Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Justice and Equality debate -
Wednesday, 15 Feb 2017

Scrutiny of Prisons (Solitary Confinement) (Amendment) Bill 2016: Discussion

I will be brief because the legislation itself is short and I have to leave the meeting at 10.45 a.m. The Bill codifies in primary legislation the rules around the holding of individuals in solitary confinement. The first point was raised by the Minister and was, why primary legislation? Should we not just leave it for the Minister to provide through regulation? Are we trying to micro-manage in primary legislation? That is not on. The current process where prison rules are created by regulation obviously allows for a greater degree for flexibility, which I believe, by and large, is appropriate. That is not what this Bill is about however. It is about protecting human rights and protecting people from harm. In that sense, there can be no inflexibility. Putting the protection of fundamental human rights into primary legislation is good.

There is only one piece that might open me to a charge of micro-management, which is the amended section 35(2)(2A)(i). This provides that prisoners held in solitary confinement "shall have access to work, training, education, rehabilitation, and other services, and insofar as is possible this shall be in association with other prisoners". That might be the only charge of micro-management. Other than that, this is about protecting people from a violation of their human rights and it is entirely appropriate to have in primary legislation.

There may be some practical difficulties from the Irish Prison Service, IPS, although they are moving in the direction of dealing with this issue anyway. I would consider it complementary rather than causing a difficulty. I do believe the input of the IPS could help it happen. I think we can eliminate the practice.

Basically the Bill amends section 35 of the 2007 Act, which is the Act that allows the Minister to make rules to govern and regulate prisons. At present, prisoners held in solitary confinement in Ireland are held under either rule 62 or 63, which are made under section 35. This Bill inserts a provision which will oblige the Minister to make prison rules restricting the use of solitary confinement.

The Bill gives a definition of solitary confinement for the first time in Irish law, which is "the restriction of a prisoner’s opportunities for meaningful human interaction and communal association for 22 to 24 hours a day, whether by means of restricting the prisoner to a cell or by any other means". The reason we said 22 hours is partly because we felt is would be easier. I would have preferred 19. The international standard is 22 hours, because after that time we are looking at irreversible psychiatric problems if people are held indefinitely. I would obviously be much happier to see 19 and if the big parties supported 19, let them bring it on, but the reason we chose 22 is because it is the international human rights standard. It is the time period for which there is medical evidence. That is the definition.

We see the amended section 35(2)(2A)(a) as being very important. It is the most important section because it says that "no prisoner shall be held in solitary confinement for any reason for more than 15 consecutive days", because after the 15 days is when the damage sets in. I thought Deputy O'Callaghan's point on Second Stage was graphic for people. If we were talking about a prisoner being beaten or getting their legs broken people would readily understand it. This is similar damage to their mental health and has to be recognised as such. There are hugely damaging psychological effects, which can be long-term, and we need to have it outlawed.

I absolutely appreciate that the Prison Service and the current director general are trying to deal with this issue but we cannot just leave it up to chance. Who is going to come in after him? Perhaps it will be an austerity bunch and maybe there will be a different Minister. We need it protected in law.

The other provisions in the Bill are, very briefly, divided into two groups. One is to complement the principle that solitary confinement is so serious and damaging that certain persons can never be subjected to it. It should not be used as a punitive measure. Prisoners with mental illness should never be placed in solitary confinement and similarly neither should prisoners on remand. Flowing from that is the provision that solitary confinement should be the last resort. There is a group of measures to make sure that it is in fact a last resort by putting obligations on the Prison Service. These include daily visits from a mental health professional or the doctor, a system whereby there would be a review every three days, a requirement for the governor to keep a written log, access to treatment and so on, and then the provisions around work training, family visits and access to complaints. This is again important. It relates not just to general complaints but category A complaints, which are ones around which there is an urgency. Given the potential damage of this type of incarceration, this does need to be addressed promptly, as indeed medical contact needs to pick up any signs early.

To address some issues that arose around it, it has been noted that the IPS are working on this anyway. That is great, but it does not mean that we should not enshrine it in law. There is no reason we should refuse to ban torture and that is what this essentially is. I think the IPS, like anybody, can bring about change in that when we bring in legislation. There are other issues about people who seek to be kept away from others. These issues are around protection. Where many people are on their own because of that, the reasons they are in danger need to be addressed and the security risk to them needs to be tackled. If somebody is asking to be on their own and deprived of human contact, that sets off alarm bells. There are some serious other underlying problems there which need to be addressed.

There are good things being done, particularly with people with mental health problems, including attempts to set up facilities where they would be cared for in a different custodial environment. This legislation does not negate any of that. It actually complements it and simply puts it in primary legislation. It is pretty straightforward.

I want to re-emphasise the point I made before. It is unacceptable to use solitary confinement as a punishment. It is a form of deprivation of association with people. It is a form of sensory deprivation and the reason it is happening is because the prisoner has engaged in indiscipline or has broken prison discipline rules. There must be other methods, I would have thought, of ensuring that prisoners can be disciplined. Obviously prisoners do break rules in prison but surely there are other mechanisms that can be used to punish them, such as taking away some of the few liberties they have or reducing visits or whatever. It would be interesting to hear what the Prison Service has to say in respect of it. I am sure it has ideas as to how a disruptive prisoner can be dealt with as opposed to just locking them up and denying them association.

Before inviting the next speaker-----

I am sorry that was not a question. I have just realised that.

I appreciate that. Is the Deputy finished?

For member's information, while we are addressing both of these Bills in the context of the list of Private Member's Bills, it is nevertheless a component part of aggressive penal reform, which is the contracted title of our current series of hearings which we decided on last week. We are now in a position to confirm the schedule of engagements. Deputy O'Callaghan mentioned the Prison Service. I am happy to advise, if members wish to note, I do not know if this has been circulated yet, but on 22 February the meeting will be of the select committee. I will come back to that.

In regard to our sequence of engagements on penal reform, the joint committee will have a discussion with the Victims' Rights Alliance on Wednesday, 1 March 2017. That follows last week's engagement with the Irish Penal Reform Trust. On the following Wednesday, 8 March the joint committee will have discussions, and this has been confirmed, with the Prison Service and the Probation Service. We will conclude our engagement on Wednesday, 22 March when the Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice and the Prison Officers Association will come before us in separate tranches on that day.

As Deputy O'Callaghan has said we will have the opportunity to address some of the matters to the Irish Prison Service on 8 March.

The director general of the Prison Service has a working group on the issue. I see it as complementary.

That is right.

Chairman, I must go to the Chamber but I will be back.

I have heard that before.

I welcome the Bill. I fully agree with Deputy O'Callaghan that solitary confinement should not be used anymore. It is horrendous. I sincerely hope - and I bow to Deputy Daly's knowledge on this - that it is not being used that much in this country. I would be interested to hear what the director general, Mr. Michael Donnellan has to say when he appears before the committee. I am going to make a point of being present on 8 March. It is good that there is a working group but obviously solitary confinement is being used as a sanction if there has to be a working group. Even though great work is being done in the prison service, I agree with the principal that we should legislate and ensure that if we get some director general in the future who is not as forward thinking as Michael Donnellan is, that we have the protections in place. Our responsibility as legislators is to close down that type of risk.

I salute what Deputy Daly is trying to achieve. I hope the Prison Service would see it as complementary to what they are doing.

I will try to group the contributions and allow Deputy Daly to respond at the conclusion.

I welcome the Bill. I know the Deputy has more expertise in this area that I do, but is there any scope to legislate for an international number of hours that is better for the prisoner than we have laid out as this would be a more positive measure. What is the international perception? It would be interesting to hear from the IPS on that.

We need to put more positive measures in primary legislation in regard to rehabilitation, education, work and training because there is a significant deficit in our system in that respect. The more we can do to incorporate positive measures in this area and put them on a legislative footing the better.

I do not know what countries have moved beyond the international norm for the number of hours in confinement for the benefit of the person in confinement.

Are there any other members offering?

I welcome the work. I too like Deputy Daly have an ideological view but also a very practical technical view as to why solitary confinement is a significantly negative process, not just for the individual concerned but also for the penal system we want to achieve. Solitary confinement does not benefit anybody at any level. It is a real stain on society that we would think it acceptable or an appropriate way to deal with a prisoner.

I agree with Deputy Chambers' point on looking at the technical matters. When we hear from the groups that the Chairman mentioned we can discuss how the proposal would compare with best practice. What Deputy Daly has done is a very important piece of work. More power to your elbow, Deputy.

In the absence of any other member, I wish to tease out a number of points. First, I fully concur with the Deputy that it is more unfortunate that the template would be the 22 hours of solitary confinement. I would absolutely believe that we should be looking at a lot less than that.

I would put the following question to Deputy O'Callaghan on his Bill: is there a particular template in respect of the 15 consecutive days and 30 days in any year? Are there international comparators in terms - I hesitate to say it - of best practice, heaven forbid in terms of solitary confinement? I am asking the question to tease out the construction of the Deputy's proposition. In relation to section 2 and the amendments of the sections, I absolutely support where the Deputy wants to bring this, but can she elaborate on section 2 (2A) "(d) no prisoner with a diagnosed mental illness or disability shall be subject to solitary confinement;". Is there any weakness in that wording by using the word "disability", and the wide understanding and application that can have because it is such a broad term in terms of many absences of ability or impaired abilities. Is there a weakness that the provision could fail to be applied in the sense that the subsection refers to a diagnosed mental illness? Might the reference to disability merit some strengthening in order to ensure certainty?

While in her response Deputy Daly laid the responsibility for protections in the prison system on the system itself: that protective solitary confinement was not an excuse or could not be, other measures have to be found in terms of protecting those who are detained in a prison environment, I am being a devil's advocate here. Are there instances where solitary confinement would be requested and would the measures contained work adversely in regard to such a situation? I have no personal knowledge of such a case, but I am trying to tease it out. At the end of the day I would like the Bill to be all the Deputy intends.

There is no other member indicating, and I know that Deputy Daly has another appointment. Would she like to respond to our collective contributions?

I thank colleagues for their input. Unlike Deputy O'Callaghan, I do not have the legal expertise to answer the more technical points but the discussion has been good. The committee secretariat gave us a good pack, which gives a breakdown of the information for which Senator Conway was looking.

The IPRT figures.

Yes. They give a total breakdown of the people on restrictive regimes, which is the new term for solitary confinement. The hours are given, as are the reasons such as punishment, the protection of vulnerable prisoners - voluntary, and the protection of vulnerable prisoners - involuntary. Special observation is also a reason, but the Minister had a problem with this because it meant people with severe mental illnesses were being placed in closed supervision areas on a solitary basis. There are huge issues around people with mental health problems and some severely psychotic cases are not being cared for adequately in the Prison Service, although I am sure Michael Donnellan will deal with it. There is a plan to develop a unit in the midlands prison but it will only take small numbers and many of prisoners are in isolation because they have requested it themselves. They are afraid and feel at risk or they have other mental health issues.

The figures are very useful for answering some of the questions. Medical research states that the maximum period should be 15 days and that any more than that causes irreversible psychological damage to set in. We are trying to manage these cases while also managing the prison. We want to keep it to under 15 days but we also propose to exclude certain groups of vulnerable people from ever being placed on such a regime.

I take the point about disability and such an amendment would need to be adopted in a hurry. Deputy Chambers made a point about prisoners spending 19 hours in cells and I wanted to have a provision on this in the Bill but we thought it might not pass Second Stage. The IPRT figures give a breakdown of the figures and 19 hours is the figure in some areas. The Minister would probably make the argument that a maximum period would be more difficult to manage from an administrative point of view. If somebody spends 19 hours in a cell but gets five hours outside to have a great time and to socially interact, that would actually help but that is often not the case. That is why we propose a provision that there be meaningful human contact because people in solitary confinement are often let out for exercise but not allowed to talk to, or interact with, anybody. That is where the damage is being done. It is not a lack of exercise but a lack of meaningful human contact, sometimes for periods of years. All the best penal policy would have it that the more a person spends outside the cell the better it is, but this creates issues for prison management and, sadly, a lot of times this comes down to resources. People have to stay in cells because there are not enough staff. I would certainly be prepared to accept an amendment to 19 hours. I also take the point about disability and I believe we can work on the other issues.

Can Deputy Daly comment on her point about requests made by individual prisoners? I am not privy to any such situations. Do they arise?

Yes. These are the highest category. Rule 63 allows people to voluntarily go to the prison governor and the latest figure gives 389 as the number of people who have done so. The vast majority would be in a gang and there would be a security risk, that is a risk to their well-being as a result of the criminal activity for which they were serving time. Some, however, have deep mental health problems and do not want to be around others. If somebody asks to be removed from human contact the medical view would be that it would be a serious indication of underlying problems. It is sometimes a prison management issue but it should not be.

It would be of concern if our legislation prevented protections applying in individual cases but that is something we can tease out at a later stage. I thank members for their prelegislative scrutiny of both Bills - Deputy O'Callaghan's Parole Bill 2016 and Deputy Clare Daly's Prisons (Solitary Confinement) (Amendment) Bill 2016. Is it agreed that, in accordance with Standing Order 142, draft scrutiny reports be prepared based on the discussions we have had? Agreed. The clerk will prepare the draft scrutiny reports which will be circulated to members of the committee this week. The Minister will be included in the circulation as an ex officio committee member.

The joint committee went into private session at 10.35 a.m. and adjourned at 10.50 a.m. until 9 a.m. on Wednesday, 1 March 2017.
Top
Share