JOINT COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, EQUALITY, DEFENCE AND WOMEN'S RIGHTS debate -
Thursday, 20 May 2010

Prison Accommodation: Discussion

Chairman

The purpose of today's meeting is to hold discussions with Mr. Paul Mackay, former member of Mountjoy Prison visiting committee and Mr. Stephen Langton, chairperson, Mountjoy Prison visiting committee. Also present is Mr. Brian Purcell, director general, Prison Service. I thank the delegates for their attendance at today's meeting. I refer to the format of today's meeting. Messrs Mackay and Langton will be invited to make a brief opening statement and this will be followed by a question and answer session. Mr. Purcell will be available to respond to any query in respect of the Prison Service.

Before we begin I draw the attention of the delegates to the situation in respect of privilege. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, you are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence you are to give this committee. If you are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and you continue to so do, you are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of your evidence. You are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and you are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, you should not criticise or make charges against any persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Mr. Paul Mackay

I appreciate the invitation to address the committee and the opportunity to share with it some of my recent experiences as a member of the Mountjoy Prison visiting committee. In recent times the country has been convulsed over revelations about the scandalous way in which we treated young children in industrial schools in the middle and later decades of the last century, but even as we express our outrage at those awful crimes, it is almost impossible to generate any similar emotion over the scandalous treatment this State currently metes out to thousands of our most vulnerable citizens, young and old, in our network of prisons.

For the past three years I have been a member of the Mountjoy visiting committee; a committee appointed by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to monitor and report on conditions in the country's oldest prison. My term of office expired on 30 April. In attending this meeting I am anxious to ensure that the legislators are fully cognisant of what goes on behind the walls of Mountjoy Prison and is being perpetrated in the name of this State.

Throughout my time on the committee I have been horrified by the appalling conditions experienced by inmates in the prison and by the indifference official Ireland has shown to their plight. When I have tried to raise my concerns about what I have been witness to with representatives of the Irish Prison Service, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, certain politicians and others, I have been met with denial, indifference, obfuscation, and obstruction. This is witnessed by a complete lack of response to my correspondence, as set out in my April report which all members of the committee have received. I was particularly disappointed that the Minister did not reply to my various letters or failed to accept my invitation to visit the prison. I am now reliably informed that he intends to visit the prison for the first time as Minister on 14 June. I hope the Irish Prison Service puts the next month to good use in ensuring that the prison is spick and span for his visit.

Clearly it is a particular challenge to generate sympathy for people whose very presence in the prison is linked to criminal, anti-social behaviour, but surely as a civilised society, we owe it to what, by any definition, are amongst our most vulnerable citizens to ensure that their basic human rights are respected even while they are incarcerated by the State as punishment for their wrongdoings. I have been heartened by the response to my personal campaign in highlighting this issue. The Irish Penal Trust endorses my views as does Fr. Peter McVerry. My views are compatible with those expressed in the reports prepared and presented by the Mountjoy visiting committee to the Minister over the years. Likewise, this is also evident from the recent chaplains' report and the statements made by the two retiring governors.

We all understand that Mountjoy Prison is a Victorian prison that it is 160 years old this year. It is a prison that is totally run down, unsuitable for present needs and overcrowded. We understand that there are plans to develop a modern facility at Thornton Hall to replace Mountjoy Prison, but we also know that Thornton Hall will not see its first occupants until 2016 at the earliest. In the meantime Mountjoy Prison should be adapted to meet the present urgent needs.

Ongoing living conditions for prisoners at Mountjoy Prison are inappropriate, to say the least. Prisoners live in overcrowded cells sleeping on floors infested with cockroaches, mice, ants and other assorted vermin. Some are sleeping in shower blocks, reception and other unsuitable areas. Prisoners are forced to perform daily bodily functions in their cells in front of cell mates and slop out when cell doors are reopened. Prisoners are locked in their cells for 17 hours each day and have to eat all their meals in the same confined cell area where they sleep and perform their bodily functions. There is a 23 hour lock-up for those on protection with just one hour of possible association or recreation.

There is persistent failure of the Irish Prison Service to adhere properly to prison rules 2007. These rules were introduced and became applicable from October 2007. The worst breaches are the failure to operate and apply rule 64 regarding special observation cells. The prisoner reception area remains a disgrace. The air conditioning system has been out of order for some time; it is damaged but could be repaired. The continuous use of the windowless 8 ft. by 8 ft. cells in this area, without in-cell sanitation, is inhumane, barbaric and a disgrace. Prisoners are regularly housed overnight on mattresses on the floor with little or no supervision. This practice also occurs in the adjoining B base shower block.

The inhuman practices and other malpractices that arise, that is, constant breaches of the prison rules 2007, are due to severe and continuous overcrowding at the prison. The design capacity of the accommodation cells in the prison is 489. However the average number of prisoners incarcerated in Mountjoy Prison in recent months was close to 700.

Constant overcrowding is bad for morale, for staff and prisoners alike. As a consequence, a high level of unnecessary tension is constant at the prison. Management and staff at Mountjoy Prison deserve full praise for the sterling work they undertake in very difficult, and at times, very dangerous circumstances just to maintain order and discipline. In recent days we have learnt of the departure of two governors, Kathleen McMahon and John Lonergan, who between them have served 75 years on behalf of the State. They will be hard to replace and their knowledge, leadership and vast experience will be lost to the Irish Prison Service forever. This need not have been the situation. The Irish Prison Service did not treat them in a proper, fair and professional manner. Unfortunately, it operates a rigid, centralised control system over local management and, consequently initiative is neither encouraged or allowed.

A certain proportion of the overcrowding is caused by the imprisonment of mentally ill disturbed individuals who should receive appropriate mental health care elsewhere outside of the prison regime. Overcrowding is also due to the incarceration of individuals by the courts for failure to pay their fines or debts. Surely there must be more humane, economic and proper ways that could be applied by the courts in addressing such matters.

Rehabilitation should be one of the key objectives of the criminal justice system. Again, due to severe overcrowding at Mountjoy Prison various workshops, the school and the library are not always open at the designated times. As a consequence these services are unavailable to those prisoners who wish to avail of them. These are the very services, if they were properly provided, which might assist in reducing the extremely high rates of recidivism. Unfortunately, many prisoners are just incarcerated and warehoused.

The Inspector of Prisons and Places of Detention, Mr. Justice Michael Reilly, issued an urgent interim report in August 2009. His 41 page report contains 16 recommendations which are presented and stated as cost neutral. These recommendations, in the main, remain to be fully implemented. His main recommendation is that the maximum number of prisoners to be incarcerated in Mountjoy should not exceed 540. The Irish Prison Service has a practice of creating extra capacity by installing bunk beds. However, it fails to introduce the necessary infrastructure such as extra classrooms, workshops, kitchen facilities and so on. For the Irish Prison Service the mantra is "bed capacity"; nothing else appears to be important.

As a nation we now know only too well, to our cost, the unspeakable damage that was inflicted in the last century on many who were in the care of State institutions. There should never again be a repeat of such failure and scandal perpetrated by the State. The controls, the oversight and the legislation are all in place. It is now vitally necessary that the Irish Prison Service, the major stakeholder in the Irish criminal justice system acknowledge and honour its responsibilities to prisoners and staff at Mountjoy Prison. The Irish Prison Service mission statement states, inter alia, that its mission “is to provide safe and humane custody for people who are sent to prison”. The Inspector of Prisons and Places of Detention does not accept that this is the regime presently applied at Mountjoy Prison as he stated in his August 2009 interim urgent report that: “Mountjoy Prison cannot, at present, provide safe and secure custody for its prisoners. It is questionable as to whether the prison provides a safe environment for staff to work in”. That is an indictment. As the Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland said in 2005, “Defeating overcrowding in prison should be a goal of all those who want less crime.” It is important to remember that prisoners are in prison as punishment, not for punishment.

Mr. Stephen Langton

I have been a member of the Mountjoy Prison visiting committee for 12 years and its chairman for five years. I am tasked with the job of speaking to and meeting the Irish Prison Service, the governors and staff in the various management structures within the prison on behalf of and with the visiting committee from time to time. The majority of committee members are concerned about the newspaper articles and reports on Mountjoy Prison such as those we heard this morning that give the impression that it is drug-infested, rat-infested and cockroach-infested, but that is not necessarily true. I have been going in and out of cells for a number of years and I am aware that there are mice and cockroaches, but it is not true that they are running all over the place. In the last six months in Mountjoy Prison the Irish Prison Service and the governors have rallied to the cause to get the prison clean. There is no comparison in the position now and six months ago from a cleanliness point of view. Until five months ago it was difficult to get prisoners to do anything to clean the prison; it was left to more vulnerable prisoners who would do it in return for packets of cigarettes. The structures within the prison are now geared towards improving the situation.

Ten years ago the population of Mountjoy Prison was 700. It has now been reduced, not because of a lack of space but because of gangs. There are between 14 and 17 gangs housed there. There are threats made by prisoners against other prisoners. There has also been an increase in the violent nature of assaults on other prisoners who must be accommodated, unfortunately, because we must wait for prison spaces to be provided. That is the realistic view.

We know Mountjoy Prison is 160 years old and it is our job to keep it as clean as possible. We are concerned about the safe and secure custody of prisoners. There are attacks by prisoners on other prisoners and staff. In 2009 there were 128 assaults by prisoners on prisoners and 43 assaults on staff. Some 18 staff were injured while restraining prisoners. There are in excess of 3,000 movements of prisoners within the jail, but the figures are not such that they should give rise to alarmist comment that it is not safe, that it is totally run down and cannot provide for the safe and secure custody of prisoners. It is dangerous because of the nature of those in the prison. It is not the local hotel; it is a prison and there are people housed in it because they are dangerous.

We have been promised the centre at Thornton Hall will be built and hope that will happen. We are conscious, however, that even new, modern prisons are not ideal for prisoners either. I am not a great believer in in-cell sanitation. In other jurisdictions they do not necessarily believe in it either because the prisoner is still eating and sleeping in the same cell in which he performs his bodily functions. In other jurisdictions there are certain classifications of prisoner who will refuse to eat in their cells because they will not eat in a toilet. I hope in the new institutions these issues will be addressed. I have seen the new wings in other prisons and I am not that impressed that there is in-cell sanitation. It is not the way to go. I would not pursue the issue in Mountjoy Prison. I would push for a quicker, easier release of those who want to go to the toilet, particularly at night time.

Rules 18 and 64 are connected with the same issue. If we read them properly, we will see that they give the governor the right to decide how many can be detained in a particular cell and who will be in the special observation cells. During the years the special observation cells have been mentioned in the media. If I were to be committed to Mountjoy Prison tomorrow, shown a special observation cell and an ordinary cell and asked in which I would prefer to sleep, I would opt for the special observation cell. The special observation cell has been designed to house persons who need such a facility on the day it is required. It is not suitable for the accommodation of other prisoners, for whatever reason. However, if the prison is overcrowded, rule 18 states the governor has the right to use it for accommodation purposes. I have seen the correspondence from the Irish Prison Service in which it denied it was used for accommodation purposes, but I believe it was.

I am satisfied that conditions in Mountjoy Prison are improving and that a determined effort is being made by management and staff to improve conditions. We can only look forward in the hope the Thornton Hall project will not be delayed. In spite of the claims made in articles and reports in the media, management personnel and staff within the prison are determined people. They are professional in their approach to prisoners and the prison system. The number of prison officers must be maintained to maintain the ratio between those incarcerated and the number of officers available to accommodate them.

I firmly agree with Mr. Mackay's statements about workshops and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation needs are poorly met in Mountjoy Prison because of the numbers of prison officers available to open workshops because of the recruitment embargo and other issues. If the issues of recruitment, management, staff numbers and the availability of trades were solved, conditions in Mountjoy Prison could improve dramatically.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

I thank Mr. Mackay and Mr. Langton for presenting before the committee. Perhaps I can ask Mr. Mackay to tell the committee something about the prison visiting committee system. How many members are on the vising committee in the case of Mountjoy?

Mr. Paul Mackay

There are nine of us.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

They are all appointees.

Mr. Paul Mackay

They are appointed by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and report to him under the visiting committees legislation of 1925.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

In Mr. Mackay's experience, are they people who have demonstrated some interest in penal issues or are they chosen by circumstance?

Mr. Paul Mackay

They are basically political appointees and I am one such person.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

Do they tend to do a three-year stint and move on or do they——

Mr. Paul Mackay

Normally people are kept on. In my case I did not expect to be re-appointed and so it came to pass. I was on the visiting committee way back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, having been appointed by the late George Colley. It was a much different prison then.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

Why would Mr. Mackay say he did not expect to be kept on?

Mr. Paul Mackay

I stepped on too many toes. The Deputy sees from my correspondence to both the Minister and Mr. WillieConnolly of the IPS that they felt I was a nuisance.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

Is the method of communication of the committee a simple annual report?

Mr. Paul Mackay

Yes, it is an annual report.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

Does that go directly to the Minister?

Mr. Paul Mackay

It goes directly to the Minister and is subsequently published, generally eight or nine months after the end of the year.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

Is it Mr. Mackay's experience that the contents of these reports are taken seriously? I appreciate Mr. Mackay said many recommendations are not implemented but is that because of the feasibility of doing so or is it because the prison visiting committees are not taken too seriously?

Mr. Paul Mackay

In my view, they are not taken too seriously at all. In fact, their reputation was tarnished a number of years back when people were appointed from the far reaches of the country and a person in Cork was put to a committee for Loughan House and huge expenses were recovered. That system was changed around and we get a per day fee of €150 for every time we appear at the prison gates.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

It is no longer an advantage to be in the south west of the country and visiting Mountjoy as compared with being in the south west of Dublin.

Mr. Paul Mackay

No, it is not. One just turns up on the day and one is paid accordingly.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

When one makes one's annual report does one ever get an opportunity to follow it up in a face-to-face meeting with the Minister or his civil servants?

Mr. Paul Mackay

No.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

That report is just dispatched and——

Mr. Paul Mackay

It goes to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and, after that, I do know where it goes. It is eventually published in some shape or form but I am not sure of the detail of that. These are the reports for recent years.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

Do civil servants from the Irish Prison Service or from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform ever sit down with Mr. Mackay and take him through the report or dispute elements of it?

Mr. Paul Mackay

No. As the Deputy can see, Mr. Willie Connolly attended a meeting of the committee on 6 October and he kindly suggested that if we had any issues, we could communicate with him by e-mail. I did so and, as the Deputy can see from the correspondence, I eventually got one reply. Then, on the orders of Mr. Brian Purcell, who is present, he was told "no more communication".

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

What should this committee conclude from that about the efficacy of the prison visiting committee system? Does Mr. Mackay think the system itself is working as it ought to?

Mr. Paul Mackay

The powers of a committee member are huge. One can attend the prison any time, day or night, visit any part of the prison, day or night, talk to any prisoner in private or with another person present. One can look at all the books and records within the prison. One has immense powers but, unfortunately, a difficulty arises in trying to solve some of the issues one comes across.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

In terms of the nine members of the committee, how frequently would some or all of those nine make such inspections?

Mr. Paul Mackay

We meet once a month for a committee meeting. It is then up to oneself to turn up whenever one so wishes. I would say I was a particularly persistent regular attender. I could do so because I am semi-retired so I had more time, and I had more interest as well. On average, I was there probably once a week or maybe three times a month.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

Could Mr. Mackay not say that for too many other members of the committee?

Mr. Paul Mackay

Mr. Langton would be a very conscientious and regular attender but not all would be of a similar mind.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

Where does the committee meet?

Mr. Paul Mackay

We meet in the board room in the prison.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

Mr. Mackay said in his formal statement to the committee that: "In the meantime Mountjoy Prison should be adapted to meet the present urgent needs." What did Mr. Mackay mean by that?

Mr. Paul Mackay

The inspector's report sets out 16 recommendations, many of which I would like to see adopted, but they have not been adopted as of yet.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

Mr. Mackay is saying that apart from the major issues of an inadequate number of prison spaces, there are measures that might be adapted, as he puts it, that would alleviate the conditions he describes.

Mr. Paul Mackay

Yes. Most of the words I have issued here are not my words. They have been in the various reports that have been presented and produced by the committee over the years. Many of the words I have used are also contained in the inspector's report. That was an urgent report. In fact, it was imperative for him to issue that report last August because things were so bad. He issued that report and said the maximum number of prisoners at any one time in that prison should be 540. Today the number is not far off 700 and has been up to 680 over recent months. A prison that should only accommodate about 500 is accommodating just short of 700. One can imagine what that means. Some are in cells in the base for 23 hours per day lock-up. There are four or five people in one cell, with perhaps one on the ground on a mattress having his food. Most of those cells in the base have in-cell sanitation, which is just a corner. There is the deplorable prison reception area which is down in the base and has 8 ft. by 8 ft. cells where guys are put from time to time and can be forgotten about in a day. They are put in there for various reasons and left there. There is no in-cell sanitation. If they want to get out they have to bang the door loud to be heard. It is inhuman.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

Am I correct in thinking from Mr. Mackay's statement that he draws a distinction between his assessment of the management in the prisons and the Irish Prison Service?

Mr. Paul Mackay

Yes. Mountjoy is micro-managed by the IPS. It has a tight reign over the management in the prison. It allows for no initiative whatsoever and that is why people such as Mr. John Lonergan and Ms Kathleen McMahon are exiting. They have just had enough. It is clear from speaking to the staff, especially the management staff, that they are beaten dockets. They are just beaten into the ground by this monolithic organisation called the Irish Prison Service in the charge of Mr. Brian Purcell.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

Mr. Mackay is arguing that more autonomy should be given to the local governors.

Mr. Paul Mackay

These are the people on the ground. John Lonergan has 42 years' experience. Kathleen McMahon has 33 years' experience. They are respected people who were given responsibility but they were not given proper responsibility on a day-to-day basis. They had to refer regularly to the people in the Irish Prison Service offices in Longford.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

Mr. Mackay referred to mentally ill people being incarcerated at Mountjoy. Is that a significant number of people?

Mr. Paul Mackay

It is. It is difficult to know sometimes who is and who is not mentally ill but some seriously ill people are incarcerated. To give the Deputy an example, apart from the mentally ill, there is one prisoner in Mountjoy — I will not name him — who is virtually blind and they cannot cope with him.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

Does Mr. Mackay believe the services available for the psychiatrically ill are adequate?

Mr. Paul Mackay

No.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

Mr. Langton seemed to dispute the picture Mr. Mackay paints of the physical and other conditions. He seemed to take a more benign view, operating within the constraints in which he is operating. He seemed to suggest that the picture Mr. Mackay painted for us is somewhat extreme.

Mr. Paul Mackay

One might think so but I am only expressing the same views the Inspector of Prisons and Places of Detention expressed in August 2009 and in the various reports we have issued as a committee to the Minister over recent years. I am not saying anything new here. Unfortunately, all these remarks have been made previously. That is the frustrating aspect. They were said previously but they were not listened to. They go into a black hole somewhere and, unfortunately, the Minister does not seem to be exercised. He has not turned up at Mountjoy since he was appointed Minister.

Deputy Charles Flanagan

I apologise for being late. I was attending another meeting but I had the opportunity of reading Mr. Mackay's interesting paper last night. I thank him for that and I thank Mr. Langton and Mr. Purcell for attending. The only missing link is the man with the purse strings, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who is perhaps the most important man of all. That is relevant in the context of the two questions I have for Mr. Mackay.

I wonder about the relationship between the visiting committee and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. As Mr. Mackay rightly said, the committee members are appointed by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform but in terms of being answerable to the Minister and the reaction of the Minister or the Department to the various reports, is there a formal manner by which concerns in the form of reports are submitted ever year directly to the Minister? Are they sent by ordinary post? What is the relationship between the visiting committee and the Minister?

Mr. Mackay referred to the annual reports. Will he put those in the context of other reports of a similar nature, including the report of the Inspector of Prisons and Places of Detention and the prison chaplains' report? The chaplains play a major role in pastoral care in the prison and make reports, if not annually then certainly regularly, but it appears they are not acted upon or listened to in any way. There is also the role of advocacy bodies such as the Irish Penal Reform Trust which does not seem to feed into any form of consultative process. That is regrettable.

Will Mr. Mackay give the committee some idea of the relationship between the prison visiting committee and the Minster for Justice, Equality and Law Reform? It was suggested by Mr. Mackay, and I put it to him again, that political considerations often flavour the appointment of the board. I understand action was taken in that regard by the former Minister, Michael McDowell, when he introduced the rather curious regulation that no member of a prison visiting committee would be from a county adjoining a county or city wherein the prison was situated. Is that regulation still in operation? Is it adhered to or are we back to a system where it might be suggested that the considerations were exclusively political, that it was not a coincidence that people were travelling a considerable distance from the prison to attend committee meetings, and that their reasons for attending might suggest they were not fully au fait with the running of the prison or what was going on in the prison because they were living and working such a distance away? In the prison in my area, Portlaoise, there is not a great complement of persons, however political their persuasion. They are not usually appointed to the prison they would know best but rather to far-flung prisons. Mr. Mackay might tell the committee something about the composition of the board. With your forbearance, Chairman, I will ask my second, brief question.

Mr. Paul Mackay

There is a lot in what the Deputy has asked. Regarding my own position, I am a Dubliner. I live in Rathgar and I am a member of the visiting committee in Mountjoy. I would think the regulation the Deputy referred to is gone by the board. I am not certain of that but I reference myself to Mountjoy.

Regarding our connection and relationships with the Minister, they are very tenuous. We submit a report once a year and there is little or no feedback on that report to the committee. It is produced some time in January in respect of the previous 12 months. I understand this year's report was submitted in February and we did not get any feedback on it.

Deputy Charles Flanagan

There is no question, therefore, of the visiting committee being in some way accountable to Mr. Purcell's Prison Service.

Mr. Paul Mackay

None whatsoever.

Deputy Charles Flanagan

It is accountable directly to the Minister.

Mr. Paul Mackay

We are purely accountable to the Minister under the legislation of 1925 and he is effectively our boss. He appoints us, we report to him and he reappoints or does not reappoint us as he so wishes.

Deputy Charles Flanagan

Would Mr. Mackay go so far as to suggest that that relationship has fractured?

Mr. Paul Mackay

Fractious?

Deputy Charles Flanagan

Has it fractured?

Mr. Paul Mackay

In my view it has, yes.

Deputy Charles Flanagan

I refer to an area not touched on by my colleague, Deputy Rabbitte. Drugs in prison appear to be a major problem. I am of the view that it is a complex problem but I would have thought that given the number of reports in recent years on this serious problem, progress would have been made in rendering prisons drug free, which they are not. Mission statements in that regard from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and from various Ministers appear to suggest it is Government policy to render our prisons drug free. In his capacity as an active member of the prison visiting committee, what would Mr. Mackay's comment be on the position regarding drugs in Mountjoy recently? Is the problem worsening or have improvements been made in that regard?

Mr. Paul Mackay

There has probably been some improvement, mainly due to the fact that there is now airport-type security at the prison gates. There are X-ray machines and dogs but, unfortunately, drugs are still getting in by various means. I do not know how they all get in but one can guess. Many pills are coming through now but not as many of the harder drugs, and a great deal of drugs are still coming over the walls in Mountjoy.

Chairman

Would Mr. Purcell like to comment on the drugs problem?

Mr. Brian Purcell

Drugs are a significant problem within the prison system. That is something I have commented on previously, as members will be aware. Drugs are a problem in prison systems throughout the world, especially in Europe. There has been significant development in terms of the response of the Irish Prison Service to the drug problem in prisons, particularly in the recent past. Members will be aware — and I understand some of them have seen them at first hand — of the new security measures that have been introduced. We established an operations support unit staffed by 155 staff that incorporates essentially three main elements. The first is the perimeter security, which is — for want of a better description — similar to airport-type security where there are X-ray machines and detection devices.

The second element is the canine unit, which comprises the sniffer dogs. We have 29 dogs, all of which are trained, and we will get more. We have passive dogs, which committee members saw on a visit to the Midlands Prison. They sniff visitors as they come in and if the dog detects any trace of drugs, it will sit down beside them. Then we have active dogs, which would be put around cells. If they detect drugs there, they will go to them and put their paws on them. We have some patrol dogs as well.

Then we have the operational support group in each prison which would be largely responsible for searching and collation of intelligence regarding various operational aspects of the prison. There are 155 staff deployed on that and they have been in place since 2008. They have proven to be a major success and I do not think there is anyone, either in the system or outside, who would not acknowledge that they have been a major success in dealing with the problems of contraband entering the prisons. It is not solely drugs but, obviously, drugs are a major problem. That is on the supply side.

On the treatment side, which is equally important, we have a wide range of treatment available to prisoners who have drug-related problems. That includes methadone treatment, which is the prescribed treatment available in the health system in the community.

We would have a significant number of prisoners in Mountjoy on methadone at any given time. In fact, Mountjoy would be regarded as the single biggest methadone clinic within the HSE. During 2009, for example, we put approximately 2,000 through the methadone programme. It is not solely about the methadone treatment. We have a contract with Merchant's Quay Ireland to provide an addiction counselling service and that has been in place for the past three years. It provides 1,000 hours of counselling a week and caters for approximately 1,500 prisoners monthly on an ongoing basis. This has proven to be quite successful in terms of treating the problem.

There is a wide-ranging set of applications to deal with what is a serious problem in the prisons. As I have stated previously, however, prison really just reflects what is happening in the wider community. As long as there are problems with drugs in the wider community, given the make-up of the prison population, it will be a problem within the prison system and it is something that we must deal with on a daily basis.

I mentioned specific treatment totally focused on drugs and addiction problems, but we have a general range of health care within the prison system. Doctors, nurses and psychiatrists provide ongoing health care for the related issues which are the by-products of drug use. A considerable resource is invested in the provision of health care within the system.

Deputy Charles Flanagan

In summary, would it be reasonable to suggest that Mr. Purcell would regard the policy of the Irish Prison Service and Government policy to have a totally drugs-free prison system as merely aspirational, and having regard to what he stated, it will not happen?

Mr. Brian Purcell

The target is to have a drugs-free prison in the same way as the target of the national drugs strategy is ultimately to have a drug-free community. The target must be to have prisons drug free. However, I must be realistic. The day I will see a drug-free prison is the day there are no drugs in use in the community on the outside.

Deputy Charles Flanagan

What about drug-free units working on an incremental basis?

Mr. Brian Purcell

We have drug-free units within the system. In Mountjoy, the medical unit, which caters for more than 50 prisoners, is effectively the drug-free unit.

Mr. Paul Mackay

It is not.

Mr. Brian Purcell

Sorry Mr. Mackay?

Chairman

Let Mr. Purcell finish.

Mr. Brian Purcell

We have drug-free units within the system. One puts prisoners into drug-free units and then tries to ensure one provides a regime that will facilitate dealing with the problem. That is not to say that some of the prisoners in the drug-free units do not get drugs in. People who work with drug addicts in the community will confirm that the process of getting from being a drug user to being drug free is one with many pitfalls and people fall on the way. It is no different in a prison setting. Some people try to remain drug free. Let us not forget there is an element of choice in this. While part and parcel of the prison system is to ensure that drugs are not available, which is why we have invested so heavily in the supply reduction side of it, on the treatment side it is a process that does not run smoothly. Everyone and anyone involved in the drug treatment area, either in prison or in the community, will confirm that. There are situations where prisoners who are in drug-free units, or areas where people are encouraged to come off drugs, get drugs in and use them. I am not saying that a drug-free unit means there are never drugs in it.

The training unit attached to Mountjoy Prison was effectively the first drug-free prison in the context that there was regular testing and if people were found to be taking drugs they would be sent back inevitably to the prisons from which they came. It was also to facilitate people who did not take drugs and were moving in a particular direction within the system, generally, as a pre-release area. However, that is not to say that in the training unit we do not get instances where people are using drugs; we do, on a regular basis. Similarly, one must be drug free to go to an open centre. That is not to say we do not get instances of drug use in open centres; we do.

I certainly will not mislead the committee by suggesting that by declaring an area drug free, and even by putting the relevant services into it, one ensures that the area will be drug free. This is a constant battle for the management and the staff in the prisons and it is a constant headache for those of us in the Irish Prison Service headquarters who oversee the operation of the prison system.

Deputy Charles Flanagan

What of Mr. Mackay's interjection?

Mr. Brian Purcell

I do not know what his interjection was.

Chairman

Does Mr. Mackay wish to make a comment?

Mr. Paul Mackay

It is not true to say that the medical unit, which is a misnomer and which is just another unit within the prison where prisoners are put, is a drug-free unit. There are drug courses run there from time to time, where they might bring in six to eight people to go on a drug course for approximately six weeks and they go up on the top floor, F6 floor, in that accommodation. It is wrong to state that it is a drug-free area.

Mr. Brian Purcell

I will come back on that, if that is all right. I thought I explained what the drug-free unit does. I point out, as Mr. Mackay may be aware, that we have a consultant psychiatrist and a general practitioner totally dedicated to dealing with drug treatment in the system. The medical unit also has a number of other health care staff who are totally dedicated to dealing with the drug issues and that is where we provide the range of treatment required for drug users within Mountjoy Prison. I explained the issue. We say it is a drug-free unit. That is the intention. Drugs are in it, but there is a massive level of resources in the drug-free unit, including a consultant psychiatrist, a full-time general practitioner and other health care services including addiction nurses and counsellors. There seems to be some sort of an implication——

(Interruptions).

Chairman

Mr. Mackay should desist.

Mr. Brian Purcell

I explained exactly what the term "drug free" means in the context of——

Mr. Paul Mackay

Mr. Purcell should not use the word "free".

Chairman

Will our guests address their remarks through the Chair?

Mr. Brian Purcell

I apologise.

Deputy Charles Flanagan

From what Mr. Purcell stated, it appears there is an attitude to the effect that there is an almost acceptable level of drugs in prisons rather than there being a no tolerance policy towards drugs. Is that not the case?

Mr. Brian Purcell

The Deputy is being somewhat unfair. We do not say that there is an acceptable level of drug use in prisons. Would that be similar to the military referring to an acceptable level of casualties? I do not know. However, I wish to make it clear that it is not our view that there is an acceptable level of drug use. The latter is not tolerated in any way. That is why we have invested such a massive level of resources — particularly in recent times — into deal with this problem. We are continuing to provide such resources within the system. This is part of the national drugs strategy, with which, in a previous capacity, I was formerly involved.

There is no question of drugs being tolerated. That is quite obvious. The Deputy is aware of the action we take in prisons in the context of dealing with drug abuse. I do not believe it is his intention to state that we in some way tolerate the use of drugs. At the same time, however, if one is not realistic with regard to the problem, one cannot deal with it properly. There will be no drugs in prisons when there are no drugs in use in the community in general. In the meantime, we will do everything possible to deal with the problem. The current Minister, his predecessors and the Government in general have allocated a considerable level of resources in respect of this issue. I already referred to the massive level of resources allocated to the operational support unit.

The Deputy has seen our sniffer dogs, which have proven to be extremely effective, in action. As already stated, Mountjoy Prison is the largest methadone clinic in the HSE. That is an indication of the scale of the problem in the context of the type of people who are imprisoned. However, it is also a clear indication of the response the Irish Prison Service, the health care staff and prison staff in Mountjoy Prison have made in respect of addressing the problem of drug abuse.

If the Deputy was to question the health care professionals who work in Mountjoy, such as the psychiatrist who is on site and Dr. Des Crowley, the GP who deals solely with the issue of drug abuse in the prison, they will provide him with ample testimony regarding the work that is done and the difficulties involved. As stated earlier, it is not solely about the provision of treatment; it is also necessary to deal with the problem of addiction. As the Deputy is well aware, one of the main side effects of drugs is that they impair the general health of those who use them. A massive resource, in terms of general health care treatment, is deployed in dealing with the side effects of drug use. Such drug use occurs, by and large, before people are sent to prison.

I am not stating that drug use does not occur in prisons. I made it quite clear that there is drug use in prisons. We are dealing with the problem in an effective way.

Mr. Stephen Langton

In respect of drugs and other matters to which members referred, sniffer dogs have only been in use at Mountjoy Prison for a few years. It was the members of the prison's visiting committee who first mooted the possibility of using such dogs. At the time, we were informed by senior civil servants that it would not be possible to bring such animals into prisons because they would each only work with a single trained handler. Subsequently, the latter proved not to be the case. The dogs only came into use following our suggestion.

On the interaction between the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the prison visiting committees in general, I am also chairperson of the national group of chairpersons for prisons. In that context, I meet the Minister and senior civil servants on an unofficial basis several times each year. When we request a meeting with the Minister, his first reaction is always to ask whether we have taken up the issues of concern to us at local level or with the Irish Prison Service, the prisons policy division or his senior civil servants. To a large extent, we are not entirely satisfied with the responses to all our requests. However, we are reasonably happy. There are many things we would like to see happen much more quickly.

If we were to include every incident with which we deal in prisons in any given year in our annual reports, such reports would run to 100 as opposed to 15 or 16 pages. There are many confidential issues relating to prisoners within the system with which we deal. No one else is informed about such issues. There are matters which we take up on behalf of prisoners with the management and staff within prisons which we do not discuss with the Minister or anyone else.

As chairperson of the Mountjoy prison visiting committee and chairperson of the national group of chairpersons, I have fairly regular meetings with the Irish Prison Service and I report back to the former. We do not really expect to be meeting the Minister on a continual basis. His senior officials deal — whether positively or negatively — with the issues highlighted in our annual reports. If members read the annual reports for the past ten or 15 annual years, they will discover that many of the same issues, such as overcrowding, drug use, conditions and hygiene, arise. There are many issues that are not highlighted in these reports because they would have already been dealt with during the year by the Irish Prison Service, prison governors and others.

I do not wish to give the impression that visiting committees are not listened to. They are listened to but I agree with Mr. Mackay that not all of the issues are dealt with as quickly as we would like.

Deputy Charles Flanagan

I apologise but I must leave the meeting. I do not intend any discourtesy towards our guests.

Mr. Brian Purcell

I wish to make a brief comment with regard to what Mr. Mackay said about the Minister and what he perceives as some sort of a lack of communication. I am in regular contact with the Minister — on a weekly and sometimes a daily basis — in respect of the prisons. Through meetings and telephone calls, the Minister is fully briefed on the situation in the prisons. That is what the Minister wants. When we were obliged to pull out of negotiations in respect of Thornton Hall, the Minister immediately went to the Cabinet to ensure that there would be as little delay as possible in this regard.

As a result of the briefings I provide, the Minister is fully au fait with conditions in Mountjoy Prison. The letters that were sent in were acknowledged. The contents of those letters were brought to the Minister’s attention. As Mr. Langton stated, there is ongoing communication. It is not possible for the Minister to do everything and certain functions are delegated to me, as head of the Irish Prison Service. In that context, I meet at least twice a year with the chairpersons group of the visiting committees. I also meet every one of the 14 visiting committees once a year. There has never been such a level of contact between the visiting committees and the Irish Prison Service.

If the visiting committees wish to raise issues — regardless of whether these issues are ongoing or whether they are included in the annual reports — there is an open channel through which they can bring them to my attention. We try to deal with these issues as best we can. As Mr. Langton said, we cannot do everything the visiting committees desire. If members of the visiting committees want to raise any issue as a matter of urgency, there is a direct channel of communication between the chairpersons of those committees and me. I completely reject — on my behalf and on that of the Minister — any suggestion that there is a failure to communicate.

Deputy Noel Treacy

I thank our guests for attending and for being so open in the context of what they have said. Did Mr. Mackay ever feel his personal security was under threat while visiting the prison or, subsequent to his visit, in his home or elsewhere? Does he accept that it may be advisable or more advantageous to have regional rather than local membership of visiting committees because prisoners might know the local members, thereby putting more pressure on them?

I also have some questions for Mr. Purcell. What percentage of prisoners are habitual offenders? I remember dealing with prisons in 1991 when a situation arose where criminals seemed to operate in the criminal environment throughout the summer period, but found a way to have themselves incarcerated for the winter period. Does that situation prevail? What is the level of absenteeism for prison officers and how are industrial relations in that regard? What is the turnover of prisoners per annum and how many pass through the system? Based on what Mr. Mackay said in his opening statement, do prisoners adhere and conform to a prison regime on a regular, systematic, individualistic and collective basis?

Mr. Paul Mackay

On the question of whether one feels under threat when visiting the prison, while one must be careful, I have not suffered any threat nor been abused by any prisoner within the prison. There may sometimes be words spoken, but there has been nothing physical. I have not been threatened outside of the prison. Please remind me of the second question.

Deputy Noel Treacy

Would it be more advantageous to have regional membership rather than local membership of visiting committees because the prisoners may know the local people and this might bring pressure on them?

Mr. Paul Mackay

Perhaps in rural areas, but not in Dublin.

Mr. Stephen Langton

May I comment on that? I lived in Dublin for years. I was born in Cabra west, lived in Leixlip and now live in Kinnegad. I have long held the belief that people should not be appointed to prisons that are too close to them, including in Dublin. I am attached to Mountjoy Prison and on a number of occasions in Liffey Valley shopping centre I have looked at people and known who they were, but they have not been sure of knowing me. They might say to me that they know me from somewhere. Therefore, people can be readily identified and could be compromised.

There is a difficulty now due to the issue of expenses for people on prison visiting committees. The maximum travel expense paid now, no matter where one lives in the country, is €40, but if one lives in Phibsboro and visits Mountjoy, it would probably be about €1. It is based on mileage, but whether one lives 50 or 150 miles away, the maximum is €40. This sum is about to be reduced, as is the €150per diem payment mentioned by Mr. Mackay. These are being reduced in line with other reductions in salaries. It should also be borne in mind that expenses, like those of other workers, are taxed and levied and PRSI is paid on them. Therefore there has been a change from the old system which was milked by people. In that system it was advantageous for people to come from Letterkenny, Donegal or Cork to Dublin, but that is gone. I see no reason people from all corners of the country cannot be appointed to any visiting committee, no matter how far away it is from them, provided they are interested in doing the job. In recent years the number of people on visiting committees who are there because of political affiliations or to benefit from expenses has reduced significantly. More than 90% of the people involved in visiting committees now are there because they are interested in what they are doing.

Mr. Brian Purcell

With regard to whether inmates are habitual criminals, the rate of recidivism has been found to be approximately 50% after four years, which is comparatively low by European standards. Nevertheless, this indicates a significant number return to prison. Ireland has one of the lowest rates of imprisonment in Europe. The Judiciary in general does not resort to imprisonment without good reason. The rate of custodial sentences imposed is approximately 10% of criminal convictions. Much is made of the number of people imprisoned for not paying of fines. Some commentators suggest this is a major problem for the system. On any given day, there are never more than 20 people in custody solely for not paying a fine, out of a total of approximately 4,000 prisoners in custody. Admittedly, when we have a significant number of committals for not paying fines, which we have, there is a drain on resources relating to the administrative end of dealing with the committals. This applies not only to us, but to the Garda and the courts. However, the number of these people in custody on any given day is very low and the Fines Bill currently going through the Oireachtas will deal with this issue.

A recent comment suggested it is hokum that our prisons are full of dangerous people. However, when we break down the figures on inmates, we find approximately from 60% to 65% of inmates are in custody for crimes involving violence, drugs or sex offences, and of the balance, a significant number would either have previous convictions for those types of offence or be the type of habitual offender mentioned. These would have been before the courts on many occasions and been given the benefit of every alternative within the system before being sent to prison. It is an issue that some people seem to think that prisons are full of people who should not be there.

I am the director general of the Irish Prison Service, not a judge. We accept everybody who is committed to custody. We do not judge them or impose sentences. That is a matter solely for the Judiciary. We cannot put up the "House full, no vacancy" sign. We take all the prisoners committed to custody. I have said it before and do not hesitate to say it again, this State has been very well served by the Judiciary since its foundation. While not saying judges here are different to judges elsewhere, the record here shows our judges do not resort to committing people to custody without giving it very careful consideration. The figure for custodial convictions of 10% is an indication of this, as is the fact that our rates of imprisonment are among the lowest in Europe and the world.

Mr. Paul Mackay

On the question of recidivism, a survey conducted in Mountjoy at the start of this millennium found that 72% of those imprisoned had served time in St. Patrick's previously. These were people who moved on from the university of prison in St. Patrick's into the mainstream in Mountjoy. That 72% is a very high figure.

Senator Ivana Bacik

I welcome the speakers and thank Mr. Mackay, in particular, for raising these issues, which are not new. The issues being raised by the delegate and the concerns he has expressed to us and elsewhere are concerns others have expressed over many years. I am reminded of Val Bresnihan on the Mountjoy Prison visiting committee many years ago raising very similar points. I am reminded also of the Irish Penal Reform Trust and the work it has done and the inspector of prisons and the chaplains who have raised the same issues over many years.

I have visited Mountjoy Prison regularly every year for the past ten or 12 years. I certainly recognise that there have been improvements in terms of medical treatment facilities. I remember when there was no methadone maintenance programme available, for example, and when remand prisoners were being sent — in breach of European Convention rules — alongside committal prisoners. Some things have improved but there are certain issues which Mr. Mackay has raised where there has been no improvement and in some cases, disimprovement, certainly in the time I have been visiting and seeing the cells and workshops. Those issues are interlinked. The overcrowding issue is of major concern and so many other problems flow from that. I am sure we all acknowledge that.

What specifically is being done to deal with overcrowding? The inspector of prisons has given some very specific remedies to resolve overcrowding, for example, opening up the separation unit, moving some of the prisoners on protection to other prisons. What progress has been made in this regard?

On the issue of in-cell sanitation, the current situation is simply degrading and inhumane. It is appalling to see people, four, five or six to a cell, having to share a bucket and that bucket remaining in the cell overnight where people are having to use it where there is no toilet patrol in place. Is there a toilet patrol in place? The inspectors recommended this as a cost-neutral way of ensuring a somewhat more humane treatment of prisoners. Mountjoy Prison had in-cell sanitation in those cells when it was built. It was designed to have in-cell sanitation in the 19th century, as the committee will be aware. It seems to me that is one way of improving the situation for prisoners. I accept what Mr. Langton says, that it may not be the most hygienic solution to have a flushing toilet in a cell where people also eat but it is certainly much more hygienic than a bucket, especially when there is overcrowding in the cells.

My third point is the issue of the long hours on lock-up which is a real problem. It feeds into the drug problem and exacerbates boredom, discontent and difficulties for staff in controlling inmates. People may be as much as 23 hours in lock-up when they are on protection and they have no facility for exercise. There are consequent health implications. Can anything be done about this situation? I am conscious of the recruitment embargo and I know that is the difficulty. However, Mountjoy Prison has a high ratio of staff to prisoners, partly because it is an older prison. Can anything be done to ensure prisoners get more time out of cells?

My final point is about the rehabilitation programme. When I first started visiting Mountjoy Prison, the Connect programme was in place. This was a highly innovative programme which operated with small numbers of prisoners and it was operated by prison officers. There were some very enlightened and progressive prison officers working with prisoners on that programme and it had some very significant positive impacts on the small number of prisoners who were able to participate in the programme. It was to be rolled out in the late 1990s across all the prisons and €50 million was made available in one particular budget. It was then discontinued. I wrote successively to the Minister over several years to find out what happened and each time I was told that the programme was on hold due to negotiations with the Prison Officers' Association. Is there any prospect of the Connect programme or a similar rehabilitation programme being operated? This is apart from the issues which Mr. Mackay raised about the difficulty with opening up the workshops and the other prison rehabilitation and education programmes. The Connect programme operated on a different level but it was very important for prisoners who had drug addictions in the past, literacy issues and parenting difficulties.

I have two specific questions for Mr. Purcell. He mentioned the low rate of imprisonment in our prison system. This is certainly true if it is measured by numbers of inmates in prison on any given day. He will accept that our committal rate, the numbers of persons we commit to prison in a year — which is a different measure — is a much higher rate because we commit so many people to prison for short sentences and this is not reflected in the daily prison population. Last year we sent 4,000 people to prison for not paying fines. It was only for a few days in each case so I accept that in any one day there will not be that many in for not paying fines. I hope this will change with the enactment of the Fines Bill. This high committal rate and a high turnover of prisoners has been a real problem. Deputy Treacy raised this issue. I think Mr. Purcell will accept this slightly changes the picture on the imprisonment rate.

Mr. Purcell mentioned pulling out of negotiations on Thornton Hall. He said he worked with the Minister on that issue. Does he mean when the McNamara developer pulled out?

Mr. Brian Purcell

Yes. It was almost a year ago to the day that we withdrew from negotiations with the Leargas consortium of which McNamara was the construction wing. The project at that point had simply become unaffordable. As I pointed out earlier, almost immediately, I was instructed by the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, to put together a plan to move straight back into negotiations because of the absolute need to replace Mountjoy. The Minister went to Cabinet within a matter of three weeks from that date and obtained sanction to proceed again with phase two of the Thornton project. This has been under way since then. As a result of the planning element of the Thornton project, the local community asked that a separate access route be provided for the prison. Tenders are due and the committee may be interested to hear that construction of the access route will commence in July. This will be followed by construction of the perimeter wall which cannot begin until the access route is finished. The intention is that the perimeter wall construction will commence in January 2011. I have explained what I meant when I said we withdrew from negotiations. I did not mean that it had stopped.

Senator Ivana Bacik

I asked for clarification in case there would be an inaccurate headline later.

The issue raised by Mr. Mackay is whatever happens with Thornton Hall, it clearly will be some years before it comes on stream and that in the meantime, conditions for prisoners remain inhumane and degrading, with the consequent problem for all of us that prisoners are not being rehabilitated.

It would be of benefit for all of us on the committee to have the Minister attend. I am somewhat shocked to hear he has not visited Mountjoy Prison yet. If he is due to visit there on 14 June, then perhaps we should have him attend the committee shortly thereafter to hear from him directly as to what is being done to improve conditions in Mountjoy for staff and prisoners pending any developments on Thornton.

Mr. Paul Mackay

I will answer some of the Senator's questions. I emphasise the number of positive initiatives in recent years. The medical, nursing and dental care is excellent and some good services have been introduced along with some good people. The food has never been a problem in Mountjoy.

Senator Ivana Bacik

It is always good there.

Mr. Paul Mackay

The school, workshops and library have had good people looking after them but unfortunately, they are open only 50% of the time. These services are needed to rehabilitate prisoners. Mountjoy has several gyms and they are well resourced. The introduction of airport-style security last year has provided improvements in the service.

The inspector's report states very clearly that the maximum number of prisoners in Mountjoy at any one time should not be more than 540. This is the view of the inspector and he knows the prison well. He has seen conditions at first hand. The in-cell sanitation is deplorable in the main blocks. There is in-cell sanitation in B block and in the medical unit which is still a misnomer as it is not a medical unit, it is just another unit. The separation unit is also a misnomer but it has in-cell sanitation.

Senator Ivana Bacik

Has that unit been opened?

Mr. Paul Mackay

It has been opened recently. Unfortunately, there is no toilet patrol at night. I have been in the prison at night and the prisoners have to use whatever is available to use in the cell. Very rarely are they allowed out of a cell. On any night in Mountjoy Prison there would only be 18 officers in service. With almost 700 prisoners there are 18 officers with all sorts of duties to carry out. They will not be on toilet patrol.

Senator Ivana Bacik

To be clear, there are no screens in the cells. Is it just a bucket on the floor?

Mr. Paul Mackay

It is just a bucket. There would be two, three, four or five people in a cell.

There is another difficulty in Mountjoy Prison. Approximately 50% of the staff are young probationary staff. The experienced people who were there have moved on for various reasons and the staff are very young and inexperienced. The rehabilitation and the Connect programmes are no longer in place.

Mr. Stephen Langton

Unfortunately, the Connect programme has been gone for some years. The separation unit is open and there are prisoners in it at the moment. The inspector of prisons figure of 540 did not include the accommodation in the separation unit, as it was not open at the time.

Senator Ivana Bacik

He suggested that the overcrowding be reduced by opening the segregation unit, so he took account of it in his figure.

Deputy Brian O’Shea

Mr. Langton mentioned the gang culture in prisons and said there are approximately 14 to 17 gangs in Mountjoy Prison. He mentioned the threats of violence and so on. We read reports of prisoners entering Mountjoy prison without connection to any gang having to align themselves to gangs for their own security. Is that the case? If so it raises a very serious question as to who controls our prisons.

How many mentally ill or disturbed individuals in prison are a danger to themselves or to others? Surely it is a matter for the courts to send those who are mentally ill but not in that category to the appropriate places. Are the courts not addressing these issues? Are secure units available either in the Central Mental Hospital or in the secure units in psychiatric hospitals throughout the country for those who are a danger to themselves and to others?

I understand a recent court decision has had an influence on the issue of incarceration because of debt. In my experience many people arriving in prisons for not paying a debt were men who had not paid maintenance orders. Men who are not paying maintenance are not really being pursued because the final sanction is no longer available.

Mr. Stephen Langton

The special observation cells are used to house prisoners who are deemed to have a mental health problem. We frequently visit those special observation cells and speak to the people in them. Our overriding concern about that is to try to have them moved as quickly as possible to the Central Mental Hospital or somewhere else that is better able to cater for them than Mountjoy Prison is. Often the spaces are not available in the Central Mental Hospital in Dundrum. We have had prisoners incarcerated in those cells for lengthy periods. The prison management tries to get them moved as quickly as possible, but if there is no space available in the Central Mental Hospital in Dundrum it has little option but to hold on to them. As we have said for several years, each prison should have a section or wing capable of dealing with these prisoners in a proper fashion such as exists in the UK. Some of the prisons there have a particular wing — like a hospital wing — to deal with those issues. They have the facilities to deal with people with mental health problems.

Deputy Brian O’Shea

I understand this is part of the Thornton Hall concept.

Mr. Stephen Langton

While we have a brief outline of what is planned for Thornton Hall, we do not know specifically what all of its functions will be. Going back to the discussions between the IPS, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, and the visiting committee in Mountjoy Prison, Mr. Purcell will probably verify that when Thornton Hall was first mooted and explained to us several years ago, there was to be no facility within Thornton hall for psychiatric prisoners. I understand in subsequent discussions that view changed. Every prison, including Thornton Hall, Wheatfield, Portlaoise, the Midlands Prison, and Cork, should have a facility capable of dealing with mentally disturbed prisoners.

Some people committed to prison are mentally disturbed. Some of them become mentally disturbed within the prison system because they may be locked up for 23 hours a day. We are deeply concerned about the number of people who volunteer or want to go into 23-hour lock up because they are afraid of other prisoners. That is not because of lack of control by the prison management; it is because of the culture of the people in the prison system. Criminals threaten and intimidate on the outside and do the same on the inside. They pick vulnerable weaker prisoners to do their dirty work for them. Often those people would ask to be segregated. That adds to the problem of the drug gangs or other violent gangs who are in the prison system anyway. These people add to that problem, but they have to be accommodated. As Mr. Purcell says, when these people arrive at the gate they have to be taken in and accommodated. They cannot be turned away. There is an attempt to do that with people who are incarcerated for not paying fines and other matters. The problem here goes much deeper than that. I have publicly stated in the past that judges should consider non-custodial sentences. A forum has been organised to take place on, I believe, 31 May to discuss sentencing in general, including non-custodial sentences. At this stage I appeal to judges throughout the country——

Chairman

It would not be appropriate to get into that.

Mr. Stephen Langton

Many of the problems are caused by the type of sentencing, including the number of people sent to prison for what we would term minor offences.

Mr. Paul Mackay

In response to the points made by Deputy O'Shea, the gang culture in the prison is very significant at the moment. Even down in the basement, which we call B base, which houses approximately 50 protection prisoners, at any one time there could be 13 different gangs down there. One can imagine how difficult it can be to open one particular cell with four or five people and then to let out prisoners from another cell close by. That is a major problem. That is where we need experienced staff and a bit of space.

There are a number of mentally disturbed prisoners in the prison. Unfortunately the Central Mental Hospital in Dundrum does not have the facilities necessary to accommodate the people who should be there. The special observation cells are supposed to be used for those types of people. However, unfortunately those cells are being used for pure accommodation because of overcrowding. I note that the Fines Bill is going through the Houses of the Oireachtas at the moment. Some 4,000 people were imprisoned last year for not paying fines. Some 2,000 of them landed in Mountjoy Prison. While they may not have stayed there for long, they need to be brought to court, prosecuted, fined and after they fail to pay the fine the Garda needs to collect them and bring them to Mountjoy Prison. They have to be processed through the prison. That uses up a substantial number of man hours in the Irish Prison Service. I have seen people come to Mountjoy prison at 5 p.m., having been sentenced to five days or two weeks in prison for not paying fines of €2,000 or €3,000. Most of them are young men who were fined for motoring offences. Within hours, they are left out of the prison and given their fare to get home. In such circumstances, the fine is expunged — it is no longer there. I hope the Fines Bill, which is being debated in the Dáil at the moment, will sort out that problem.

If we deal with certain issues, such as opening the medical centre up, getting some of the mentally ill people out of the prison and ensuring those who fail to pay fines are not brought through the prison system, it will help to get numbers down. I agree with Mr. Purcell that at any one time, the number of people serving sentences for not paying fines is quite low. Some 2,000 such people have gone through Mountjoy, however. They have come in and have been processed. They have been examined medically and their personal information has been gathered. They have to be accommodated, even if it is only for a few hours. They are sometimes accommodated in cells on the landings overnight. It takes up many man hours. It would help Mountjoy prison in the future if some of those issues were sorted out.

Chairman

Does Mr. Mackay have a view on what Mr. Langton said about the attachment of psychiatric units to each prison?

Mr. Paul Mackay

That is a bigger issue. There has been a debate on whether the Central Mental Hospital in Dundrum should be relocated to Thornton Hall. I do not think it should be. It should be a separate unit. Not all of the people in the Central Mental Hospital are criminals. That is a personal view.

Mr. Brian Purcell

I will not attempt to address all of the questions that have been asked. The Chairman has asked whether there should be a psychiatric unit in the prison. Mr. Langton said he thinks there should be. The policy of the Irish Prison Service — and it is my personal view — is that we should not have psychiatric units within our prisons. The best place to treat people with psychiatric and mental health problems is in hospital, rather than in prison. For that reason, we will not put a psychiatric unit into any of our prisons.

Deputy Brian O’Shea

Was it not proposed to move the Dundrum facility to Thornton Hall? It was suggested that it would be on the same campus but would not be part of the prison per se.

Mr. Brian Purcell

I should clarify that. It is a matter for the HSE and the Minister for Health and Children. It was proposed that a portion of the site at Thornton Hall should be made available to the HSE. The facilities at Dundrum are somewhat limited. Land was made available for construction of a new Central Mental Hospital on the Thornton Hall site. It was not suggested that it would be part of the new prison. It was not to be a unit of the prison. The Central Mental Hospital would still be run by the HSE under the aegis of the Department of Health and Children. I understand it is no longer the intention to build there. It is not my area of responsibility. I understand that the Dundrum facility may be relocated to a site at Portrane.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

I want to return to an issue for which Mr. Purcell is responsible. I want to get it clear in my head. We will start building the access route in July and the perimeter wall is due to start in January. Is Mr. Purcell telling the committee that moneys have been provided for the January construction? Is an effort being made to assemble a new public private partnership? Mr. Mackay said he sees no alleviation until 2016, at the earliest. It is fine to build a road, and then to build a wall, but when will we build the prison? Is there any clarity about that?

Mr. Brian Purcell

Before I answer the first question, I should say I am conscious that a big backlog of questions is building up. I will come to them after I answer this specific question. We have funds to build the access route and the perimeter wall I mentioned. The funding for them will come from the capital envelope of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. A decision on the method of procurement for the main element of the project has yet to be taken. The Deputy mentioned public private partnership. A decision will be taken shortly. It has been proceeding apace since we withdrew from the Leargas consortium last year.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

I hope we are not in any danger of building a wall around a field, with a nice road into it, and leaving it like that for a decade or so.

Mr. Brian Purcell

I assure the Deputy that will not happen. The access route and the perimeter wall will be built. There is a purpose to doing it that way. The construction of the access route is a condition of the planning. It was agreed to accommodate the local community's request to avoid having construction traffic on the normal roads. It is obvious that we have to build the access road first. The same thing goes for the perimeter wall — we cannot start work on the wall until the access route is built. The installation of the necessary services — water, electricity, and so on — will be part of that phase. We will then have a secure serviced site that is "shovel-ready" when the contract is awarded to build the main blocks of the prison. The construction crews will be able to use the access route to move straight on to the site, with all the services in place. Completion of the wall will facilitate the security of the construction site, which is important in the context of a development of this nature. We will not end up with a wall around an empty field. A decision on whether it will proceed by means of public private partnership will be taken very shortly. This is proceeding apace.

I make it crystal clear to all members that although a year has passed since we withdrew from negotiations with the Leargas consortium, a huge amount of work has been ongoing since then. When the access route starts to be built in July, we will start to see things moving. Mr. Langton is right to say the project might not be completed until 2015. That is not to say that we will sit idly by in the meantime. The Minister has been questioning us about how we will deal in the interim with the problems associated with the numbers in the system. In that context, we brought approximately 500 spaces into play last year, with another block in Wheatfield Prison due to open this year. We intend to build another block attached to the Midlands Prison site, as an interim measure, to alleviate the situation between now and the completion of Thornton Hall. I suppose it is possible that Thornton Hall could come on stream in phases, so we might get something a little earlier than that. I cannot say that at this point, however.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

We decided earlier to invite the retiring governors, Mr. John Lonergan and Ms Kathleen McMahon, to give evidence to the committee. Can I clarify, in terms of any conclusions we might reach, whether it would be going too far to say that Mr. Mackay's view is that the prison visiting system is dysfunctional?

Mr. Paul Mackay

Does the Deputy refer to the rules of the system?

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

No, I refer to the way the system is operating.

Mr. Paul Mackay

I would not say it is dysfunctional at all. The current Mountjoy committee is working according to the rules. It is not getting any support from the Minister or the Irish Prison Service, however. There is evidence to that effect in my document and in the correspondence that has transpired between the Minister and me.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

So it is not the system — it is the responsiveness of those responsible.

Mr. Paul Mackay

I mentioned the various letters that were sent. I can also display the various annual reports that have been prepared and presented to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. They are put into a black hole and that is it.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

Mr. Mackay referred in his formal statement to the impending departure of Mr. Lonergan and the departure of Ms McMahon. He said the Irish Prison Service did not treat them in a proper, fair and professional manner.

Mr. Paul Mackay

I am only going on the basis of the words uttered by those two individuals in the newspapers and on the radio and television. That was their view.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

Mr. Purcell would not agree with that.

Mr. Brian Purcell

No, I most certainly would not agree with Mr. Mackay's accusations about the way the Irish Prison Service deals with its oversight of the prison system and, by implication, about me, as head of the service.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

Mr. Mackay's central point was that everything is centralised and that the service does not give the appropriate autonomy to the governors, who are on the ground and professional, to run the show and manage the prisons as they see fit.

Mr. Brian Purcell

The oversight role of the Irish Prison Service, which is my role as its director general, has to be in place. The governors are in charge of individual institutions. I once made an analogy, which may be unfortunate in the current circumstances, that governors are a bit like bank managers in charge of a local branch and that the oversight function is carried out by headquarters.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

I sincerely hope Mr. Purcell is not making a comparison with the central leadership of the banks.

Mr. Brian Purcell

I clarified that and I am sure Deputy Rabbitte will acknowledge I am not making that comparison. The oversight that exists has to exist. I make no apologies to anyone. The issue of unannounced visits to prisons was raised and it was suggested that they, in some way, undermine governors. I make no apologies to anyone for making unannounced visits to prisons. That is part and parcel of a system of checks and balances to ensure the policies and procedures, as laid down, are being followed. I will continue to make announced and unannounced visits. I do not believe my doing so undermines the position of the governor but that it helps and strengthens the role of governor. Most governors do not have a problem with this.

With regard to the statement that we do not allow governors to take the initiative and that they are blocked, will Mr. Mackay give me an example of an initiative of a governor that has been blocked by the Irish Prison Service? If one asks governors about this, one will find that most initiatives that can be acted upon within resources are acted upon. The Irish Prison Service is no different from other Government agencies and Departments in that it must operate with finite resources. It is not always possible to do everything one would like but we almost certainly support proposed initiatives if we can. I am at a loss to know what are the blocked initiatives.

Deputy Rabbitte referred to the allegation that we somehow treated the governors in a less than proper, fair and professional manner. I do not accept that. When Governor McMahon retired, a number of issues arose regarding what she described as a lack of consultation, primarily on bunk beds. I said it was not that there was a lack of consultation but that there was a lack of agreement. The governor did not believe bunk beds should be put in the Dóchas centre. I agreed with her in the context and said I did not believe putting them in the centre was ideal but that one should bear in mind the number of female prisoners and the fact that I was having to place three women per cell in Limerick Prison. I implied that, in the Dóchas centre, the systems and regimes in place were far more capable of dealing with excess capacity than those in Limerick Prison. I felt that putting two prisoners in one room with bunk beds was a better alternative than putting prisoners on mattresses on the floor.

When we get prisoners into the system, be it in the Dóchas centre, Mountjoy male prison or elsewhere, we have two options, namely, to hold them or release them. Public safety is always the priority. I have said before in regard to criticisms of overcrowding that we must deal with everyone we get. If the options are to release prisoners who represent a threat to public safety and to put two prisoners into a cell originally designed for one or three prisoners into a cell originally designed for two, we must choose the second option. We are not going to release people who might represent a threat to public safety.

With regard to treatment in a proper, fair and professional matter, Mr. Mackay makes accusations and then says they are just what someone else told him. I reject his accusations in regard to how the Irish Prison Service deals with its oversight role. We work very closely with the Inspector of Prisons and Places of Detention, who provides the statutory oversight of the system. While it is not always comfortable for me as director general of the prison service to see criticisms of the prison service, the inspector would acknowledge that we are making every effort to deal with the issues that arise.

Let me refer to the 16 recommendations the inspector identified in respect of Mountjoy and inform the committee as to what we are doing to address them. Deputies O'Shea and Rabbitte referred to gang culture. It is a problem within prisons, as it is within every prison system. I said in the context of drugs that people do not leave at the door or gate the problems they have on the outside when they are admitted to prison. If gangs are a problem in the wider community, and given the nature of the people in prison, gangs will be an issue in prison. This creates a real difficulty.

Mr. Mackay referred to the fact that up to 13 different groups could be at one another's throats for various reasons, most of which have nothing whatever to do with the prison system. I said previously that some commentators seem to believe the number of prisoners we have on protection is a reflection of a prison system that is unsafe. I would counter that by saying it shows the measures that are taken by the prison service to ensure prisoners are kept as safe possible.

The problem of gangs means we have to put people into what we call protection. Sometimes, because of the nature of the threat from which protection is being sought, prisoners must be kept locked up for virtually 23 hours per day. While that is by no means ideal, it is done for the prisoners' protection. There are about 1,000 prisoners in protection throughout the system. Of the 1,000, perhaps 300 are on 23-hour lock-up. This is for their own protection. It is a problem and we are dealing with it. I will cover the issue of Mountjoy when dealing with the inspector's recommendations.

The separation unit was always called the separation unit and that is why it is still called that. There is no attempt to mislead anyone, as Mr. Mackay seems to believe. It is simply that the unit was known as the separation unit historically. The unit was closed down for a long period and was rebuilt to house protected prisoners in better quality accommodation and to allow for a regime that would be better than one in which prisoners would be locked up for 23 hours per day. The unit has only opened recently and it is operational. There are 54 prisoners in it. The regime will improve. It is not what we want but we are subject to the same current recruitment restrictions applying to all Departments and State agencies. I hope if the Croke Park agreement is ratified, we would be able to move ahead. I would hope the regime we will provide in the separation unit will be much more conducive and reach an acceptable level of incarceration for protection prisoners. I must, however, point out that we are not standing idly by ignoring it either. The issue of protection is a reflection of what is happening in the prison system and what prisoners are bringing into it. We must deal with it as best we can.

Chairman

Could Mr. Purcell send the committee a copy of the 16 recommendations?

Senator Ivana Bacik

We can then circulate them among members.

Mr. Brian Purcell

Yes.

Mr. Paul Mackay

May I have a copy of that?

Senator Ivana Bacik

Perhaps it should be copied to the visiting committee.

Mr. Paul Mackay

I am not a member of the visiting committee.

Chairman

Does Mr. Purcell have any problem with the committee circulating this to the visiting committee or to Mr. Mackay?

Mr. Stephen Langton

I think that is the business of the Mountjoy visiting committee.

Mr. Brian Purcell

I do not have any problem with this. We are not hiding anything. I will send a copy to Mr. Mackay even though he is not a member of the visiting committee.

Chairman

Maybe that is the best way to proceed.

Mr. Stephen Langton

I had discussions with Mr. Purcell about correspondence between different people and the Prison Service. As a result of these discussions, it was agreed between us that all issues relating to conditions in Mountjoy Prison and the visiting committee should be sent to the secretary of the visiting committee for its discussion.

This matter was a departure from that. Mr. Mackay wrote to the Oireachtas committee while he was a member of the visiting committee in Mountjoy Prison. Generally, visiting committees conduct their business within the prison walls and reports are sent by the chairperson and secretary to the Minister. It was agreed years ago that the only committee member who would speak to the press was the chairperson. That was breached last year. I have a difficulty with the business of Mountjoy going to people other than its visiting committee.

Senator Ivana Bacik

I am not sure if this is a matter for the Oireachtas committee. However, it is entitled to hear from any citizen who wants to come to us with issues.

Chairman

We will conduct our own business with Mr. Langton the way we see fit as the oversight committee for the Prison Service.

Does Mr. Mackay want to comment on what Mr. Purcell said about initiatives by governors being blocked?

Mr. Paul Mackay

I will allow that issue to be raised by the committee.

Chairman

Are there any other issues which need to be addressed?

Deputy Brian O’Shea

Regarding mentally ill patients who are not a danger to themselves or others, are some people sent to Mountjoy when they should be sent elsewhere for appropriate psychiatric treatment?

Mr. Brian Purcell

Sentencing of prisoners is a matter for the courts and not for the Prison Service. A new system has been put in place between Cloverhill and the Central Mental Hospital where on committal, if a prisoner is identified as having a mental health problem, he will be assessed by the Central Mental Hospital. If the consultant psychiatrist feels there is a mental health issue that would be more appropriately dealt with in a psychiatric facility, he would inform the judge for his or her direction.

Deputy Brian O’Shea

How extensive is this programme?

Mr. Brian Purcell

Up to 300 prisoners have so far been diverted through the courts to other psychiatric facilities.

In addition to providing spaces, the Central Mental Hospital provides an extensive in-reach service in which visiting consultant psychiatrists would deal with prisoners presenting with mental health care problems. While it is not ideal for someone with such problems to deal with them in a prison setting, extensive facilities are in place to cope with this as best we can.

There used to be a long waiting list for prisoners to attend the Central Mental Hospital. However, over the past several years it has been reduced due to additional space being made available at the hospital and an ever-improving in-reach service.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Mackay, Mr. Langton and Mr. Purcell for their attendance. It is obvious they all have the best interests of the Prison Service at heart.

The committee will meet with Mountjoy's retiring governor, Mr. Lonergan, the ex-governor of the Dóchas Centre, Ms McMahon, and the Irish Penal Trust some time soon.

Mr. Brian Purcell

Would the committee facilitate my presence at that meeting? I could contribute to that discussion.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

Mr. Purcell should rest assured it will not be what he imagines.

Chairman

Is it agreed to invite Mr. Purcell to that meeting? Agreed.

The joint committee adjourned at 12.20 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 16 June 2010.