Joint Committee on Justice debate -
Tuesday, 18 Oct 2022

General Scheme of the Inspection of Places of Detention Bill 2022: Discussion

Vice Chairman

Apologies have been received from Deputy Lawless, who is attending a joint policing event on community policing. I ask Members and witnesses to turn off their mobile phones or to switch them to flight mode as they interfere with the sound system, make it difficult for the reporters to cover the meeting and adversely affect television and web streaming.

The purpose of our meeting is to have an engagement with a number of stakeholders as part of the committee's scrutiny of the general scheme of the inspection of places of detention Bill 2022.

I welcome the following witnesses: Mr. Mark Kelly, chief inspector, and Dr. Ciara O'Connell, senior inspector, from the Office of the Inspector of Prisons; Dr. Pauline Conroy and Ms Nuala Ryan from the prison visiting committees; Ms Orla Keane, who is the general council for the Mental Health Commission; Dr. Joe Garrihy from Maynooth University; Ms Saoirse Brady and Ms Molly Joyce from the Irish Penal Reform Trust, IPRT; and Mr. Liam Herrick and Mr. Seán Beatty from the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL. Our representatives from the Department of Justice are Ms Lisa Doherty and Mr. David Hogan. They are all very welcome as observers and participants.

Before I invite witnesses to deliver their opening statements, I wish to advise them of the following in respect of parliamentary privilege. Witnesses and members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if the witnesses' statements are potentially defamatory in respect of an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction.

I will invite each organisation to make an opening statement to a maximum of three minutes. Once all the opening statements have been made, I will call on the members of the committee in the order in which they indicate to me to put their questions. We have a rota system which provides that each member has an initial seven minutes. That is for questions and answers. Members are always very succinct in their questioning because of that. When all the members have indicated that their initial engagements are finished, and time permitting, we will do a second round of three minutes each for questions and answers. Obviously, the duration of the meeting is limited and, therefore, our time slots are strictly adhered to. I ask people to be focused in their contributions.

I now call on each organisation to deliver its opening statement in the following order. Mr. Kelly from the Office of the Inspector of Prisons, who will be followed by Dr. Conroy, Ms Keane, Ms Brady, Mr. Herrick and Dr. Garrihy.

Mr. Mark Kelly

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach, Senators and Deputies for the opportunity to share with them the views of the Office of the Inspector of Prisons on the general scheme of the inspection of places of detention Bill. I am the chief inspector of prisons and I am accompanied on my left by Dr. Ciara O'Connell, who is a senior inspector. Once enacted, the provisions in this general scheme will pave the way for Ireland to ratify the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture, OPCAT, and to designate national preventive mechanisms to monitor conditions of detention. We welcome the very clear legislative intent to transform our office into an inspectorate of places of detention and to designate it the national preventive mechanism for the criminal justice sector. That would mean we would have responsibility for monitoring not only prisons but also Garda Síochána stations and other places of detention. I emphasise that, in future, all our inspection activity will be carried out in our national preventive mechanism, NPM, capacity. The approach we have taken in our written submission to the committee is to "benchmark" the proposals in the general scheme against the internationally recognised requirements of OPCAT.

There is much to be welcomed in the general scheme. Nevertheless, we have shared with the committee our reservations about a number of the heads that do not seem to respect the cardinal principle that bodies designated as national preventive mechanisms must have functional independence from Departments and a full range of appropriate powers. In our full submission, we emphasise three key areas where we consider that the general scheme may require amendment. First are the guarantees of functional independence of the inspectorate and other national preventive mechanisms, which, in our view, are deficient. Second are the proposed functions of the inspectorate. Third, we think there are certain supplementary provisions that should be included in the legislation but which are not currently to be found in it.

I would be very happy, as would my colleague, Dr. O'Connell, to go into further detail on all these matters in response to questions from committee members.

Dr. Pauline Conroy

The publication of the heads of the general scheme is a very welcome development. It starts to consolidate some of the human rights to which people deprived of their liberty are entitled.

Visiting committees are a particular kind of structure. We monitor, not inspect, the activities of prisons and speak directly to the prisoners. We are in and out of the prisons constantly. That could be weekly, fortnightly or monthly. In these interactions with the prisoners we try to be impartial and independent. We also try to listen very carefully to them because we are possibly the only independent people prisoners will meet on the landings of their prisons or in their cells. Ours is a very humane but nevertheless rights-based approach. We represent the views and voices of prisoners and the conditions of the prison estate.

That is why we are concerned about some of the proposals that would have visiting committees dropping into prisons once every three months. A visit of two or three hours once a month or every three months would not reveal very much. We would not be able to observe how frequently mattresses are being placed on the floor for prisoners to sleep on. We would not be able to observe if prisoners are showing signs of enduring mental illness, which is visible when we attempt to talk to them.

Our submission primarily addresses head 13, which goes into some detail on visiting committees and proposes an entirely new structure to that which we have at the moment.

Prison visiting committees have been in existence for almost 100 years. It is quite obvious that they need reform, but we are not sure that we should throw out the baby with the bath water. There are elements of the work of visiting committees which are useful and valuable, and are appreciated by prison governors. Prison governors, who are not mentioned at all in the proposed Bill, have a significant role to play as managers and under law, but we do not see them in the general scheme. A visiting committee can provide independent and systematic observations on the prison system and, in particular, unexpected consequences of changes in rules or policy and changes in the composition of the prison population, for example, whether more prisoners are on remand rather than sentenced. At the moment, about four out ten are on remand. This poses big questions as to whether opportunities for rehabilitation are going to be made available. These prisoners do not know if they are going to be sentenced or how. This disrupts, but it is an unexpected consequence of the judicial system for the prisons.

Vice Chairman

I thank Dr. Conroy. Her three minutes are up.

Dr. Pauline Conroy

I will answer questions.

Ms Orla Keane

First, I wish to extend the apologies of our chief executive who is unable to attend due to an unexpected issue at the last minute.

The Mental Health Commission welcomes the opportunity to be here today. As members may be aware, the commission is the regulator for mental health services, and it carries out inspections in relation to mental health services. It also organises tribunals to independently review those who are involuntarily detained. It is important to note that the inspector has the right to visit any resident at any time as part of an inspection, but also has an obligation to visit any resident who requests a visit.

By way of assistance to the committee we have included a paragraph by way of explanation of how many people are detained under the mental health Acts. In 2021, for example, 3,759 involuntary detention orders were made. Each and every one of those is reviewed within 21 days. They are reviewed by an independent body made up of three people - a chair, a consultant psychiatrist and what is referred to in the legislation as a lay member. This is a key part of the 2001 legislation in vindicating the rights of persons who are involuntarily detained. The commission limited its submission to Part 3 of the general scheme. It welcomes the intent. It notes that the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, CPT, in its report in 2019 stressed the fact that legislation had not been progressed in regard to NPMs. It is a good thing that we are here today and that that has progressed.

The commission also welcomes the proposal for the national preventive organisations and also the proposal that the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, would be the co-ordinating body, given its resources and skills.

The commission has noted that there are some gaps in the legislation. We have had access to the submission of at least one other party and we noted that it has identified similar gaps. We accept that this is the early stage and perhaps some of those gaps will be filled during the course of the draft.

Vice Chairman

I thank Ms Keane and call on Ms Brady.

Ms Saoirse Brady

I thank the committee for the invitation to speak here today on this important and long overdue proposed legislation. The IPRT has been advocating for the ratification of OPCAT, for many years. We welcome this proposed Bill as a significant step forward in making ratification a reality. We urge the committee to give the general scheme its full attention over the coming months in order to ensure that momentum is not lost and that the final legislation is robust in meeting international human rights standards and best practice in monitoring and inspecting places of detention.

OPCAT is clear that the State must guarantee the functional independence of NPMs, as well as the independence of their personnel. The subcommittee on the prevention of torture, SPT, details that this includes financial and operational autonomy. As it stands, the IPRT is not convinced that the general scheme sufficiently establishes such functional, including financial and operational, independence. Concerns include the budget of the new inspectorate of places of detention remaining within the remit of the Department of Justice - under head 3, rather than having its own Vote and the restrictions imposed on the chief inspector around questioning or expressing an opinion on the merits of Government policy, which is in head 11.

Resourcing is an overarching consideration in this proposed Bill. First, there is a need to ensure that the new inspectorate of places of detention has the resources to take on the role of NPM for prisons and Garda stations. Second, and separately, IHREC must be provided with additional resources to carry out the extensive additional duties assigned to it by this legislation. It is also important that the general scheme explicitly sets out IHREC's proposed NPM co-ordinating function as distinct from all its other responsibilities, and that designated NPMs, including the inspectorate of places of detention, are enabled to maintain a clear distinction between any investigative functions they might hold and their inspection and monitoring functions as an NPM. The IPRT would also welcome clarity on whether it is intended that the prison visiting committees will be designated as an NPM. We believe further discussion is needed on the proposed role of the new inspectorate of places of detention in supervising the visiting committees.

Article 24 of OPCAT makes clear that its ratification is not dependent on the passing of this proposed legislation. Rather, the Government could ratify OPCAT today and simply make a declaration postponing the implementation of its obligations for a maximum total of five years, with an additional year to designate the NPM after ratification. Commitments to bring forward legislation and move towards the ratification of OPCAT have been consistently missed since 2018. While the IPRT welcomes the current progress in respect of the general scheme, we remain of the view that the Government can maintain the necessary impetus and make significant progress by ratifying OPCAT with immediate effect.

International guidance describes the important role that civil society can play in both designating and feeding into the work of NPMs. A good example of this is the Australia OPCAT Network. We would be happy to answer more questions on that specific issue. Given the importance of civil society engagement, the IPRT urges committee members to recommend the establishment of a clear formal role for civil society in the designation and operation of NPMs in the proposed legislation. I again thank the committee for the invitation to present here today. We look forward to further discussion of any of the aspects of the submission that we covered in our opening statement or submission.

Vice Chairman

I thank Ms Brady very much and call on Mr. Herrick to speak.

Mr. Liam Herrick

I thank the committee for the opportunity to share our observations today. The ICCL has long called for a proper independent inspection mechanism for all places where people are deprived of their liberty in the State. When deprived of their liberty, people are more vulnerable to abuse, ill-treatment and torture. Proper safeguards must be in place.

Ireland ratified the UN Convention against Torture in 2000 and signed the optional protocol in 2007. We have, therefore, been waiting 15 years for the ratification of OPCAT, despite it being promised by successive Governments. We believe this is finally an opportunity to put in place a proper independent inspection system in Ireland, which will comply with the highest international standards.

The Bill proposes a framework for a national preventative mechanism to prevent torture and ill-treatment, which is most welcome. However, we do have some concerns about the general scheme, as presented, when compared with the standards of OPCAT. We are very eager to work together with the Government at this stage in the legislative process to secure the highest possible outcome.

As our colleagues in the Irish Penal Reform Trust have outlined, the first issue is that the Government has decided against ratifying the optional protocol before the eventual Bill becomes law. While this does reflect general Government policy regarding international treaties, this treaty is significantly different because it specifically provides for engagement with the expert international body, the sub-committee on torture, in the process of developing national legislation.

We would also urge the Government to expand the NPM and the breadth of the proposed legislation to cover all places where people are deprived of their liberty in Ireland. We must include social and care settings such as psychiatric hospitals, on which there is very little detail in the general scheme, nursing homes and direct provision centres. We are happy to answer questions on specific provisions on those non-criminal justice areas of detention.

As the Office of the Inspector of Prisons and others have outlined, of crucial importance is the principle of functional independence of the NPM. The UN's SPT has set out standards in this regard and there are a number of areas in which the general scheme, as currently drafted, falls short. In particular, we recommend that the NPM be independent of Departments and be accountable primarily to the Oireachtas. One specific flaw we identify in the proposals is that there is provision for a prohibition on the new inspector issuing observations on Government policy or legislation.

A gap in Ireland’s inspection regime of particular interest to us is the lack of any statutory-based independent inspections of police custody to date. It is proposed in the general scheme to address this deficit. We think it is essential, however, that the eventual legislation be co-ordinated and aligned with the proposals in the draft policing, security and community safety Bill.

We encourage the Government to enshrine collaboration with civil society in the text of the eventual Bill. The SPT has set out clear guidelines for how civil society can play a role in the design of the NPM and in its ultimate functioning. Mr. Beatty and I are happy to take questions on any of these issues.

Vice Chairman

I thank Mr. Herrick. I call Dr. Garrihy.

Dr. Joe Garrihy

I thank the committee for the invitation to contribute to the discussion of general scheme of the inspection of places of detention Bill 2022, and its facilitation in the circumstances. I am an assistant professor of criminology at Maynooth University's school of law and criminology. I am a specialist in penology, including national and international frameworks, policies, prison systems and prison literature. I hold a PhD in criminology from the UCD school of law. My research generally focuses on diverse areas, including prison officers’ occupational cultures, "cocooning" in prison and minority ethnic and foreign national prisoners in Ireland. My collaborative and co-produced work has established relationships with colleagues here, including with those in the IPRT, the Irish Council for Prisoners Overseas, the Pathways Centre, the Irish Prison Service, the probation service, as well as HM Prison and Probation Service in England and Wales.

I welcome the production of the general scheme as a key step towards the ratification of the optional protocol and its associated progression in prison oversight in Ireland. The development and consistent review of an effective system of prison oversight should not be an aspiration. It should instead be the minimum standard required of the State, and the general scheme presents an opportunity that must be grasped to ensure that this occurs. I will briefly mention three key areas, but I am happy to discuss my written submission, and that of Dr. Marder, afterwards. These areas are: the independence of the proposed inspector of places of detention, IPD; the clarity of roles, obligations and expertise of the proposed IPD; and the implications and opportunities for replacing or reforming prison visiting committees.

The ratification of OPCAT is imperative, but, under article 18 of the protocol, oversight bodies or NPMs must have, in perception and practice, full independence from prison services, including their management and staff, and Government officials and Departments. This independence must include, but is not limited to, financial affairs and resourcing, publication capacities, staffing and the commissioning of external expertise. NPMs must be precisely that, preventative rather than reactionary. The pernicious effects of imprisonment are well rehearsed in the literature and imposing sanctions must be proportionate, while avoiding known collateral harms.

I acknowledge that the general scheme is a draft and that further work will provide additional details and clarifications on several matters. However, what is proposed will benefit greatly from clarity in many areas, including around language, structure and content on topics such as IPD powers, obligations, expertise and resourcing. Questions remain about these issues and the opportunities afforded by the spirit of the proposed Bill would be best served by careful, evidence-based decisions in these areas.

What is proposed in the general scheme will have major implications for the reform or replacement of prison visiting committees, while overdue, fundamental questions must be addressed directly about the aims, role and structures of the committees. To maximise the utility and effectiveness of any future form of prison visiting committees, due regard must be given to issues such as such a committee's role clarity and powers, the appointment of chairs and members, term limits, diversity and representation, training and expertise, publications, visibility and engagement with people in custody.

I appreciate that these comments are necessarily brief, but I am happy to elaborate further upon request and I look forward to the forthcoming discussion.

Vice Chairman

I thank Dr. Garrihy and all our witnesses. To clarify something before we start questions with the representatives of the Department, is it already engaged with the SPT by any chance in the context of the ICCL question?

Ms Lisa Doherty

Yes, the Department is engaged with the SPT.

Senator Michael McDowell

I thank all our witnesses. As somebody who had experience of Ministerial responsibility for the Prison Service, I am convinced of several things. I am convinced that this legislation is necessary and that the prison visiting committees need to be strengthened and reformed. I am also convinced that the chief inspector should be somebody who has been made independent by statute. I do not believe in that context that it is necessary to impose on the chief inspector the obligation imposed on senior civil servants testifying before Oireachtas committees that they should not express an opinion on Government policy. The position would be enhanced by the removal of this aspect.

When I was the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, I remember finding among the papers of my predecessors, and I will be charitable and not name any names, correspondence from a Deputy in the south of the country asking that a student member of his party be appointed to a prison visiting committees as far north as possible. I think there was an exclamation mark beside the request, so therefore I think there was a slight element of jocularity about it. It underlined that prison visiting committees were at that time regarded as a kind of reward for party activists and supporters who could claim expenses. These visiting committees do extremely valuable work. The proposal here regarding the appointment of their memberships is welcome.

As far as I am concerned, it is all very well to talk about a rights-based approach to prisoners, but our present prison infrastructure - and I am dealing now with prisons - is so deficient that prisoner-on-prisoner violence is a serious deprivation of human rights. This requires not simply the appointment of an inspector who will be able to do nothing to stop blades being carried in prisons and retribution being meted out to prisoners in individual cases, but more infrastructure. We need to build Thornton Hall. We must have a proper prison. Good and all as have been the reforms to the governance of Mountjoy Prison undertaken by recent governors since the appalling situation revealed in the Gary Douch report, the prison needs to be closed and replaced.

We cannot have this complacent approach to prisons of the infrastructure being fine and that we are going to look after people's rights and civil liberties and all the rest of it. We must address what is staring us in the face, which is that prisoners are vulnerable to suffering harm from each other and vulnerable in the context of the whole drugs culture about which little enough is done to address. The circumstances in the prison, according to the Constitution and the law, are intended to provide for rehabilitation. The lack of infrastructure means this is greatly compromised. We must build prisons. There are people who think that building prisons is a waste of time. Building a new and proper prison, however, and at least one, and maybe more, to guarantee the rights of prisoners physically, to give them safety from each other and to allow for proper segregation is a human rights' issue that cannot be postponed.

If we do not allow the chief Inspector of Prisons to express views about Government policy when brought before an Oireachtas committee, then, effectively, the role will be neutered in respect of being people's guarantors. It will not affect the Department of Justice that the Inspector of Prisons feels free to do so. I remember that the late Mr. Justice Dermot Kinlen had no difficulty, when he was made Inspector of Prisons, taking lumps out of me as the Minister. It was good that he felt free to do that. It is greatly important that the independence of the inspectorate is guaranteed by the legislation as it progresses.

I am not asking questions. If anyone wants to agree or disagree with me, then please do. I have outlined my views of this matter.

Ms Saoirse Brady

I welcome the Senator's comments about independence but disagree with what he said about Thornton Hall and the building of a new prison. While we need prison infrastructure the Government policy now is to reduce the number of people in prison overall. I hope that by doing that we will end up having the space, resources and necessary time to make prisons what they should be to ensure the civil liberties and human rights of the people within them.

On 31 August, the policy options review and action plan was published by the Minister for Justice, which contained the clear direction that people who are sentenced for less than 12 months for minor offences should not be imprisoned. In 2021, 79% of all sentence committals were for 12 months or under and, in 2022 so far, it has been 78%, which shows there is a trend. If we can address those issues then there will be no need to build a new prison. Recently Limerick Prison was improved so I believe that we can renovate and do things to the existing prisons within our resources.

Senator Michael McDowell

I agree with Ms Brady on one point and that is that short prison sentences should rarely, if ever, happen. The blight, especially on younger people, of being sentenced to prison, particularly when prisons are drug infested, violent and have no proper system of rehabilitation, and we must bear in mind the figure that we heard for the number of people in prison on remand. I agree with Ms Brady about that 1,000%.

Let us be frank. Mountjoy Prison will never be an appropriate place to incarcerate people. I have been there on a number of occasions and I have seen the improvements that took place in management but the prison is still innately inadequate.

Ms Saoirse Brady

Yes.

Senator Michael McDowell

--

Chairman

I agree.

Senator Michael McDowell

The prison needs to be replaced. Playing fields, running tracks and things like that need to be provided for people who are genuinely in need of rehabilitation as well as proper facilities. Rehabilitation is not going to happen in Mounjoy Prison so we must cop on and accept that the institution must be replaced.

We must bear in mind that we have a growing population, which has moved towards 5.5 million and that the prison system served a population of 2.9 million when I was born. We cannot pretend that the current number of prison spaces is adequate bearing in mind the number of life prisoners and serious sentences for sexual offences and all of the rest that are being handed down by the courts. I do not want a situation where a revolving door starts again for people with significant sentences.

I reiterate that I agree with Ms Brady regarding short sentences. At one stage I wanted every district judge who was about to impose a short sentence to write out in his or her own handwriting why no other way of dealing with the prisoner was being contemplated. I am with Ms Brady on rebalancing the matter in favour of non-incarceration but we still need proper modern prisons.

Mr. Mark Kelly

I thank the Senator for his comments.

On independence, I wish to emphasise that if I could not comment on Government policy then I would not be here before this committee so it would be a retrograde step in future if that were to go through.

On the more general point made about the safety of prisoners, I wish to underline that the proportion of the prison population that seeks protection from others is growing exponentially in many of our prisons. It is not just a question of building new prisons. They also must be resourced and the regimes must be resourced. Last week, I had the opportunity to spend some time in the impressive new prison facility in Limerick.

Senator Michael McDowell

I have not been to see it yet.

Mr. Mark Kelly

The Senator should see the facility as it is impressive. The facility will not be able to deliver on its aspiration to respect the rights of the prisoners who will be held there at great expense unless the facility and regime are properly resourced. That is the necessary counterpart to the infrastructure.

Senator Michael McDowell

I agree.

Chairman

I recently visited the impressive new women's prison in Limerick and how that service is delivered is important.

Deputy Pa Daly

Can I presume that the departmental officials are here to answer a few questions?

Chairman

Strictly speaking it is observer status but I am sure that they will not mind clarifying a question or two as they have done for me.

Deputy Pa Daly

There seems to be consensus across the board about the OPCAT ratification and the need for more independence of the inspectorate, when it is established, and having it under the remit of the Minister for Justice and all the budgets. Can the officials comment on the great concerns about all that?

Does Mr. Kelly think there should be a role for inspecting Garda stations? A similar body in the Six Counties has the power to inspect PSNI police stations. I attended a meeting of the criminal law committee of the Law Society where various concerns were expressed about what happens in Garda stations from the point of view of solicitors being there. Nothing seems to have been done about the concerns. Has Mr. Kelly an opinion on the matter?

I have heard what has been said about new prisons. Last week, we had a meeting with the visiting justice committee of the House of Commons. One of the facts to arise is that we have the lowest number of judges per 100,000 population in the EU, which is a situation that needs to be addressed. The justice committee visited Cloverhill Prison and the delegation expressed concern that there were a lot of trials taking place where prisoners leave jail and go into what a solicitor in Tralee, County Kerry, used to refer to as the fish tank to have their trial dealt with. There are an awful lot of sentences. The number of short sentences was a concern expressed by prison staff and some prisoners when we visited Mountjoy Prison earlier in the year. Perhaps judges should visit Mountjoy Prison and listen to what prison governors have to say about the uselessness and ineffectiveness of short sentences because when prisoners are released, they go back to being homeless, unemployed and usually to addiction so they do not achieve anything. When prisoners are sentenced to, say, six or seven months, no educational facilities are put in place during that time.

There has been a drift towards having a larger number of people on remand for the past 20 years and I think that the statistic is 40%. Since Covid there have been an awful lot more prisoners on remand in jails and, especially for more serious offences, they are being denied bail. The other options we explored in our meeting with the House of Commons committee were tagging and observing people, thus reducing the need to be in custody for longer sentences.

The average time it takes for serious trials to reach court is two years currently. Big concerns were expressed about that because that results in jails filling up. The matter should be addressed.

Recently five new judges were appointed and that news was heralded as a good achievement. I believe that we must appoint way more judges to cut through the backlog before we ever consider constructing more prisons.

A report has been done on conditions in the women's prison. The Department has not published it yet. It has led to the resignation of one of the members of the group that did the report. Is there any sign of that report being published?

When prisoners relate their concerns to the members of the visiting committee, in their experience have many governors' decisions been overturned on foot of representations the visiting committee makes on behalf of the prisoners they meet? What are the witnesses' views on what will happen under head 13 and the new prisoner visiting committees? What kind of experience, qualifications and resources should their members have? Should there be legal back-up? Should they be paid?

Ms Nuala Ryan

The Deputy asked a lot of questions. On whether the members should be paid, we are not volunteers. The prison visiting committees are appointed by the Minister for Justice. We are the eyes, ears and nose of the Minister in the prisons. We are not volunteers. When we meet prisoners and see them regularly, they speak to us and look for appointments to come and see us. We walk the floors and are in and out of the prisons all the time. We hear their complaints and concerns. Many of the concerns could be dealt with, shall we say, in that we go to the governor with them, consult and the governor would take them on board. I do not remember any cases where a decision was actually overturned. I do not remember anything like that. We would go and speak to the governor and the appropriate authorities. A lot of the matters can be resolved practically. Issues with post, clothes, missing stuff, appointments and prisoners wanting to get back to making phone calls can be easily resolved and dealt with. That is what the visiting committees do and we do it very well. What makes us unique is that we go in and speak to the prisoners themselves.

Deputy Pa Daly

Nothing has been overturned. Should there be external adjudication in cases of breaches of prison discipline?

Ms Nuala Ryan

It would depend on what the case was.

Dr. Pauline Conroy

If the issue is very serious and concerns the prisoner's sentence, for example, or a case that is coming up that the prisoner is worried about, we would not discuss that. We would refer the prisoner to a solicitor and if he or she does not have a solicitor-----

Deputy Pa Daly

No, I am talking about internal prison discipline. I know the visiting committees do not have a role in a prisoner's legal case.

Dr. Pauline Conroy

There would be prisoners who would complain that their treatment for an infraction was unfair. We would discuss the prisoner's view and sometimes that could be reversed or inquired into. What is really crucial is that when we go back to prisoners, they are extremely appreciative that somebody listened and actually took a step to exercise the system that was prevailing in the prison.

Deputy Pa Daly

Have the committees had cases where a decision imposed by a governor for a breach was overturned?

Dr. Pauline Conroy

Occasionally, yes, but as a visiting committee, we do not exercise any direct or indirect role in the management of discipline. If it converts into a complaint, we would have a role and if it was a very serious complaint, it would be referred to the inspectorate.

Mr. Mark Kelly

I thank Deputy Daly for asking an explicit question. We welcome the future role of the office in monitoring detention in Garda stations. For people who end up in prison, very often their detention journey has been a continuum, from the moment they are arrested in the street, transported to a Garda station, placed in a court holding cell, put in a prison van and taken to prison. As someone who has spent the best part of the past 30 years monitoring both police and prison detention, I believe it is extremely important to be able to monitor the protection of rights at every point in that continuum. To give a practical example, when we interview people in private in remand prisons, it provides a very good opportunity to gather detailed information about what their experience has been in Garda stations. It makes sense that with my inspectors and senior inspectors, I have the potential to follow that up. We will be looking at issues including the protection of procedural rights in Garda custody. Chief among these will be access to legal advice and effective access to legal advice. This country has one of the lowest rates in the EU of effective access to solicitors in police custody and I am keen to look at what are the underlying reasons for that. The safeguard is there in law. The possibility for solicitors to be present in Garda stations is there in practice but the take-up rate is very low, which means the potential prophylactic impact of that procedural rights' protection is not being maximised.

To pick up on a point made by the Deputy and also Mr. Herrick from the ICCL, it is crucially important that what we do in future, as the office of the inspectorate of places of detention, dovetails effectively with other accountability mechanisms in the policing area. We are already laying the groundwork for that and consulting the current Policing Authority, GSOC and An Garda Síochána. What we are trying to make sure that we do is to design a future accountability and monitoring mechanism which is complementary to those existing and future mechanisms with policing and-----

Deputy Pa Daly

Mr. Herrick may also have a view on this point. Heads of Bill came before the Joint Committee on Justice some months ago in relation to the treatment of prisoners in custody. They included a section that would give the power to a Garda inspector to remove solicitors from a Garda station if the inspector felt they were obstructive to an investigation and interrogation that was taking place. That followed from discussions between the Department of Justice and, I believe, the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors, AGSI. It was with members of An Garda Síochána in any case. Does Mr. Kelly have a view on that proposal? Is he familiar with it?

Mr. Mark Kelly

I am not familiar with that specific provision. I would have to look at it in more detail. In a more general sense, that certainly has the potential to impinge on the independence of solicitors providing legal advice. It would have to be viewed with great caution. Not all solicitors, of course, are angels. There has to be some possibility for senior officers to express a view on certain forms of conduct but that must respect the fundamental requirement of the independence of the lawyer.

Senator Lynn Ruane

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. There is nothing in them that I disagree with. If anything, I will just further emphasise them. As this is pre-legislative scrutiny and officials from the Department are here in an observer role, I want to ensure that those key messages are made very clear in any report the committee submits. I have tried to capture the common themes in the presentations and I would like to put them on the record. If anyone disagrees with my understanding of what has come across, I ask them to say so. I want to make sure the message is clear to the observers as regards what needs to be addressed in the heads of Bill.

As regards heads 6 and 8, this matter is supported by the IPRT, IHREC and Dr. Garrihy and comes up in all of the presentations. The Bill does not ensure financial and operational independence of the IPD and NPMs, including separate financial resources and staff. That would be necessary. If anyone disagrees with how I am capturing these points, they should correct me. There is a need for adequate resourcing to support the development and infrastructure of the IPDs and MPNs. That the IPD and the MPNs should be accountable to the Oireachtas and not the Department is what I understand from most of the contributions. Currently, the Minister for Justice has a role in appointing staff to the IPD, which obviously interferes with its independence. I might return to the question of staffing at the end with a question on the expertise needed by staff.

Another matter I have picked up on is the conflict in the context of the chief inspector being located within the budget of the Department of Justice. In addition, there is a need for further clarification within the heads of the powers, obligations, expertise and resources of the IPDs, as well as the privileges, resources, roles and responsibilities granted to the NPMs. The legal basis is missing. One of the witnesses may wish to comment on that specifically.

As regards the functions of the chief inspector under head 8, my understanding is that the legal minimum duration should be stipulated in the context of prisons receiving an inspection. The chief inspector should be empowered to engage with external experts who could support inspections carried out by the IPD. Investigative reports into a serious adverse event or death should be laid before the Oireachtas. The heads of Bill do not clarify how the voices of detainees would be heard during these investigations.

Those are just some of the issues that concern me; there are many others. I wanted to pick up on some of the key points so that they do not get lost in the wider conversation in respect of reform, prisons, sentences and all that type of thing. I want to focus on the heads of Bill and what is needed therein.

Mr. Kelly referred to the continuum of detention. I am prone to getting a little bit philosophical sometimes but I make the point that poverty is also a place of detention, so that somehow starts a little earlier. As regards being able to investigate, there is a bare minimum of human rights, such as being free from torture or inhumane treatment and so on, but does that begin to vary depending on the needs of the person who ends up in prison? To take the ageing population, for example, or those with undiagnosed autism, ADHD or dyspraxia, there are all these combinations of things that interact with people becoming engaged in the criminal justice situation in the first place but it would not ordinarily be captured. I want to tie that back into the point on the type of expertise that would be needed in the context of inspections because we have to consider the needs of the individual rather than just the infrastructure and the basic stuff that somebody might be looking for in an inspectorate.

It is usually better for me to direct my questions to individual witnesses but I have not done so on this occasion because any of our guests could probably contribute equally on each of the matters I have raised. Do we look at inspection differently when we look at the needs of the individual within the larger system of the prison? I would love to hear discussion on that. If any of our guests disagree with my further points, I want to make sure they get into the report in terms of recommending changes.

Ms Molly Joyce

The IPRT agrees with all those points. In particular, I refer to the privileges and immunities set out in Article 35 of the OPCAT. It refers to privileges relating to arrest, seizure and that kind of thing, but that is not reflected currently in the Bill. It is important for it to be included.

The Senator made a really good and nuanced point in respect of expertise. In our submission, we referred at length to the need for the NPM and, in particular, the IPD to be able to draw on expertise . There should be an expert panel or some other arrangement whereby it can draw on expertise as needed, in particular, perhaps, in the context of a specific visit to a prison. More generally on the point in respect of expertise, it is useful to think about expertise in a broader sense and the individual needs such as the medical or mental health aspects. The Senator identified a number of issues in that regard which could be useful. Obviously, it may not be possible to include all of that within the legislation but certainly putting in place the role of experts will be important, and that is very much emphasised by all the international guidance on this. It needs to be reflected in the Bill.

Mr. Liam Herrick

As regards the question on special needs and other needs, we are as concerned about the police detention aspect as about the prison detention one. We are particularly taken by the recent report on custody that was produced by the Garda Inspectorate. It addressed many of the issues raised by the Senator, such as the needs of particular groups and the very high level of detention in police custody of people who are there for mental health reasons in the broad sense. It emphasises the point made earlier in respect of the continuum of detention. It gets to the heart of the philosophy behind this international treaty. It covers all places where people are detained, that is, all closed spaces where people need special protection. At a broad level, that is the difficulty we have with the approach taken in the Bill. The approach is quite narrow. It is about prisons plus police detention and, whereas there is an intention to include a wider range of sectors, including mental health and so on, there is very little detail at the moment. Of course, the Government will have the opportunity to specify much more detail as we progress, but there is no stated intention to cover many of the types of facilities that we think should be encompassed here, such as nursing homes, care homes and other facilities that are in what one might call a category of quasi-detention. We would include direct provision in that regard as well. The Senator is absolutely right. Legal distinctions between different legal categories of detention do not fully capture the fact that many people experience a variety of types of institutional care at different stages in their life.

Vice Chairman

Does Dr. Garrihy wish to contribute? We have not heard from him yet.

Dr. Joe Garrihy

I thank the Vice Chairman. I will not go down the philosophical route too much but if we look at the demographics and needs of people in prisons, including mental health, poverty, education, deprivation and so on, it begs the fundamental question as to whether we should be sending them to prison in the first place. That said, when we look at inspection, one thing that has not been mentioned so far in the meeting but is referenced in many submissions is that the expertise of people with lived experience of the criminal justice system is needed. That is a glaring omission in the current procedures.

Some of the issues raised by the Senator, which she summarised very well, are answered by OPCAT. Ratifying it and adhering to it will address many of the questions in respect of independence, resources, appointments and so on.

Mr. Mark Kelly

I will respond on a couple of the specific issues raised by Senator Ruane. I thank her for the summation of the consensus around independence. I highlight that also on that list I would have head 6(2), which specifically proposes that the future funds of my office premises, facilities and services would all be provided by the Minister for Justice. It is quite detailed and prescriptive.

She asked about protections, exemptions and privileges, and what explicitly that would mean. Flowing from OPCAT, there is a concern to make sure that people carrying out this monitoring function are themselves properly protected, but also that sensitive information we might be gathering is properly protected. For example, if we are involved in the investigation of deaths in custody, we might have extremely sensitive information. We always have sensitive information relating to the reason that a person is in prison, for example. The protections should include immunity from search and seizure of documents, baggage and so on. It certainly should not be the case that when Dr. O'Connell or I enter or leave a prison, a prison officer can require to inspect papers we have with us. We provide more detail in that regard in our submission.

On the question of vulnerability, absolutely. Mr. Herrick referred to the report of the Garda Inspectorate on custody, which is very good. It is based on the standards developed by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, CPT, for which I have been working in various capacities for the best part of three decades. In recent years, the committee has been examining the need to take a trauma-informed approach to monitoring, particularly in prisons, and explicitly to take into account trauma that may have been experienced by people before they come into prison.

When I said I was in the new prison in Limerick, which is an empty building, I should also have said that I was on E wing and I spent time there with the women who are currently detained in very poor conditions. It is obvious in Limerick Prison, as it is in prisons holding women throughout Europe that many of those people who have ended up in prison have a history in which they have been victims themselves of domestic violence and other forms of trauma. They carry that with them when they come into prison. They cannot just be treated in an identical way. In our monitoring we will bring with us people who have explicit expertise. We will bring with us psychiatrists and medical doctors and so on-----

Chairman

I am sorry to cut across Dr. O'Connell. We will come back to him later regarding trauma. I call Deputy Pringle.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

I was not expecting to be next. I missed the introductions and opening statements and, therefore, some of my questions might have been dealt with. What I ask could probably be a rehash of what was said but it is important. With regard to accountability to the Oireachtas rather than to the Department of Justice, have any of the witnesses any first-hand examples of why that is important? I think it is important. If it was accountable to the Oireachtas could the budget still be provided by the Department? Would that make a difference to the operation of the system in the future? The financial independence of the inspectorate would be important. For example, if it was made independent and accountable to the Oireachtas, would that be enough without all the other issues being sorted out too? What is the minimum level that would be required?

Head 14 deals with the inspection of places of detention and direct provision is one area that is important. Hospitals and nursing homes are inspected by HIQA. Is there a need for duplication or would that be important? Will the witnesses elaborate on that and also on the need for direct provision to be included in that and how that could be classed? The definition of "places of detention" might not be appropriate for that.

Chairman

I thank the Deputy. Who would he like to start?

Deputy Thomas Pringle

Anybody at all.

Mr. Liam Herrick

My colleague, Mr. Beatty, might address the question of the broader academies of detention.

Mr. Seán Beatty

I thank Deputy Pringle for that question. We refer to Article 4 of OPCAT, which defines "places of detention" as any place where persons are or may be deprived of their liberty. In interpreting that, I will quote a short piece that is material to this from the subcommittee on the prevention of torture. In its annual report of 2013 it stated: "the term “places of detention”, as found in article 4 of the Optional Protocol, should be given a broad interpretation, to include, inter alia, civil and military prisons, police stations, pretrial detention centres, psychiatric institutions and mental health centres, migrant detention centres, juvenile detention centres and social care institutions". It goes on to say: "Therefore, an interpretation of “places of detention” that is limited to such traditional places of deprivation of liberty as prisons would be overly restrictive and, in the view of the Subcommittee, clearly contrary to the Optional Protocol." It is crucial, therefore, that the committee considers those non-traditional places of detention and considers whether, factually, liberty is being deprived. As currently constructed. the general scheme of the Bill is clearly contrary to OPCAT.

Chairman

Does Ms Keane believe this relates to places of detention?

Ms Orla Keane

We recently had a discussion with the Department of Health in regard to the legislation on deprivation of liberty. Perhaps those concerns relating people in nursing homes and such facilities might be differentiated from those involuntarily detained in approved centres or otherwise, and dealt with under that legislation. The commission has not particularly thought about that issue. However, I agree with my colleague that it should not be limited just to prisons.

I will take the opportunity to acknowledge that the issue about Garda stations is important to the commission. We have been in recent helpful discussions with the Garda about how their staff are operating certain sections of the Mental Health Act because the commission does not believe people who are suspected of having a mental disorder should be going into Garda stations. However, if they are to continue going in, we would welcome having somebody who would have an oversight of them going in. It is not an appropriate place. We would welcome oversight in relation to the Garda stations.

With regard to nursing homes, perhaps that category could be distinguished and might be better dealt with under the forthcoming, what originally was deprivation of liberty safeguards but they have kindly changed it to protection of liberty safeguards which is more appropriate. That would be our view on it.

Dr. Pauline Conroy

There is a worry about an imprecision as to what is a place of detention. If, for example, you take a Garda van that is moving a prisoner from one place to another, one has an image of something moving through traffic. However, that is not always what happens. A van can arrive at an airport or port and then stop with the prisoners inside. In law those prisoners can be detained there for up to 12 hours. I would not fancy being in one of those vans for 12 hours.

Second, there is a different type of problem to which the Mental Health Commission has referred, namely when is a detainee a patient, and when is a detainee a detainee? I have visited many centres for people with a disability where the entire building, contrary to fire regulations, is locked permanently, and any visitor cannot get out. They have to ask permission to leave. I have also visited many centres inside hospitals designated for the treatment of people with severe and enduring mental illness. Unfortunately, those people do not benefit from prison rules. Prison rules provide a standard that gives prisoners better conditions than those detained on hospital wards. It gives them a right be out of their environment, a right to fresh air and a right to wear their own clothes. Many rights in prison rules do not apply to patients held in mental health facilities designated for holding persons against their will.

Ms Saoirse Brady

On accountability to the Oireachtas we welcome that this Bill will allow the chief inspector to lay his or her reports before the Houses of the Oireachtas rather than give them to the Minister for Justice because, as Deputy Daly pointed out, we have seen with the Dóchas reports that they remain unpublished because of legal advice to the Minister. We also think the perception of independence is extremely important. Other bodies such as the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman for Children report directly to the Oireachtas rather than to the Department itself. That is important.

With regard to the point on duplication, HIQA should be designated as an MPM in its own right. It inspects Oberstown as well as all the other things that were mentioned. I believe that is crucial. We hope that the committee will have HIQA and IHREC before it as well because they are key to this functioning well.

The budget issue is important. Part of the reason for it to be independent is that at the moment justice agencies have to ask the Department for permission if they are spending more than €25,000 on IT. That can delay things. When trying to get a body up and running, as we have seen with the Parole Board, for example, there needs to be that independence and freedom to allocate resources as seen fit within the body.

Deputy Patrick Costello

There has been a lot of talk about the essential need for independence. I would agree with that and underline that point. Senator McDowell spoke of the possibility of the inspector being neutered. I think we have seen that already, as Deputy Daly said, in relation to the reports that have been mentioned. Just to be clear, there are three reports on the Dóchas Centre, a three-day monitoring report from August 2021, a section 31(2) investigation from February 2022 and a supplementary report to that from July 2022, none of which has been published, which raises very serious concerns and questions. I think we need to underline the essential nature of the independence and transparency in all of this. Those reforms are very much to be welcomed.

Deputy Pringle has pre-empted some of my questions on HIQA. I totally agree with the point Ms Brady made about HIQA needing to be designated as an NPM, partly because of its role in respect of Trinity House and the Oberstown campus and also the secure care facilities, including Ballydowd Special Care Unit, Coovagh House and Crannóg Nua. These are places where young people are detained by order of the High Court. HIQA currently inspects them, so it is absolutely essential. I was hoping to get a bit of clarity from Ms Keane on the current role of HIQA, and how HIQA and the Mental Health Commission work, for my own education. I am unclear on that. I have one other question. The IPRT mentioned the Australian situation, and Dr. Garrihy has also made comparisons with other countries that have ratified OPCAT in his studies. Is there something that we are missing in this legislation? Is there something that other countries have done that we should be learning from so we do not have to reinvent the wheel? Finally, I would underline the point made by the ICCL and others around the definitions in the Bill. For me, it is essential that places like Ballydowd Special Care Unit, Crannóg Nua and Coovagh House are included in this. There have been serious questions over these places in the past. Perhaps that is me putting on my children's committee hat. Young people are detained in these facilities by an order of the court. It is essential that those facilities are included in the definition.

Ms Molly Joyce

I will comment briefly on the point made about civil society engagement. The importance of civil society engagement is that civil society can provide information to an NPM in its relevant area. It can promote awareness among the people because it may already have built up trust with certain detainees, and it also can provide a role in ensuring external accountability and scrutiny to the NPMs once appointed. In terms of what the legislation could do, I had a quick check and there is no mention of civil society and non-governmental organisations in the Bill as currently drafted. I think there is a bit of a discussion to be had and thinking to be done around exactly how that should be framed. Looking at international models, some take the approach of civil society organisations actually being part of the NPM. That is not the approach that we would necessarily suggest. Rather, we would suggest civil society acting in an advisory capacity. The Deputy mentioned Australia, which we also referenced in our opening statement. The Australian NPM co-ordinator has been planning to establish a civil society steering group or advisory group that could help inform it. In terms of the Bill specifically, I do not think we need to go into the full detail of that. It is about actually recognising that. It is something that the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, SPT, in particular, has recognised the importance of. I think there needs to at least be some mention of it so that there is some basis for that to actually happen in the future. IHREC, as the NPM co-ordinator, already has a role in engaging with civil society, so there is already a model there in that respect .

Ms Orla Keane

On the commission's relationship with HIQA, it is a good one. Last year, we published joint standards in relation to children. There is a memorandum of understanding between the organisations. It arises, in particular, in relation to community facilities. For example, HIQA might identify that most of the people in a community facility are there because of mental health issues and it should probably come within the remit of the commission, and vice versa. There is a very good relationship there in trying to identify that. If there is a facility that should be looked after by the Mental Health Commission, then the commission can look at the appropriate resources required and vice versa. That is important. I should add that my comment earlier in relation to the protection of liberty safeguards was very much limited to nursing homes. Obviously, if there is any facility where people are detained on an order from the court, those facilities should come within this legislation. As the Deputy knows, our inspector is currently preparing a report on CAMHS. There are a certain limited number of children detained under the Mental Health Act. Many of those might cross-refer to children detained under the child care legislation. Again, it is very important that there be more oversight. We have sought more oversight and input in relation to the area of children in the amendment to the Mental Health Act, because the inspector's role is very limited. Finally, I should say that the inspector's powers under the Mental Health Act are in fact quite broad, and probably slightly broader than HIQA's. Interestingly, they are both regulatory regimes under legislation which are not very far apart in terms of years. There are quite a lot of differences between the regulatory regimes. We will make no comment on whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. The lack of similarity between the two regimes is surprising. I think that is a lesson perhaps. I pointed out, in our submission, that even in terms of the reference to treatment and so forth, each of the different pieces of legislation define these terms differently, so the question arises of what term is going to be applied and what is going to be used. In our view, there is quite a bit more homework to be done before this scheme can become a Bill, because there are practical issues that are going to be faced by people on a day today basis. Apologies for going on a bit.

Deputy Patrick Costello

It is very helpful.

Dr. Joe Garrihy

I will be brief. I think sometimes when we compare between jurisdictions it is better to learn from what they did wrong than what they did right. New Zealand is an early adopter of OPCAT, and some information is coming out of there. We have raised some of those issues today, including already being compromised by resourcing arrangements such as a lack of independence, and the inspection capacity being constrained because of the resources available. They can only do so many inspections because they do not have the resources to do more. An issue I mentioned already is having no people with lived experience of the criminal justice system involved. Also, interestingly, in New Zealand there is a prison ombudsman who is the NPM for prisons and does inspections and so on. I note that the Bill lacks any dealing with compliance mechanisms in prisons, and what the new rviesed compliance system will look like. The question of whether a prison ombudsman should be established in Ireland is a key point that needs to be addressed. I should also add that if OPCAT is ratified immediately, there is a period of two to three years, but in that time the expertise of the SPT can be availed of. We can use that resource iron out as many of these details.

Vice Chairman

Do any other members wish to come in in the first round? No. We will start round two. I call Deputy Daly, followed by Senator Ruane.

Deputy Pa Daly

Dr. Garrihy mentioned a prison ombudsman. What is his view on the level of complaint it should address? I note he has studied Australia and New Zealand comparatively. What qualifications do the members of the prison visiting committees there have? Do they have experience of having dealt with police or prisons, or some sort of inspection in their professional careers before going into this type of work?

Dr. Joe Garrihy

It is important not to turn inspection bodies or any form of NPM into a body of experts only, if that makes sense. Again, how we define expertise is quite broad. I think a better approach would be having a diverse representation, rather than putting restrictions on entry.

The other way around it could be to make it clear that people without expertise – lay people, for want of a better word – or people with lived experience are welcome to join these committees, thereby making the combination of types of expertise much more fruitful and beneficial in respect of inspection and outcomes. However, certain resources require administrative capacity, such as report writing and interviewing or engaging in dialogue with people. "Interviewing" may not be the right word for inspection mechanisms. We need to be careful to ensure that we have wide representation and do not fall into the trap of narrowing it by having a prescriptive list of types of expertise needed. To speak about the literature on this, people with experience working in the criminal justice system can become the default option. That can mean you get retired police officers and prison officers. That is not ideal. It is not that these individuals are not welcome but it can be a pitfall.

Deputy Pa Daly

Who is on the committees in Australia and New Zealand?

Dr. Joe Garrihy

There is a variety. The committees do not have set criteria for expertise, but there are experts in the form of psychologists, people with legal backgrounds and so on. I would not say it is the model we should adopt, but there is greater variety than-----

Deputy Pa Daly

Are there public appointments?

Dr. Joe Garrihy

I believe so but I am not 100% sure. I believe the public appointments part of this is key. As that is in the Bill, it is accepted at this point.

With regard to an ombudsman, the complaints procedures are under review, so it is hard to know what the arrangement will look like. However, the current format, which involves having five or six categories of complaints, is cumbersome and problematic, especially for people who are in prison and who do not have the resources and, often, the information on making complaints. Not least among them are those for whom English is a second language and those who have reduced capacity in English.

With regard to what an ombudsman should take on, I suggest what are called category-A and category-B complaints in the Irish Prison Service. These are serious complaints about violence, discrimination, the abuse of rights and so on. These two categories would be the first port of call but deciding how the other complaints should be dealt with is as important as deciding what a prison ombudsman would deal with.

Deputy Pa Daly

Does Dr. Garrihy believe there should be a prisons ombudsman?

Dr. Joe Garrihy

Yes.

Deputy Pa Daly

Should it be under the regular Ombudsman's office?

Dr. Joe Garrihy

I think it should be separate. Complaints have comprised a massive issue in Irish prisons for generations. To deal with the matter effectively, there should be a designated body. Under OPCAT, investigations are not supposed to be the role of NPMs and, therefore, an ombudsman would take on the burden of some of that workload.

Deputy Pa Daly

Have the prison visiting committee delegates had complaints regarding how complaints dealt with by the governor have been dealt with in the jails?

Ms Nuala Ryan

We very much welcome the fact that the complaints system is being updated. There is no doubt that it is long overdue.

Deputy Pa Daly

Are the prisoners complaining to Ms Ryan about it?

Ms Nuala Ryan

There would be some complaints. Complaints are categorised as A, B, C, D and E. As we said earlier, serious complaints, namely those in category A, always constitute a legal matter outside the scope of the prison.

Deputy Pa Daly

Are the governors happy with the way the system is working?

Ms Nuala Ryan

It can always be improved on. There is no doubt but that we would welcome an improvement. We welcome the changes that are taking place and the training for staff to go with them.

Deputy Pa Daly

Has Ms Ryan a view on a prisons ombudsman?

Ms Nuala Ryan

Yes. We would be in favour of one.

Deputy Pa Daly

Would that be a separate prisons ombudsman?

Ms Nuala Ryan

A separate one. Quite a lot of complaints will have to be examined in a completely separate way.

Dr. Pauline Conroy

There is a problem at present in that the severity of a complaint is decided by the Irish Prison Service. In that sense, it is policing itself. The category of a complaint, such as an assault of a prisoner by another prisoner or gross racism directed by one prisoner at another, should not be determined inside the system from which it emanates. The category should be decided independently – for example, by the Office of the Inspector of Prisons.

Dr. Ciara O'Connell

I will add to that. In our current role, we have oversight of complaints. We can investigate circumstances around complaints but we do not investigate complaints. We noted in our written statement that we see no role for the office of the inspectorate of places of detention in the complaints mechanism. However, those who read our annual reports for the past five years will see that we have been saying the system is unfit for purpose, for many of the reasons referred to. The Irish Prison Service will state there is a backlog of complaints and that having them investigated is an issue. We have noted long delays. We, too, take this opportunity to call for a prisons ombudsman to consider complaints, which are currently categorised by the governor even though they are independently investigated. After an independent investigator reaches a determination, the governor has the power to overturn the decision. It is a bit messy, so the matter is definitely worth considering.

Senator Lynn Ruane

My question requires only a "Yes" or "No" answer. Would the ombudsman take over the investigation role and leave the inspection role to the Inspector of Prisons?

Mr. Mark Kelly

To be clear, we do not investigate complaints. We have what looks like an oversight role but all it really means is that we are informed of the more serious complaints. It is a great source of frustration for my staff and me that, at present, nothing meaningful can be done when we receive the information. Processing complaints and inspection are two completely different functions, and it is not a good idea to comingle them.

Senator Lynn Ruane

To have them come together.

Mr. Mark Kelly

That is why we believe there should be an independent entity, either a freestanding prisons ombudsman or a role within the existing Office of the Ombudsman.

Senator Lynn Ruane

With regard to inspections, we talk a lot about prisoner-on-prisoner incidents but staff-on-prisoner incidents come up very little. I am referring to the activities of prison guards. When I bring up the complaints system within the prison system, many prisoners turn around and say "No". I am surprised there is a backlog because I cannot imagine what the resulting backlog would be if prisoners were empowered to make complaints. There is a culture in which people believe there is no point in making complaints. There is also a culture of fear with regard to making a complaint about one’s progression. Given the dynamic between prisoners and particular prison guards, a prisoner might feel that if he raises an issue concerning his treatment, bullying or the goading of prisoners, a certain guard will get in the way and act as an obstacle to his progression. What oversight is there of conduct? Beyond the structures of the Irish Prison Service, is there a role for the inspectorate regarding the conduct of the prison guards? The prison guards are heavily unionised, and rightly so, but since the union is quite strong, the prison guards seem to comprise a protected bunch within the system in that their role has never been examined aggressively in the context of human rights abuses within the prison system.

Mr. Mark Kelly

That is an absolutely valid observation. Even with the very limited data we have on the oversight of the category-A complaints, there are certain patterns observable, and names of certain prison officers arise with a certain frequency. I have been the Chief Inspector for only two months but one of my top priorities is to work with what we currently have to determine what can be done to engage effectively regarding the pattern I have described. I will meet Ms Caron McCaffrey, the Director General of the Irish Prison Service, tomorrow to discuss that, among other matters. The Senator is right to highlight the issue.

Senator Lynn Ruane

That is brilliant. I thank Mr. Kelly.

Dr. Joe Garrihy

Very briefly, that is an issue that does not get enough attention at all. I spent four years researching prison officers in Ireland. This is something I said when the framework for the Office of the Inspector of Prisons was being drawn up a number of years ago, but we get a lot of statistics on assaults by people in prison on each other and on staff but there are never any statistics on staff assaults on people in prison. There is very little in the way of oversight or sanctions. The default option appears to be to delay increments and hit people in the pocket, as officers call it. What disciplinary measures have been taken is something that needs to be addressed but also needs to be laid out in annual reports and so on. That is not just for abuse of people in prison but for officers sanctioned for being drunk on duty, late, absent for months on end and all these things that do not get any scrutiny whatsoever.

Vice Chairman

What are the views of the representatives of the prison visiting committees on this?

Dr. Pauline Conroy

Is the Vice Chair asking for our views on officers?

Vice Chairman

No, on the point more broadly. I want to try to capture their experience of day-to-day visiting because there are a number of different prison visiting committees around the country that feed into the witnesses and Dr. Conroy and Ms Ryan are representing them. Anybody watching would benefit from hearing from them about what they do and see on visits. I would like them to describe that to the committee. We have covered a number of different measures here within prisons and questions around violence and so on but I would like to hear the prison visiting committees' perspective on this.

Dr. Pauline Conroy

I thank the Vice Chair. One of the pieces of information perhaps missing from the Bill is what standard would be used to measure, inspect and monitor a scenario or situation. For us it is clear as we are using the prison rules, which are a statutory instrument. The prison rules guide us as to what to look for and even to ask prisoners whether they are aware of their entitlements to certain information, special diets, particular clothes or the reasons for the stopping of a visit from a family member. Most of what the prisoners ask for is very small. They ask for so little.

Vice Chairman

Will Dr. Conroy give us some examples of the kinds of things? Is it phone calls?

Dr. Pauline Conroy

They are concerned they have their tracksuits and their matching sneakers. If those are lost they seriously want them back. They ask for very little. It is only occasionally they ask for more serious things like opportunities for workshops, time out of their cell or opportunities for the whole family to visit them, which is not possible at the moment because the most important prison rules have been suspended since July 2020.

The suspension of the prison rules means neither the prison staff nor the governor have the right to offer prisoners the opportunities to which they are entitled. This is quickly visible to visiting committee members. Sometimes the governor will signal there are issues with A, B, C and D and that he or she would like us to look into them, or a prison officer will say he or she is worried about prisoner X and would we mind calling by to see where he is at. We are not social workers but we can give a report on whether that prisoner needs extra attention or maybe should not be in the prison at all. Maybe he should be in the Central Mental Hospital with a severe difficulty that cannot be resolved inside the prison. He cannot receive the medication in a prison that he would be given in the Central Mental Hospital. Those prisoners often remain hallucinating, unable to communicate, their speech is impaired and they can barely tell you what is wrong with them, yet they are in the prison. When meeting those prisoners one knows what the job of a prison visiting committee is, which is to signal they should not be there and they must have special attention. The idea of this Bill, under which prison visiting committee members would not be paid, would not have their reports published and would not visit too often, is quite unacceptable.

Vice Chairman

I wanted to ask that to tease out the issue between the role of the prison visiting committees vis-à-vis the other structures and how that could and should work. I visited Cloverhill with Ms Ryan a little while ago and I visited Limerick, though without the prison visiting committee. On the communication between the governor, the people who are in prison and the staff, some of the issues Dr. Conroy is describing, such as where somebody has a mental illness that kicks off in some way, can become difficult issues to manage from a staff perspective in lots of different ways. The role of the prison visiting committees seems to be nuanced, in the centre somewhere and in providing a good communication tool across the different structures of the prison. It is sometimes very hard to capture that in legislation. I ask the IPRT, Dr. Conroy and Ms Ryan and Dr. O'Connell and Mr. Kelly how should that interaction work best so we do not lose something in a new structure that captures something very nuanced in a difficult environment, while updating and improving the structures overall.

Ms Nuala Ryan

Many people do not know anything about the visiting committee and assume a lot of stuff, like that we are volunteers or that is a do-gooders' thing. The visiting committee is a very unique, distinctive and effective vehicle to monitor.

An awful lot of what the visiting committee does depends very much on its independence. We must retain that independence, which is what we will be talking about in the other part of the Bill. It is vital that independence is kept because it allows us to go around and go in any time to any area of the prison. We can walk in. We are there weekly, fortnightly, monthly or if it is needed. We go for celebrations, we go to the workshops, we can visit the kitchens and all the important parts. An awful lot of bodies just do not have the time or opportunity to see the prisoners as frequently as we do and we build up trust. Trust is built up from time and experience going in. We function very well because we have built up trust with the governor, senior staff, with the assistant chief officers, ACOs, and perhaps with the chiefs. We are known around the prison and have a good relationship, which is very important because what we mainly do is listen. We listen, we observe, we have respect and we speak freely. If you ask a prisoner how she or he is doing they will tell you. It is absolutely no bother to them. When they come to see us on the visiting committee they could come with a whole complex of questions or just one. It is only through listening, experience and delving into that you find out there is actually much more they are concerned about. Some of things, as was said earlier, are simple such as the runners, or a prisoner missing their clothes, their post or they have not spoken to their girlfriend, partner or whatever it is. Sometimes there are reasons they do not want to engage and we must be careful with stuff like that but we walk the landings and see them face to face. That is the uniqueness of the visiting committee.

Vice Chairman

I would like to bring in the IPRT and Dr. Garrihy. I want to reconcile this point because it is obvious we have been left with some space in the Bill. The heads even reference that there is a review going on, so it is clearly an open question for the Department. We might as well have the conversation now.

Ms Saoirse Brady

That is one of the things I was going to mention. The Bill was published one week and then the public consultation on prison visiting committees was published the following week. We had to do two submissions at the same time so we were very aware of it. The question is why is there so much detail in the heads of Bill on the prison visiting committees when the Department is having a public consultation. Should that not have informed the direction of the legislation? There is a real value in prison visiting committees but what we really want to see this legislation do is that reform piece, to have consistency across the board and to have transparency around them.

I have spoken to a number of people who have been appointed to prison visiting committees. They were not even aware of what the process was because there is not necessarily a clear appointments process. That is something that needs to be looked at. Also, we would question whether prison visiting committees should fall under the remit of the new inspectorate of places of detention, because that will require extra resources and extra expertise. It will be quite resource intensive and I think we will probably lose something in terms of the independence when it comes between the two.

I have another point on that piece. Currently, as it as it drafted, there will be a composite report for all the prison visiting committee reports that go into the inspectorate. We would lose a lot from that because no prison is the same. We might see some trends but we would lose the current issues that are coming up within a particular prison.

Vice Chairman

I agree. We can take the appointments piece as agreed, essentially because that is dealt within the Bill and because we know where that is going. It is a matter of what it does, of independence and of interaction. I agree with Ms Brady's distillation of the points. Does Dr. Garrihy have a view?

Dr. Joe Garrihy

It is a good question. It is a tricky question because, as I mentioned earlier, prison visiting committees remain one of the only ways in which people in custody can bring their concerns to an independent actor. However, we cannot ignore the prevailing perception of prison visiting committees among people in custody and among people like myself who research prisons. There is a sense that prison visiting committees are too close to governors and to the Irish Prison Service and that independence, which is much vaunted, may not be so apparent in many of the reports or in terms of whether something has been overturned.

To address the Irish Penal Reform Trust's point on the writing and issuing of reports, there is a serious imbalance in the quality of reports from prison visiting committees in different prisons. It can be hard to glean much information from a four-page annual report. There are question marks about the ideal role, as was said, but whether that comes under the remit of the terms of OPCAT, it cannot be an NPM because it does not fit the criteria. Placing it under the new inspectorate may seem to remedy that but as people have mentioned, it is a serious undertaking and will require a root-and-branch reform in terms of appointments, expertise and training. As others mentioned, often people do not know the process of being appointed and they certainly do not know the terms of reference for what exactly their role is. These are issues that are not insurmountable but they are not small issues and I do not think that placing them under the new inspectorate is the quick fix to that.

Mr. Mark Kelly

I agree with that final comment. The value and the role of visiting committees are indisputable. They are listeners, among other things, and they hear the voices of prisoners directly. That has a huge value in and of itself. They are a community contact for prisoners and we should not lose that.

If it would be of help to the committee, specifically on part 2 of the general scheme or on head 13, we address this on page 19 of our submission. We neither have an aspiration as an inspectorate to be involved in establishing a visiting committee for each prison, nor do we think that it is appropriate that the visiting committee should effectively report to the inspectorate. Head 13(12) could be read as implying that the visiting committees would somehow be accountable to the inspectorate of places of detention. That is not something on which we were ever consulted and we do not think it is appropriate. We think it would impinge upon their independence.

Finally, under head 13(13), the idea that our inspectorate would take all of these disparate elements from different visiting committee reports and somehow edit them into one composite report is illusory. The resources that we would have to put into that in terms of liaison with the visiting committee's fact checking, editing etc. would be disproportionate to the quality of the outcome. As far as our inspectorate is concerned, Part 2 of the general scheme of the Bill requires extensive revision to capture the essence of the listening, the community contact and empathy rapport of the visiting committees, without subjecting them to an accountability mechanism that is not sought by the inspectorate.

Senator Lynn Ruane

I have a quick question and I thank the Chair for allowing me back in. It is on the issue of the visiting committees and relates to when they go in. I am wondering about the interpretation and the having a good grasp and understanding of any sorts of complaints by members of communities who do not have any English. They may potentially be sometimes be relying on other people within the prison system who have some English. Then they have to divulge the complaint to somebody else and have to trust them to pass that on. If there are any issues in a health setting, they have to do that as well. I wonder whether there is a need for this committee to look at recommendations around the right to interpretation in relation to human rights, especially with the visiting committees or the inspectorate going in. Do they have a good grasp of what the complaints might be from other communities based on any language barriers or is there a need to address that?

Dr. Pauline Conroy

There is a serious need for a separate translation service that could be established at a central level. It would run by telephone into the prisons, or even into other places within the criminal justice system. These telephone interpretations work very well and I have had involvement in them in England in the borough of Newham. The Irish Prison Service has an obligation to provide confidentiality and privacy to members who wish to speak not just to the visiting committee, but they may wish to speak to a chaplain or an emir as well. Such a service should be available to them. At the moment, other prisoners oblige by offering to translate but that is actually very wrong because you should not be disclosing personal information to another prisoner. It is quite wrong. The other prisoner could be of a religion or an ethnicity that is different from the prisoner who does not speak English. The translation issue is therefore crucial.

Dr. Orla Keane

That is a really important issue because we have seen since the beginning of the tribunal process, from 1 November 2006 to now, that the profile of people who are involuntarily detained - and this will also be the same with prisoners - has dramatically changed. Approximately a year and a half ago, our basic booklets were in English and Irish but they are translated into eight other languages as well. There has to be more documentation translated.

Also, we have increased the availability of the translation services. If the inspectorate goes out and finds people who are not voluntarily detained and who do not have access, they address it with the staff on the day. I cannot imagine being in another country, not being able to speak that language, not being able to express oneself and relying on somebody else. The issue of Ukrainians has recently come up, because different people came from different parts of Ukraine. We have different people coming from different parts of Africa. Some of those might speak French, but the approved centre will have them written down as one thing, but in fact they speak a different language because they are from a different part of the country. It is essential, because if you are to give these people a voice, you have to give them a proper voice.

Dr. Ciara O'Connell

To follow on from that, at the Office of the Inspector of Prisons that has been a hot item that we have been looking at throughout all of the Covid-19 pandemic. We inspected all the prisons last year through the Covid-19 lens and I can say that maybe five, six or seven times, we were making recommendations on access to information for foreign nationals and non-English-speaking people in prison.

Resettlement is also an area in which that is strongly needed. When people are waiting, when they are talking to Irish Association for Social Inclusion Opportunities, IASIO, officers and when they are trying to get out, there is no way for them to communicate about where they are supposed to go. This has therefore become central to our work. In every inspection now, we give a small booklet to the prisoners to share the findings. It comes in ten languages.

We have information booklets for prisoners in eight languages. We are starting to survey prisoners using digital tablets. It comes in ten languages. Everything we do is to try to push that because our foreign national prison population will only grow. The recommendations we have been making we cannot make enough. We should definitely all continue to make that recommendation.

Chairman

Dr. O'Connell is providing information to prisons in eight to ten languages. Are the prisons reciprocating?

Dr. Ciara O'Connell

In our recommendation, we referred to people committed during quarantine. Foreign nationals were committed for up to 14 days without any knowledge of where they were or why they were sitting there for 14 days. In response to our recommendation, they started to provide information on the committal process, the number of days, when one gets tested and those types of things. We have been engaging in a monitoring process on those recommendations. Shortly, members will start to see what the IPS has been doing and then we go back in and access its monitoring of the recommendations. There is movement but could be much more.

Dr. Joe Garrihy

I and colleagues in Maynooth have just finished two pieces of research, one with the IPRT and one with the Irish Council for Prisoners Overseas on, initially, minority, ethnic and foreign national prisoners and, secondly, just foreign national prisoners. This is one of the key findings that came out of it. We spoke to over 100 people of the 560-odd in prison at the moment. Language permeated every aspect of their existence in prison and restrained them in many ways.

I note that the IPS has put on record that it agrees to translate the prison rules and other documents into many languages. It has been said at a conference, though I do not know if this will happen, that it has put out a tender for translation services. In places like the Netherlands, there is a dedicated phone service so a person can pick up a phone and there is a translator at the other end. It is not to say there are no issues with that implementation but there are things in place.

We also have international obligations. European prison rules say people in prison must be furnished with a copy of the prison rules and other documents in a language they understand. The vast majority of people who did not have a high capacity in English that we spoke to never received any prison rules, not to mention in a language they understood. That translates - no pun intended - into repatriation applications, complaints and other aspects that are basic elements of life. The translation issue will get bigger and needs to be addressed.

Deputy Patrick Costello

Translation, as was said earlier, will be an issue throughout the justice system. Prisoners find themselves in this position struggling against issues of translation, but their experience of the justice system began in the Garda station and moved through the courts. What was their experience through that? We have had sessions here with people talking about the difficulty of translation in the courts. It is a much broader thing which the committee needs to look at through the entire journey of the justice system.

Ms Nuala Ryan

There are many immigrants and people who come in who should not be in prison at all. They have not been charged with anything and there is no place for them in the prison system. That needs to be addressed at some stage. There are many people in prison who should not be there anyway, because of mental illness and otherwise. There is a wide spectrum that needs to be looked at. Many people are not suitable for prison and it is the last place they should be.

Chairman

I will make two observations on what has been said. One is on going back to Limerick Prison. This speaks to some of the issues of whether or not people should be in prison and the issues behind that. I think Dr. O'Connell wanted to come in on that point. I visited the new Limerick prison which will open in January to see what it was like and it is an excellent facility. Chief among the facilities is a dedicated rape crisis counsellor, which is of huge significance in a women's prison. There are few people who end up there who do not come from a background of significant trauma. There is also a dentist, another significant support for women in prison.

We have talked about short sentences and I agree with all the points made. Short sentences are pointless from the perspective of the State because there is no opportunity to begin education or training programmes in a meaningful way. They do not deliver anything for the State or the person in prison.

Women in prison must be among the most vulnerable, particularly women from the Traveller community. They have not been mentioned today and I want to highlight them. The IPRT published good figures on how disproportionate their experience was in being represented in the prison community, the circumstances through which they had got there and various things that had happened to bring them to that point. I refer anybody watching to the IPRT figures on that. I spent two hours with women in Limerick Prison having sandwiches and talking about the issues they faced, that is, the rape crisis centre, dentistry and women from the Traveller community. They are in very difficult circumstances, notwithstanding what else happened in their lives. I think Dr. O'Connell wanted to come in on trauma.

Dr. Ciara O'Connell

We need to consider staffing in women's prisons. It should be on a mixed-staffing basis but the high-contact points should be run by women. In areas where there are private interactions, it should be women running those positions. That is not currently the case. It used to be the case that people assigned to work in women's prisons were trained in gender. I think every prison staff member should be trained in gender because we all have genders. Gender-based violence should be understood across the spectrum. There is no training in gender sensitivity for prison officers, even when they are moved to a women's prison. I wanted to flag those key points.

Chairman

The governor was excellent on understanding those things and we had a detailed conversation about what women need, including practical things, down to the products they go out of their way to try to buy to support women in different ways.

Dr. Joe Garrihy

I will make two points on the new Limerick women's prison. First, we talked about new prisons earlier and the opening of this prison is welcome in some ways, but it increases the number of women in prison in Ireland to nearly 200. That is an escalation in prison numbers for women and not the direction we should be going. Second, the Dóchas Centre was state-of-the-art 30 years ago and I would argue it has fallen into disrepair and disuse. Many of the things much vaunted about the new prison were present in Dóchas and are not functioning now or in stasis.

Chairman

The committee has covered that before and acknowledged that the population doubled there and it had not received the investment it needed at any stage. We look forward to the new prison and the issues about why women are there or should not be there. Mental health issues and others are separate to that. I thank Dr. Garrihy.

Though the Department representatives are here as observers, is there anything they would like to clarify for us now?

Ms Lisa Doherty

We are happy to try our best. As we are here as observers, we had not prepared speaking notes but want to convey that we welcome the submissions, comments and questions from the committee. The pre-legislative scrutiny process is timely and important as drafting of the Bill commences.

I will make a few points to try to expand on or explain the policy intent behind some of the heads. A number of questions came up a few times. I stress that the general scheme heads are always scant in detail. That is, unfortunately, how it works. The detail will come in the drafting. Questions around definitions, clarification, functions, etc., will be teased out with the expertise of the Office of the Attorney General in the drafting process. The report of the pre-legislative scrutiny will feed into that.

The Department recognises this is long-awaited legislation. It is Government policy not to ratify international instruments unless primary legislation is in place. We have been engaging with the sub-committee on prevention of torture, SPT, at the UN, in co-ordination with the Department of Foreign Affairs, and will do so after enactment on a more formal basis and with the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC.

I will give more background to some broader questions that came up a few times.

It is the Government's intention that all places of detention will be covered. This Bill is specifically on the justice sector but one will see in the heads a reference to the Minister for Health, the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth.

Independence came up a lot. It is the Department's intention that the Office of the Inspector of Prisons will be functionally independent. The obligations are set out and I recognise that we need to make them clearer in drafting. The inspectorate has to report to the Oireachtas and be accountable to it, but not on policy because policy accountability is for the Government, including the Minister. With regard to the functions and administration of the inspectorate, the inspector will be accountable to the Oireachtas. That is clearly set out. We will probably need to ensure it is much clearer in the drafting.

Resourcing was also raised a number of times. The previous inspector commissioned, in 2018, an independent review into the office, its structures and how it would look. That review recommended that the office should stay under the Department of Justice. That is the basis for the head in this regard and the underlying policy on maintaining the office of the inspectorate under the Department. Having a separate Vote would, in the words of the independent consultant, cause an undue administrative and financial burden on the office. It was claimed that the benefits of remaining in the Department outweigh any disbenefits, including perceived independence issues. Again, this was all informing the policy behind the relevant provisions in the heads.

The Department has sought to increase resources to the office over recent years. There was a quite significant increase between 2020 and last year. Once the legislation is enacted, the Department will continue to negotiate with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to ensure additional increases and resources to ensure the office can carry out all its functions.

Appointments came up at one point. I must make it clear that appointments are made by way of public competition through the Public Appointments Service, not the Minister.

We will certainly take on board the point on engaging with civil society. There is definitely room to consider that in the drafting and after enactment.

On the prison complaints system, work is ongoing on drafting secondary legislation that will provide for a whole new prisoner complaints system through the amending of prison rules. That is being informed by recommendations of a previous Inspector of Prisons. It is at quite an advanced stage.

On the prison visiting committees, there has been a very interesting, useful discussion. We understand the sequencing was unfortunate. The Bill was not published; it was just the general scheme, but the Bill, which is now to be drafted, will be informed by the outcome of extensive public consultation and inputs and submissions by the various stakeholders concerning the prison visiting committees process. This will be in the coming weeks and months.

I hope that gives some clarification. We are certainly looking forward to the report of the committee and to determining how we can act on its recommendations.

Chairman

I thank Ms Doherty. I propose that we publish all the opening statements on the committee website. Is that agreed? Agreed. On behalf of the committee, I thank everyone for attending and contributing on this important matter and for their engagement and dialogue. We really appreciate it.

Since there is no other business, we will adjourn until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 25 October 2022, when we will meet in public session for stakeholder engagement on the enforcement of court orders relating to the maintenance, access and custody.

The joint committee adjourned at 5.24 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 25 October 2022.