possible to modify the regime for prisoners in such a way as to virtually eliminate the problem. The revised regime would have to include severe restrictions on free association between prisoners, more frequent searches of cells and prisoners, including strip-searches, the searching of all visitors to prisons, the erection of barriers between prisoners and all visitors to prevent personal contact, even with children, and the introduction of more instrusive technology. While I accept that the drugs problem is a serious one and demands that all reasonable steps should be taken to solve it, I am not satisfied I would be justified in introducing so restrictive and inhuman a regime which would punish the innocent as well as the guilty and could cause irreparable harm to relationships with families including children. However, I have asked that the whole matter be kept under continuous review with a view to taking whatever steps are needed, short of the retrictions I mentioned, to contain the problem.
Does the Department of Justice know any word other than "review"— everything is under review? I do not want a restrictive and inhumane regime rather I want a regime that works. Is the Minister aware that there are parents who are asking that their sons be transferred from Mountjoy? They are concerned that their sons who went into prison without a drug problem will learn their drug habit while in prison, such is the prevalence of drugs in our prisons. How are the prisons so insecure that people can abuse drugs to this extent? There are good grounds to suspect that some people learn their drugs habit while in custody.
I thought I had given an indication in my reply to Deputy Mitchell of the kind of regime we would have to operate if we were to achieve what he wants in Mountjoy and other prisons. One way of stopping it would be to restrict the freedom of access of prisoners and free association of prisoners within the prison. Another means of stopping it would be to strip search all prisoners after visits, including strip searching visitors because, as Deputy Mitchell is aware, there are many ways of concealing drugs on the body that would not be easily accessible without strip searching. Also we could have far more intrusive technological surveillance. The regime we operate here should be sufficient to ensure that the level of drug abuse in our prisons could be kept under control. In our prisons whenever the prison officers and the governor are aware that somebody is involved in the drug scene that person does not have the same free access to their visitors as other prisoners. The type of regime that would eliminate or almost eliminate the drugs problem in our prisons would not be acceptable to anybody and would be a gross intrusion into the privacy of prisoners' and visitors' lives because it would punish the innocent as well as the guilty.
I agree with the Minister that it would be detrimental to human rights to introduce strip searching, particularly of young children, as they go to see their mothers in Mountjoy. That level of surveillance and intrusion would be necessary were such stringent measures to be introduced. Would the Minister agree, given that when we visited the women's prison there were 27 inmates, 15 of whom were drug addicts, that it would be desirable to segregate those women who are self-confessed drug addicts, and well known to the governor of the prison, from those on remand for petty offences and who have no previous history of drugs activity?
I understand from the governor in Mountjoy that no efforts are spared and that prison staff, the probation and welfare service, psychology services, medical care and so on are being made available to the women prisoners who are drug dependent when they go into prison. The purpose is to wean them off the drugs. The difficulty — as Deputy O'Donnell will have realised from her visit — is that most of our women prisoners, of whom we have only a small number, are in prison only for short periods. The time necessary to put in place a rehabilitative programme with each of them is not necessarily fulfilled by the time they leave prison but no effort is spared in that regard. It may be possible to provide the type of segregation, to which Deputy O'Donnell referred, when we build a prison unit to cater specifically for women prisoners.
Does the Minister accept that some people who do not have a drugs problem before they go to prison are introduced to drugs there? Will the Minister indicate the extent of the monitoring of that problem? Will she pursue the question of segregation, which is fairly common in our prison system? There are sex offenders in Arbour Hill, terrorist offenders in Portlaoise and so on. Will the Minister consider introducing a regime under which drug offenders or offenders who are known to have a drug problem at the time of going to prison can be segregated, or put in one prison away or in a particular wing of a prison away from those prisoners who do not have a drug problem? Does she accept there is a need for that type of segregation in relation to drugs as has happened in the case of sex offenders and those convicted for terrorist activities?
We are having an element of repetition.
That may well be an answer to the problem. However, as Deputy Gilmore is aware, the policy in most prisons, as well as in Mountjoy is one of desegregation particularly of HIV positive prisoners. The advisory group on communicable diseases made a number of recommendations in regard to drugs in prisons. They recommended an increase in video surveillance. That recommendation is being implemented. They also recommended prosecution of those who attempt to bring drugs into prison, in other words, visitors who supply drugs to prisoners, and disciplinary action within the prison system against those found to be in possession of drugs. Those recommendations are being pursued vigorously by the prisons division of my Department and by prison staff. Certainly, the point put forward by Deputy Gilmore is something I can have examined.
It seems that the Minister's civil servants write a report defending the status quo and she comes to the House and reads it out. Is she aware that no Member suggested strip searching of babies or anything of the kind? The Minister did not mention, for example, the possibility of using sniffer dogs, mental detectors, the provision of regular training for prison staff or adequate resources for the prison system. What type of strip searches would be needed to find rollers which are used to make cigarettes; burners which are used for melting down heroin, needles which are used for injecting heroin and suringes? Surely, metal detectors and so on would find those items. When will the Minister take this problem seriously and direct that something be done about it given that there are clear indications that far from being rehabilitated some people come out of prison with a drugs problem? There is no point in trying to make me out to be a bogeyman. What is the Minister doing to solve this problem? She is in the driving seat. I would thank the Minister not to come in here and read out those Civil Service replies. This is a problem and it should be addressed by the Minister who is in charge of her Department and is accountable to this House.
If the Deputy were to speak with some of my civil servants he would learn whether I am a Civil Service person. If the Deputy is being painted as a bogeyman he is contributing to it himself. I am certainly not on any kind of a witch hunt against Deputy Mitchell — far be it from me to go on a witch hunt against any Member. In relation to regular training and the searching of prisoners for needles, rollers and so on, I am not well up on the equipment used except what I am shown when I visit a prison or Garda stations.
It is about time the Minister was and she could then come to grips with the problem.
Please, Deputy Mitchell, let us hear the Minister's reply.
Deputy Mitchell is being very unfair to the prison staff. The prison staff are trained to look out for various signs whether equipment, such as that referred to by him, certain behaviour by the prisoners either before or immediately after a visit or during free association with other prisoners. One would imagine from the debate between Deputy Mitchell and I that there was no searching of prisoners during their time in prison or immediately after a prison visit or that visitors were not searched. I said in my reply that regular searches take place and that any equipment found is confiscated. When prison staff become aware of a prisoner's involvement in drugs they do not allow free association with their visitors.
Short of adopting the regime I outlined I do not think any Minister for Justice can say that tomorrow morning, or in two months time, we can have a prison system that is totally free of drugs. If we were to achieve that we would have to put in place the regime to which I referred. As Deputies Gilmore and O'Donnell said, that would not be acceptable in human rights or privacy terms. Every procedure short of that regime has been put in place already and is continuously monitored by the prison staff. There are searches of all visitors to the prison and of prisoners before and after visits. We must continue the vigorous regime already in place.
Given the high cost of maintaining a prisoner — estimated at £36,000 per annuam — and the problems associated with drug addict prisoners, is it not time to question whether prison is the correct place to treat drug addicts and whether we should consider providing therapeutic residential centres where a convicted offender could serve his sentence in a strictly monitored drug rehabilitation unit?
It has always been the policy that the prison regime for drug dependent offenders reflects the public health policy in relation to drug addicts generally. We do not think that drug addicts in prison should be treated differently from drug addicts in the community.
The Minister of State at my Department chairs a group that has looked at the area of the misuse of drugs and, as a result of recommendations, the Misuse of Drugs Bill is being implemented. The group has been attempting to put in place a health and education policy for drug offenders. The question of whether drug dependent prisoners should not be in jail would have far reaching consequences. If we were to go down that road perhaps the better way to approach it would be to take on board Deputy Gilmore's suggestion of segregating prisoners similar to the way we segragate sex offenders and terrorists.
In responding to a number of questions the Minister said she did not have the relevant information and that she was not aware what rollers, burners, needles and syringes were. The serious crime problem in the city is largely due to the fact that we have a drug problem and if the Minister for Justice was from Dublin, perhaps she would realise its extent and take it seriously——
That is very unfair.
Instead I have to listen to a Minister who comes from outside Dublin and does not know about the problem on the ground. Why is she hiding behind the coat-tails of the prison service? The parents of some prisoners are deeply worried that their adult children will pick up a drugs habit in Mountjoy prison. Why is the Minister ignoring the concerns of those parents?
We are having quite a lot of repetition in the supplementary questions.
It is regrettable that Deputy Mitchell put on the record of the House something he has been touting to newspapers.
The Minister should take her medicine.
I am well able to take my medicine.
Deputy Mitchell asked questions and he should be good enough to listen to the reply.
For the Deputy to suggest that I would hide behind the cost-tails of the prison service shows how little he knows about me.
The Minister should examine her replies.
It is unfortunate that a Member of the House suggests that a person's place of residence would interfere with the capacity to carry out his or her duty as a member of Government.
Hear, hear.
If one were to follow the logic — or illogicality — of Deputy Mitchell's argument, one could only have a teacher in the Department of Education, a doctor in the Department of Health and perhaps a solicitor in the Department of Justice.
The Minister does not know what is happening on the ground in Dublin.
Deputy Mitchell has asked questions and he should be courteous enough to listen to the reply.
Sir, you should tell the Minister not to mislead the House.
If the Deputy does not wish to listen to the Minister's replies he has a remedy.
I do not want the Minister to mislead the House — she does not know what is going in Dublin.
There are many exists from this Chamber. If the Deputy persists, he must know the consequences.
Will he be searched on the way out?
Strip searched — but I do not want to become involved in the searching.
