Vol. 442 No. 1
8 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Justice if she will make a statement on the circumstances surrounding the death of a prisoner at Mountjoy prison on 13 March 1994; if illegal drugs were a causative factor in the death; and the steps, if any, she proposes to take to deal with the drugs problem in prisons.
12 Miss Harney asked the Minister for Justice her views on the remark by the Governor at Mountjoy Jail, Dublin 7 that 30 per cent of the prison population are drug addicts; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
33 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Justice the steps, if any, being taken to control the drugs problem in our prisons, especially in view of the recent death of a prisoner in Mountjoy Jail, Dublin 7, apparently from a drugs overdose; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
56 Mr. Callely asked the Minister for Justice if her attention has been drawn to the availability of drugs to prisoners, the acknowledgement by prison staff that drugs are being smuggled into prison and the urgent need to address this problem; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Priority Questions Nos. 8, 12, 33 and 56 together.
The prisoner to whom Deputies Mitchell and Gilmore refer was committed to prison on 27 October, 1993 to serve five years for robbery. With normal remission he would have been due for release on 3 July 1997.
Shortly after 2.00 p.m. on 13 April, the prisoner was found unconscious in his cell. Medical assistance was immediately summoned and a doctor arrived within minutes. The prisoner was pronounced dead shortly afterwards.
This case will be fully investigated by the gardaí and an inquest will take place into the death. As the Deputy is aware, under the Coroner's Act, 1962 the coroner is an independent officer specifically appointed to investigate such deaths. He may sit with or without a jury of independent citizens and may summon such witnesses, be they eye witnesses or expert witnesses, as he wishes to enable him or the jury to come to a verdict in the case. It is the function of the inquest to inquire not merely into the causes of death in the medical sense but to investigate all circumstances relating to the death. It is a matter for the coroner's inquest to decide on the cause of death, but the indications are that it was related to a drug overdose.
I am, of course, very concerned about the tragedy of deaths in the prisons, whether caused by drug overdoses or otherwise, and in implementing the recommendation of the advisory group on prison deaths, I am satisfied that my Department is doing everything practicable to prevent them. The report of the advisory group had to do mainly with the problem of prison suicides and I should, of course, emphasise, for the avoidance of any doubt on the matter, that there is no suggestion that the death referred to by Deputies Mitchell and Gilmore was a suicide. As I have said the inquiry into the causes and the circumstances of the death in this instance will be a matter for the coroner.
I am aware that despite stringent precautions, drug abuse is taking place in Mountjoy and other prisons. The best way to avoid such drug abuse is to prevent all 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 identifiable prisoner-visitor is passing drugs on visits, personal contact is not permitted and they can only communicate through a special glass barrier. Even then there remains the possibility of the prisoner receiving drugs acquired by another prisoner whose visit is not restricted.
It would, of course, be possible to modify the regime for prisoners in such a way as virtually to eliminate the problem. The revised regime, however, 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 intrusive 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 that I would be justified in introducing so restrictive and inhumane a regime which would punish the innocent as well as the guilty and could cause irreparable harm to relationships with families including children. I have, however, asked that the whole matter be kept under continuous review with a view to taking whatever steps are needed, short of the restrictions I mentioned, to contain the problem.
In view of developments which have occurred in community-based treatment programmes I am reviewing the programmes available for drug dependent prisoners. My Department is, for example, in consultation with various agencies involved in methadone maintenance programmes in the community to see how prison-based treatment might be brought into line with public health practice.
The optimal setting to deliver a prison-based methadone maintenance programme would be a drug-free wing. Such wings have been developed in the UK, the Netherlands and Sweden. The prison medical director and other senior officials visited drug-free wings in England and a number of prisons in the Netherlands recently to review their method of operation and to see how they might be adopted here. I will explore this issue in more detail when I have received their report and will make a further announcement when my review is completed.
There is, of course, no doubt that substantial numbers of prisoners are already drug-dependent on committal to prison. That drug dependency has its origin in the community and clearly, therefore, an important priority must be to tackle the problem at community level.
I can assure the House that the drugs problem remains one of my highest priorities. As far as law enforcement is concerned the Garda authorities renew and update their operational strategies on an ongoing basis. The need for a national drugs strategy has been recognised by the Government. In May 1991 the Minister for Health launched the Government strategy to prevent drug misuse. The intention is to tackle the drug problem on every front. Realistic and achievable objectives have been set for the reduction both in the supply and demand for drugs.
This bombastic nonsense has gone on for too long. What the Minister said is almost a repeat of what she said in reply to questions I tabled on 25 November when she stated that the matter was under constant review. How many prisoners will have to die from drug overdoses before she takes action to prevent illegal drugs being available in prisons? Yesterday a young man approached me with a problem typical of many others. He sought help for a heroin addiction problem which he acquired in prison. Is the Minister aware that for as long as the illegal drugs problem is not tackled in the prison system we will merely create potential criminals who will resort to crime when they are released to feed the habit they acquire while in prison? What is the outcome of the review the Minister has been undertaking since 25 November last? Why are illegal drugs still freely available in prison? Why has she not taken on board the concerns I frequently expressed here on behalf of parents that their children may develop drug addiction while in prison?
Most Members agree that there is a certain regime we can put in place in our prisons if we want a drug-free prison system. Perhaps Deputy Mitchell accepts that the various proposals I read out to the House would be acceptable in this jurisdiction, but I do not believe they would. As Minister for Justice, I could not stand over a position where mothers, wives and children, including babies, are strip-searched every time they visit a prison or that prisoners, before and after such visits, are strip-searched by prison staff. It would be grossly unfair to enforce such a regime.
In Mountjoy Prison they operate video equipment for the purposes of detecting illegal drugs. When a prisoner is passed drugs during a visit it may be detected on the video screen. The quantity of drugs is seized by the prison officer concerned and a different regime is applied to such prisoner for future visits. A barrier is erected and he or she is not allowed physical contact with visitors. That does not mean that other prisoners who have not come under suspicion cannot get illegal drugs, or avail of and abuse free association between prisoners before and after visits to pass drugs. We can introduce the regime Deputy Mitchell appears to suggest — although he should clarify his suggestion — but that would not be a humane way to treat prisoners and their visitors, particularly women and children.
In the meantime every other aspect of drug abuse and the passing of illegal drugs in prison is kept under review. Steps are taken immediately when a problem comes to light. If a prisoner is suspected of receiving illegal drugs the matter is dealt with effectively in the prison system.
I must remind the House a rigid time limit applies to priority questions and I cannot permit an inordinate amount of time to be devoted to one question. We have spent eight to nine minutes on this question.
The Chair should apply the same ruling to the answers as he does to the questions; more time is being spent on the answers.
There were four questions.
Deputy Mitchell should know the Chair has no control over Ministers' replies.
That is the problem with Question Time. A man died in prison and I will not allow that be swept away by anybody. The Minister spoke about the inhumane regime she claims I want, but has she read the report to the advisory committee on communicable diseases in prison? It recommends we should not have an inhumane regime and it lists seven steps to prevent the ease of access to illegal drugs in our prison system. Why was it necessary to tell the House last November and again today that she has the situation under review when she had received the report of a review group in May 1993? What steps has she taken to implement the findings of that committee and when will drugs be removed from our prison system?
Before I reply to the Deputy's question I wish to make two points. My reply was to four questions tabled by four Deputies dealing with separate aspects of the initial question. It was wrong of Deputy Mitchell to suggest — perhaps he did so inadvertently — that I am sweeping away the death of a prisoner.
The Minister suggested I am seeking an inhumane regime. If she dishes out such statements she should be prepared to take the consequences on the chin.
Let us hear the Minister's reply.
I am as concerned as Deputy Mitchell and anyone else about any death in our prisons for whatever reason. It is wrong to suggest we are dealing with a suicide because the death appears to be related to drug-taking.
I did not suggest it was a suicide. This is not a report about suicide, but about communicable diseases.
Deputy Mitchell, please desist.
The Minister should read such reports before she deals with such matters in the House.
Deputy Mitchell may not continue to interrupt from a seated position.
The Minister said I spoke about suicide. I did not mention the word. She raised it.
We will proceed to Question No. 9.
The Minister should remove drugs from our prison system.
