It is proposed by agreement that, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, the following arrangements shall apply to this debate. The overall time limit has been agreed at one and a half hours. The speech of the proposer shall be 20 minutes, the speech of each other Senator ten minutes, the proposer to reply, or another Senator who may be nominated by him, the reply not to exceed ten minutes. On a point of information, the Minister will speak for 20 minutes. This means that the debate will conclude at 8 p.m. with the Labour Senator to be called on to reply not later than 7.50 p.m. Agreed.
Private Business. - Prison Policy: Motion.
I move:
That Seanad Éireann concerned that there is severe overcrowding in many prisons in Ireland; concerned that the rate of deaths in prison has increased alarmingly in recent years; nothing the many public calls for the closure of the Women's Prison, Mountjoy; noting the delay in publishing the annual report of the Mountjoy Visiting Committee for 1988; noting the rooftop protest against the conditions of their detention by prisoners infected by the AIDS virus; noting the high cost of imprisonment and the low rate of rehabilitation, condemns the present prison policy as gravely flawed and urges the Government to implement the major recommendations of the Whitaker Committee of Inquiry into the Penal System.
Since we have been elected to the present Seanad we have seen crisis after crisis within the prisons. We have had rooftop protests in a number of prisons. We have had a number of self-inflicted injuries resulting in four suicides in the last ten months. We have had a litany of tragedies. There are the appalling conditions in the women's prisons, that have been described not just in statements made to me but in the Visiting Committee report for 1987 and 1988 and, I understand, for 1989, which has not been published yet. Only yesterday eight prisoners barricaded themselves in Limerick Prison and they inflicted injuries on themselves. That is not done lightly. That is something that is done as a last resort, the cry of desperation from people who are being detained under very difficult conditions.
The visiting committee had a dispute with the Minister for Justice. He failed to publish their report for 18 months because he disagreed with some of the contents. Then, in breach of his statutory duty, he failed to appoint a visiting committee for the first five months of this year. We have had a visiting committee for only a little over two weeks in this year alone. So, what forum do prisoners have for airing their complaints if that is the way the people in charge of prisoners deal with their business?
I have been involved in prison reform since 1973. At that time I was a founder member of the Prisoners' Rights Organisation, which had as its basic principle that the prison system should be overhauled. No survey or research or official inquiry had taken place since the previous century. It was advocated that it should be overhauled on the lines that the sanction of imprisonment should be defined as the loss of liberty, which is the loss of a single right, and that after that prisoners should be entitled to all other human civil rights like any other citizen under the Constitution. I want to see a situation where we moved from privileges to rights, from a situation where imprisonment itself was punishment to simply that the loss of liberty was the punishment. I have not seen much change over the last 17 years.
I will go through the daily routine in the prisons. A prisoner gets up at 8 o'clock in the morning, the cells are unlocked and the prisoner slops out. The slopping out, of course, is an appalling experience because of the lack of toilets in the cells prisoners must carry the chamber pots down the corridor. This is very humiliating. At 8.30 a.m. breakfast is collected and again the prisoner is locked into his cell to eat his breakfast. At 9 a.m. the cells are unlocked for work, recreation or exercise. At 12.15 p.m. the prisoners are locked up again for two hours having collected their meal. There is no communal eating in major prisons. At 2.15 p.m. the cells are unlocked for work, recreation or exercise. At 4.15 p.m. prisoners return to their cells, have tea there and are locked up until 5.15 p.m. The cells are unlocked for recreation from 5.15 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. or thereabouts, then the prisoners return to their cells with supper and are locked up. Lights go out at 10 p.m. If we add up the length of time a prisoner spends in his cell, we see he is locked up for two-thirds of the day — every prisoner spends 16 hours a day in his cell. The prisoners in St. Patrick's Institution, generally spend two more hours in their cell.
That is the daily routine a prisoner has to endure. On top of that there is very severe overcrowding in the prisons. Look at the statistics in the last prison report — and, unfortunately, the last prison report was in 1988 and we are now into 1990. One of the problems with the Department of Justice is its tardiness in producing these reports for the public. So we are never really up to date with what is going on in a formal public sense.
Mountjoy Prison has, according to the 1988 report, 375 single cells and 103 double cells with a daily average of 574 prisoners, roughly 100 prisoners in excess of what should be there, or a quarter to a fifth of the population in that prison at any given time. Likewise, Limerick Prison is overcrowded by almost onethird: they have 107 single cells and five double or multiple cells with a daily average of 164 prisoners. As I said, these figures were published in the 1988 report and the situation has deteriorated since. Cork Prison is the most overcrowded, with 128 single cells, ten double cells and a daily average of 241 prisoners — again these figures were for 1988 — 100 prisoners or three-quarters of the prison population or 75 per cent in excess of what should be the number there. Arbour Hill Prison, Mountjoy Female Prison and St. Patrick's Institution are all packed to capacity and over-capacity at a lot of times. That is the type of situation we have in our prisons in general.
Let us look at the Visiting Committee's report for 1988, just to give an idea of how the Visiting Committee saw the situation. In relation to overcrowding in Mountjoy Prison they said:
The number of prisoners confined in Mountjoy continued to rise during the year and far exceeds the capacity for which it was designed. In the male prison there have been over 600 prisoners on a number of occasions. The accommodation at the end of the year in the male prison was 588 prisoners in 482 cells.
That is 100 cells fewer than the official statistic given in the prison report in which there is a lot of anomalies. That is the visiting committee. These are the people who monitor what is going on in the prison.
The report continues:
Prisoners were confined one to a cell except for the following: 100 single cells occupied by two persons; 1 double cell occupied by three persons; 3 double cells occupied by four persons; 1 double cell occupied by five persons.
We are very concerned that this overcrowding continues. As mentioned above it has a very bad effect on management, morale, work, recreation. In our opinion, it has reached unacceptable levels. On occasion there has been no appropriate place available to detain violent prisoners. Some prisoners are spending almost all of the 24 hours in their cells. We receive many complaints from prisoners that others are being released before the expiration of their sentence whilst those on a shorter and less serious offence are detained.
In other words, a haphazard policy is operating.
In previous years, after investigations, we could always supply a reasonable answer. The programme of planned releases appears to be another casualty of overcrowding.
There is no proper planning in relation to releases of a temporary nature or otherwise.
Because of the overcrowding, prisoners are at times held in corrugated steel cabins with no ventilation, awaiting vacant cells. On hot summer days we have observed up to 18 men detained there from morning until late evening, conditions are shocking, with the prisoners stripped to their underclothing because of the heat. We have previously protested about these cabins. Prisoners should not be detained under these conditions. There should be no further delay in rectifying the situation.
The report goes on to say:
It is difficult to understand why Wheatfield Prison has not been opened and why accommodation is available at Fort Mitchel while Mountjoy Prison suffers from such severe overcrowding. Wheatfield has been opened to a degree since but it is still far from being fully utilised whereas the other prisons are grossly overcrowded.
The Minister for Justice did not dispute that part of the visiting committee's report and that is a massive indictment of the prison system in terms of the overcrowding and in terms of its incapacity to operate effectively. The cells are nine feet by six feet, which are not suitable for doubling up; 75 per cent of the cells in our prisons have no toilets and that compares with only 50 per cent in Britain. We are hearing all the complaints about the conditions in Britain but Britain has a policy to have flush toilets in all the cells in their prisons by the end of the century. We have no such policy and we have 75 per cent of the cells where we have got this humiliating throwback to the last century, to 200 years ago, of slopping out on a daily basis; and now, with two people occupying cells that were designed in the middle of the 19th century for one person, we have an atrocious situation in terms of personal hygiene and of privacy.
In relation to the AIDS virus, that has been a development that has taken place in the past four to five years. We saw earlier this year the rather pathetic protest, a peaceful protest by people who got on to the roof of the prison and they were all suffering from the AIDS virus. They were protesting against the conditions of their detention in the secure unit and in the basement, because that is where the people who were in need of medical attention are being kept, in two areas designed as punishment areas, the segregation or secure unit and the basement which has got artificial light. That is a terrible way of dealing with people who have major medical problems. They consider themselves, like lepers of old, being segregated, being kept apart by the authorities and the finger pointed at them and, as a result, many of them become suicidal and self-injuries are inflicted. Indeed, only last week a man had to be taken to the Mater Hospital with a very serious neck injury because he simply wanted to get out of the prison. He wrote a letter to me and it was certainly very tragic to read about his suicidal feelings about being there, whereas he had not felt the same in any other part of the prison.
In relation to the actual segregation of people apart from that, that is an area where segregation should not take place, but where segregation should take place is where there are remand prisoners, particularly in the women's section, mixed up with prisoners who were convicted, where there are young prisoners with old prisoners. The women's prison is particularly bad in this respect. There are young teenage girls with much older women in their twenties, thirties and forties, juvenile and adults.
We have a Dickensian type approach to our institutions in terms of how we operate our prisons. In Mountjoy we have the biggest drug centre in Ireland where drugs are readily available. I am talking about hard drugs where prisoners have died of overdoses of drugs that are illegally smuggled into prison. We have a situation now in Mountjoy where approximately 40 per cent of the population are in for drug-related offences.
On the question of health, there is only a physical examination for anybody who comes into prison. There is no psychological or psychiatric examination to determine what their mental condition is like, to determine whether they have got a mental handicap or any sort of mental disorder or whether it is appropriate that they should be in that type of closed claustrophobic institution where they will inflict self-injury and perhaps death. There was a study done last month by Dr. Arthur Connor and Dr. Helen O'Neill of prisoners who had been transferred to the Central Mental Hospital in Dundrum and they found that 4 per cent of those transferred since the beginning of the year were mentally handicapped and they had not been diagnosed as such in the main body of the prison because there was no survey done on their admission. Studies, according to the two doctors, suggest that the level of mental handicap in the prisons is at least up to 10 per cent. If we combine that with low IQ and learning difficulties, we are certainly talking about 25 per cent.
Indeed, a recent parliamentary question on the level of illiteracy, showed that while there are no statistics on it, the Minister was prepared to say it was in the region of a quarter to a third. That was mentioned by the Minister himself. There is not a satisfactory level of participation in education. In the male prison in Mountjoy in 1988, 33 per cent of the prison population participated, 40 per cent in Cork and 39 per cent in the juvenile prison, St. Patrick's Institution. Even in Shelton Abbey, which is an open prison, only 34 per cent participated. That is quite a low level of participation. We are talking not about a regular regime. The women's prison in Mountjoy is supposed to have a 56 per cent level, but when I visited the prison the women who were there said that what that amounted to was maybe 20 minutes a week. That is not exactly a high level of education. They were conducting the classes in an old prefabricated hut where the water came through on wet days. That is far from satisfactory.
I mentioned prison deaths. We have had, as I said, four prison deaths since this Seanad came into existence, and that is an alarming increase on what the situation used to be. In the sixties there were virtually none, in the seventies there was one or two, in the eighties they began to increase and in the past couple of years they have begun to increase alarmingly. We are now talking in the region of four to five per annum and that certainly has brought us into line with what the situation is worldwide, whereas we were well below the international average. Now, not only have we come up to it, but we are exceeding it.
I know the Minister has set up an inquiry, but what good is an inquiry? We already had inquests. We had internal inquiries by the Department of Justice and I know a study has been done by the psychologist in the probation service and that that is available for the Minister. The work is being done, but what are we going to get? What is the Minister's response? Another committee is sitting. When are we going to have an end to committees, when are we going to get some action on the problems we know exist?
The conditions in the women's prison, where we had the tragic suicide of Sharon Cregg last March, are absolutely appalling. I will read what the visiting committee said about the women's prison:
During the year [1988] two detention cells were constructed in the women's prison. They measured 4' x 7' x 7' high, approximately. There was no daylight in either cell and no emergency bell,
This is what was constructed in the women's prison in 1988.
In our opinion, these cells, the size of a modern toilet cubicle, furnished only with a mattress and blanket, would have a severe effect on a disruptive prisoner and could have a devastating effect on a claustrophobic one. We have requested that they be enlarged, that some means of daylight be provided, also emergency bells, and that prisoners only be detained for a limited and specified period. Extended detention should only be allowed on the written authorisation of a Governor, a Deputy or Assistant Governor.
There has been no dispute with the Minister for Justice on that particular point. The next point they deal with is:
We are appalled that male officers attired in helmets and visors and equipment with riot shields should chase and baton female prisoners in enclosed areas. The use of such force even to quell such disturbance is abusive. In the heat of the moment the excitement and fear of such confrontation is increased dramatically. The use of excessive force should be forbidden and new rules introduced to prevent its recurrence.
Irrespective of that last point, the fact that the authorities should devise two detention cells of the most confined nature that you would not find in the Second World War in a concentration camp, and that that is the way they deal with problems in the women's prison, it is absolutely outrageous.
In relation to the cost of the prisons, this year the prison system is costing £62.5 million and that works out at £31,500 per annum, or £600 per week per person. So, each person incarcerated on our prisons at the present time costs the taxpayer £31,500 per annum or £600 per week. That is roughly £100 per day. That is the cost to the State for the type of system we are getting and that is not very good.
We have a level of recidivism that is on the increase, particularly among the young. In St. Patrick's Institution the increase from 1983 to 1987 — unfortunately, those are the last figures that are available because we do not have the reports coming out on a sufficiently regular basis — was a 40 per cent recidivist rate in 1983 to a 54 per cent recidivist rate in 1987. That is in respect of the youngest of our prison population, the people who should be kept out of prison, in regard to whom every effort should be made to ensure that they are steered away from the cycle of imprisonment.
We must urgently address reform of the prison system. The Minister who is responsible for it has been negligent in regard to it. It is all before him — 1985 the Whitaker Committee of Inquiry into the Prison System gave the official account of what should be done. We must get a definition of imprisonment along the lines I spoke about already stating that the prison was a sanction where only one of the citizen's rights was going to be taken away. That is what the Whitaker inquiry states as well. Prison conditions have to be improved, and there is a whole section on it in the recommendations. A prison board must be established which would take the day-to-day running from the Department of Justice, which is a bureaucracy that cannot deal with it properly. We require an inspectorate to monitor the prison system, visiting committees with real power, the alternatives to prison which are outlined by the Whitaker committee. There is a whole range of measures outlined. They have to be introduced. The women's prison must be closed, that is what Whitaker says. There is no point in refurbishing it. A medical director was three months waiting for that——
I must ask the Senator to finish.
Could I say that the answer to the prison system has been given by the committee of inquiry and I would ask the Minister to make a commitment here and now to introduce the recommendations.
Acting Chairman
I must ask you to finish.
I formally second the motion. Prisons have been a major source of public interest for the past ten to 20 years. Prior to that they did not rate and the fact that they have been gaining such public interest is in many ways an indication of the extent to which things have deteriorated. Deaths have increased alarmingly, as Senator Costello has said. We have had four deaths in prison since this Seanad came into existence on 1 November 1989. We have had the rooftop protest recently and on top of that there is the high cost of imprisonment and the low rates of rehabilitation in prison. In addition to all of these problems there is the new and terrible difficulties arising from the presence of AIDS victims in the prison system.
The Whitaker report has been published for approximately five years and we await the implementation of its recommendations. It recommends the use of alternative sanctions to imprisonment. There is need for far greater efforts to be made to streamline this type of approach rather than continuing with the old-fashioned ways that have long since proved ineffective by way of providing reform. There is need for open structures where prisoners who are not a threat to the community can be treated on an open prison basis and allowed to fill a certain function within the community rather than being ruined by being held in the prison system when that is not a necessity.
Finally, there is the whole philosophical approach of using prison as something of a last resort. That certainly does not appear to be the case at present. There have been very few changes in the prison system over the past 16 years. Effectively, the building in Mountjoy is Dickensian. It dates from the last century, the facilities there are totally inadequate, prisoners of differing categories are lumped together under the same conditions, remand and convicted prisoners are kept in the same environment. Prisoners with differing levels of conviction are all kept together. There does not seem to be any clearly established criteria as to the levels of accommodation which are acceptable for prisoners in prison. I think it is imperative that clear standards and guidelines should be laid down as to what is acceptable by way of the levels of accommodation, the type of accommodation, the floor space, the level of facilities which are basic to any civilised standards in prison. There is a clear need to spell those out and to adhere to them.
There is then the awful problem of AIDS. This is an especially sad and appalling problem, reflecting the development of this disease in society at large. Given the way AIDS has developed and given the way this problem can be anticipated to develop, it is fair to say it can be expected that the AIDS problem will get worse in the prison community unless very definite and clear action is taken. I believe the time is now appropriate to establish a committee of experts who will look into this problem of AIDS specifically in prison and set about finding what is the best way to handle this problem, because we have a very serious medical problem which is complex because of the environment in which AIDS patients who are prisoners find themselves in. It is very important that some clear initiatives be taken to sort out that problem.
There is the question of the women's prison. Again, I agree with my colleague, Senator Costello, when he suggests that the only real answer here is to close it down, and that is also in accord with the Whitaker report. It seems to me to be quite unnecessary to house of the order of 40 to 50 women prisoners in the prison system when it appears that perhaps of the order of five to ten are as many as need to be maintained in a secure environment. The rest are simply housed in prison for reasons which relate to administration, to an inappropriate philosophy and so on. Many of the people who finish up in prison are victims of society and that is the reason they are there. In many ways we have not laid adequate emphasis on the need to set about prevention rather than, as it were, using prisons as a form of treatment which does not work.
That takes me on to the amendment which is put down in the name of the Government. This is a truly remarkable and spectacular piece of work. It must have been taken directly from the man who writes those resolutions for the clár for the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis, when he is really on top of his game, because all that is missing is "new scenarios" and "meaningful situations at appropriate moments in time in our society", if I can get all the clichés to come flowing out together. First, it "commends the establishment of an Advisory Group on Prison Deaths"— advice. It "notes the intention to refurbish extensively the Women's Prison"— it notes an intention. It "notes the high level of services" provided for offenders with the AIDS plus virus. When it says it "notes the high level of service", I find it hard to take this seriously, except perhaps that the person who drafted this has in mind height as in the AIDS victims being on the roof of Mountjoy. But that is about as far as I can figure out how high levels of service for AIDS victims can be appropriate in the context here. It talks of plans for a new unit for offenders with special medical problems — again, plans. Wheatfield is open, but it is just about open and certainly it has not become fully effective. St. Patrick's, it says, is being refurbished, but when you read the resolution it talks in terms of things taking place for the refurbishment of St. Patrick's. It talks of "many positive developments" taking place. We are getting better. Really, this is super stuff: "the establishment of a Sentence Review Group, the imminent appointment of a medical director, substantial measures to improve, constructive and effective responses"— all the clichés are put together in one motion. Where is the beef? This amendment draws attention to the fact that there has not been any action. It mentions reviews and good intentions. The Whitaker report was published in 1985. The time for talking is past and it is now time for action. I hope the Minister will give us concrete timescales. I do not like this advisory business, and so on. I could advise myself. That is basically tomfoolery, the kind of stuff one would expect on the clár at the Ard Fheis.
When you were in power for four and a half years you did absolutely nothing.
We set up the Whitaker commission. You are in Government two years. We are told it is working very well. Now it is time for action.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:
"commends the establishment of an advisory group on prison deaths to advise on further measures which might be taken in an effort to prevent deaths in custody which, unfortunately, are a problem which face prison systems the world over; notes the intention to refurbish extensively the womens' prison at Mountjoy as the most effective way of improving accommodation for female offenders at least in the short term; notes the high level of services provided for offenders who have been identified as HIV positive and the plans to provide a new unit at Mountjoy for offenders with special medical requirements; commends other improvements taking place in the quality of prison accommodation including the bringing into operation of all the new place of detention at Wheatfield and the refurbishment of St. Patrick's Institution; notes the high level of recourse to alternatives to custody and the vital role which the prison system plays in the protection of the community; notes the many positive developments which have taken place in the light of the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Penal System including the establishment of the sentence review group and the imminent appointment of a director of medical services; supports the substantial measures which are being taken to improve the effectiveness of the prison service as a constructive and effective response to the problems being faced by it and commends the valuable role played by prison management and staff and members of the support services in performing a difficult job on behalf of the community.
It is vitally important that we do not lose sight of the fact that priority must be the protection of the public against habitual criminals. It appals me when I hear some of my colleagues on the other side of the House speaking in terms of the 11th and 12th century prison set-ups I used to come across when studying legal history.
Senators mentioned current tragedies. In the recent crisis in Limerick Prison some prisoners inflicted wounds on themselves. To a certain extent and I am not being offensive to any of my colleagues on the opposite side, the hype that is generated by such unbalanced statements fuels the fire that makes these people wound themselves. For example, one of the prisoners concerned in Limerick was a man who committed an atrocious murder in my constituency. He was convicted and is serving a life sentence. He tortured a man who came from New Zealand for four days. Eventually he killed him and dumped his body. These are the type of people Senators Costello and Upton wish to protect. If that man inflicts wounds on himself in order to gain publicity for his imprisonment, then he should get no sympathy.
Hear, hear.
During his trial he smiled and smirked and never showed any remorse. Now he has slashed his wrists in an effort to gain publicity. We must never forget that the priority should be the protection of the public at large. There is nobody in any prison cell who is not there through their own fault. I remember on a number of occasions serving as secretary to a Bar Association and meeting with various judges of the District Court, Circuit Court and High Court. None of them wanted to send anybody to prison but when they came up against a situation where the public had to be protected as a last resort they were obliged to impose a prison sentence. It must not be forgotten that there are approximately 2,100 people in our prisons. They are being looked after and fed. Roughly £68 million is spent on our prison service trying to keep hardened criminals off the streets.
Take the situation at Strangeways in Manchester. The only comparison one can make between that prison and Mountjoy Prison is the fact that one is dealing with old buildings, etc. In Strangeways there are three prisoners in a cell and they are locked up for 23 hours a day. In the Irish prisons the prisoners are normally out of their cells from 8 a.m. until 8 p.m. They are entitled to recreation and sometimes to education. Various other facilities are provided such as medical facilities, etc. That point should be noted. On a current issue, prisoners are being allowed to watch the World Cup even after 8 p.m. when they should normally be in their cells. For example, next Sunday night when Ireland play Egypt they will be allowed special concessions to watch the match. This is at enormous cost and inconvenience. It is a major point but I am trying to bring some balance to the debate. I will be the first to admit that there are certain inadequacies in the prison service. The Minister is sympathetic to the problems and progress is being made in this area.
In relation to services, there are chaplains, psychiatrists and psychologists. There are in the region of 100 teachers providing educational services for those who are illiterate, and for those who are at primary, secondary or university level. The open university system is used. These facilities are given to those who wish to avail of them.
Death by suicide in our prisons is a problem but we must realise, and it is accepted generally by psychiatrists, psychologists and medical experts, that this is a growing problem in society and it not only affects prisons. In a four month period in 1985 there were four prison deaths. The total in 1988 and 1989 was four. It is still far too many but we must keep this matter in context.
Alternatives to prison sentences have been mentioned. I am quite satisfied that we have a wide ranging set of alternatives. We have fines, probation and community service orders. Every district justice, Circuit Court Judge and High Court Judge has an in-built system to use community service orders. From my experience as a lawyer working in the Munster area, this has been widely and successfully used. It is being used also in other parts of the country. It is something to be commended.
I would like to quote some figures from the Council of Europe document. The rate of imprisonment per 100,000 of the population is 98.2 in the UK; 106.2 in Scotland; 86.7 in West Germany; 92 in France; 96 in Austria and 56 in the Republic of Ireland. Of 22 countries surveyed, we are sixth from the top when it comes to providing good services. In relation to accommodation it must not be forgotten that the Government are spending £8 million on refurbishment. The Wheatfield Prison which is being filled by way of transfers etc. is now 80 per cent full and hopefully by the end of the year it will be 100 per cent operational. St. Patrick's is being fully refurbished and in Mountjoy special units are being built to provide facilities for people with contagious diseases such as HIV, TB, etc.
It is vitally important that the public be protected and that a certain balance be brought to the debate. If some Senators on the other side had their way prisoners would not be in prison cells but in Butlins, the Burlington or Jurys.
I second the amendment. I am very pleased that the amendment is phrased in positive terms which are in contrast to the negative, unbalanced picture of prison conditions which the motion seeks to portray. People who consistently speak about the negative side of prisons seldom show the same concern for the victims of crime. They seldom focus on the trauma, suffering and loss that is inflicted on victims. Everybody acknowledges the need for a prison system. Prisons exist in this and every other country to protect the public from the activities of criminals and to detain socially dangerous persons. Hopefully they also serve as a deterrent to those who would seek to deprive others of their rights and freedom.
As in other countries, the prison service has become more difficult in recent years. This is because the prison population is increasing due to the fact that crime is on the increase. Crimes are becoming more violent and the system has to deal with prisoners who are very often addicted to drugs or who are in prison for drug related offences. Some prisoners have infectious diseases, such as the HIV virus and some have full blown AIDS. All these factors tend to exacerbate the tensions which inevitably exist in a prison.
Every reasonable person wants to see a prison system which is humane, efficient and which as far as possible will help to rehabilitate prisoners. Our prison system operates on the basis set out in the Whitaker report, namely, that imprisonment should be regarded as an imposed penalty and that nothing should be done to inflict hardship or punishment beyond what is an inevitable consequence of imprisonment, and that regulations for the management of prisoners should be based on the principle that the fundamental human rights of a person in custody should not be interfered with or encroached upon except to the extent inevitably associated with imprisonment. I am satisfied that our prison system meets these criteria that it is a humane, efficient and as far as possible, rehabilitative system.
Everybody acknowledges that some problems exist in relation to accommodation. There is some overcrowding. I compliment the Minister for what he has done to date to deal with these problems. It is unrealistic for anybody to suggest closing prisons because the cost of providing new prisons would be totally prohibitive. The Minister is implementing a very realistic programme of renovation and refurbishment and, as Senator O'Donovan mentioned, he is spending £8 million in the current year on that programme. Senator O'Donovan mentioned what is being done to improve accommodation. Our prisons, for the most part, are old buildings. Renovation takes times but it is being carried out on a planned basis. I also compliment the Minister on the fact that he is providing detention facilities for young girls.
The level of support services in our prisons — the chaplaincy, medical, psychological and psychiatric services — are up to a very high standard. There is medical care for prisoners with infectious diseases. Prisoners have access to education. They have access to library facilities, to games and various other activities, and to the work training programmes that are in operation. Our system is a reasonably satisfactory one and the Minister is to be complimented on it.
As regards the delay in publication of the 1988 report, the Minister was perfectly right to delay publication until he had investigated the allegation made by the visiting committee.
Senators Upton and Costello remind me of two school children on top of a glass roof prison throwing pebbles. These two same Senators and their party were in Government for four and a half years and what exactly did they do for prisoners during their time in office? The answer is absolutely nothing. The Whitaker report has been thrown up to us. It is only right to remind the Senators that people in glasshouses should not throw stones. As regards Senator Costello's contribution he seems to be extremely conscious of prisoners' rights. At times I wish that same concern was expressed for prison officers who have an extremely difficult task to perform. Very often the pronouncements from the likes of Senator Costello and others make the difficult task these prison officers have to perform even more difficult. In many instances, and I am afraid to say it, one would ask if this encourages further misconduct and misbehaviour by long-term prisoners.
That is a slanderous remark.
Everybody knows the dangers.
It is the negligence in relation to dealing with the problem——
It is not the negligence——
Acting Chairman
You have a right to reply.
I cannot accept the remark suggesting that I am responsible for problems——
(Interruptions.)
That is a low slanderous remark. It is negligence on the part of the Minister that is not conducive to good conduct.
(Interruptions.)
Acting Chairman
I must ask the Senator to resume his seat and to abide by the rules of the House. The Chair has ruled that he has ten minutes to reply and he can make his contribution at that stage. I ask him for the last time to stop interrupting when another Senator is speaking.
A number of statements have been made in this debate that are factually incorrect. Before I was interrupted, I was complimenting Senator Mullooly on the fact that he was conscious of the people against whom crimes are committed. The issue of severe overcrowding has been mentioned. Senator Upton mentioned Wheatfield Prison and the fact that there is hardly anybody there. My understanding is that there is an 80 per cent occupancy rate at Wheatfield and that before the end of the year that prison will be totally occupied. St. Patrick's Institution is being totally refurbished. If a unit is closed down when refurbishment work is being carried out obviously that will have a knock-on effect. That has to be accepted.
I support the amendment very much. The Minister has taken very positive steps towards alleviating problems within the prison service and he should be complimented for what he has done to date.
I welcome this debate. I have, over the past few months, called for such a debate to recognise the serious situation we have in our prisons. Overcrowding is the main problem. My party on numerous occasions, and I on several occasions, called on the Government to establish a criminal law reform commission to advise and report on the updating of criminal law. I support the view that we should have alternatives to prison for minor offences such as non-payment of fines and debts. It is absurd that our prisons are clogged up with offenders who do not pay their fines or debts at a cost to the taxpayer in excess of £600 per week. Prisons should be reserved for those who commit serious crimes against the person and against property. They are the people who should serve their full sentence with only time off for good behaviour.
Last year 1,000 prisoners were committed for non-payment of fines and 250 for non-payment of debts. The cost to the taxpayer to keep one person in prison per annum is £31,200. I do not believe this is acceptable. The Law Reform Commission should look at alternatives. Maybe there should be an increase in the level of fines. There should be more effective non-custodial sanctions in the event of non-payment of fines.
A range of alternatives to prison must be considered. For example, the confiscation of property or assets should be available to enforce such fines. During the Second Stage debate on the Larceny Bill I proposed the extension of compensation to the victims of crimes particularly in the case of old people who are often traumatised and do not recover from the effects of attacks and robberies. Where there is default in such compensation, the confiscation or attachment of income where possible should be used. Where this is not possible, an extension of the present approach to community service should be substituted rather than putting people in prison. The opportunity to pay fines by instalments must also be examined. Many people will not have the ready cash to pay a fine and rather than putting them in prison an approach should be made to allow them to pay by instalment.
Drug trafficking is a growing menace to society and it will grow over a period of time especially when we open our borders in 1992. I have brought up this issue in the House on several occasions. Nobody seems to take any notice of me but this will be a serious situation post-1992. The assets of professional criminals and those who amass vast amounts of money from ill-gotten gains should be confiscated.
I am concerned about the rate of crime outside Dublin, especially violent crime. Those who commit such crimes must serve their full sentence rather than have the revolving door approach we have at the moment. Full-term prison sentences must be served by those who claim political motivation and who are a serious threat to society and to the State. Those who commit homicide, grave crimes against the person, organised crime, drug pushers, armed robbery, taking property with serious violence or those who attack the elderly must know that if convicted they will serve full sentences.
I condemn what happened in Limerick Prison. Two of the people who committed those acts over the weekend were well-known drug traffickers from Dublin. They should serve their full sentence. The present overcrowding in prisons results in these people being released and this should be tackled. It is wrong to say that we do not have a problem in our prisons. We have a dual problem, the problem of overcrowding and the problem of early release of serious offenders. The present level of crime is intolerable and the Government must do more to discharge their fundamental duty to maintain law and order.
One-third of offences are committed by those under 17 years of age and special mention should be made of this. They suffer from emotional, physical and cultural deprivation. Most of the crimes are petty stealing and it is rare that first time crimes are committed by those over 17 years of age. We should take that into account. Prison is a training ground for such people. We must attack this problem by increasing the life opportunities for these people and by a careful programme of rehabilitation and education. The aim should be to keep offenders away from future criminal activities and out of prison. We should concentrate on providing further education, training, welfare and guidance to try to ensure that those who are in prison are helped to become constructive members of society. Alcohol and drug abuse can lead to crime and I was very disappointed to note that last week a course for alcoholics was cancelled in Mountjoy because funds were not available to run it. I would like to pay tribute to the prison service and officers and to the Garda for maintaining law and order as far as they can given their limited resources.
I thank Senator Neville for allowing me to have some of his time. It is obvious that Senator O'Keeffe never read any Labour Party policies. They cost us five seats in 1969. The Labour Party are not only concerned about prisoners rights and human rights. We are concerned about prison officers because of the nature of their work. On and off duty they are exposed to attacks by inmates and to varying degrees of injuries including the death of one off-duty officer, Mr. Stack, about which we are very sorry. We also went on to point out the problem of unstable offenders, the problems of prison officers trying to maintain order and discipline and being in a position to physically prevent escape from custody, ensuring prisoners are not subject to physical attack by other prisoners, the whole question of these officers having to work in a hostile environment and the dangers that are created for them there.
How did the dangers arise? The reason the officers are subjected to this danger is that while we agree that people have to be incarcerated and have to be punished for crimes of violence, lawlessness, vandalism, etc., we cannot ignore human rights. When you put them into conditions where there is clear evidence of sheer degradation, which is verified by the Whitaker report, then you have to make up your mind that the reason is that the jails are largely old, cramped and starved of funds. This is what has been happening over the years. It does not matter which Government did it. As long as the numbers in prisons continue to increase there will be severe overcrowding. The prison officers and everyone else will be exposed to this danger.
Crime prevention is too big an area to talk about. We have not got the time to debate it here but it would have been very desirable if we had been able to discuss it. The aim of the motion was to put pressure on the Government to implement the spirit of the Whitaker recommendations.
It is fair to begin by saying that the ground covered by this Labour Party motion has been well furrowed over the years and particularly so in the recent past. The Minister for Justice has dealt with various Dáil questions, a motion in this House and also made public statements on the matters raised. It is, of course, the right of any Senator or group of Senators to demand further debate and I welcome the opportunity of contributing to it. I have no doubt, however, that on the basis of what the Minister for Justice has said time and time again on many of the issues raised and on the basis of what I am about to say here today, this House will recognise that the amendment proposed to the Labour Party motion by Senator Denis O'Donovan is fully justified and that it deserves to be carried.
The Labour Party motion consists of a number of elements. It is best if I deal with them one by one. First, there is a reference to "severe overcrowding". The Minister for Justice has never denied that there are accommodation problems in Irish prisons. This problem did not begin when he took up office — there have been accommodation pressures for years. I am sure the House will recognise, however, that he certainly has not sat on this problem. He has, in fact, taken a number of measures which I believe will make a valuable contribution. It is appropriate to remind the House again of some of these.
Last year he indicated that the new prison in Wheatfield would be brought to half occupancy level by the end of the year — this was achieved. Wheatfield is now 80 per cent occupied and will be fully occupied by the end of this year when the necessary staff become available.
He secured Government approval for the necessary expenditure on a special unit for those known to be HIV positive. I am glad to say that planning work on this project is now well advanced and that construction will commence in the near future. Demolition of existing structures and site clearance have already taken place.
The Minister also secured Government approval for the complete refurbishment of the St. Patrick's Institution complex which includes the Women's Prison. One of the wings has already been vacated and work on this project, too, will begin in the near future. I should mention, incidentally, that one of the side effects of a substantial refurbishment programme is that there is an inevitable loss of prison places for certain periods with consequent pressures on accommodation elsewhere. This indeed is recognised in the Whitaker report which states.
The repair and modernisation of existing prison buildings must also be undertaken. It is estimated that the renovation programme, even with the best planning techniques, would take an average of 200 places out of service over a lengthy period.
The total provision for prison capital and maintenance works in the current year is £8 million.
There are two further approaches to accommodation pressures, i.e. build new prisons or employ alternatives to custody to a greater extent. An extensive building programme had been drawn up in the early 1980s with plans for new prisons in Cork, Portlaoise, Wheatfield and a total reconstruction of Mountjoy. However, because of the widely agreed need to curtail public expenditure at that time, a decision was taken to proceed with the Wheatfield project only. The economic arguments underlying that decision still hold good. The fact is that the restoration of that building programme could run to hundreds of millions of pounds of public expenditure. While recognising that the question of providing some additional accommodation is one which certainly has to be borne in mind as an option — it is something which obviously depends on crime and imprisonment rates — the Minister's view is that the appropriate course, now, is to examine further the idea of providing more alternatives to custody as envisaged in the Whitaker report. In fact it may be more a question of providing for more extensive use of alternatives than extending the range of alternatives because many of the alternatives mentioned in the Whitaker report were already in place and are now quite extensively used. There are about 3,000 offenders on alternatives of one kind or another as against approximately 2,100 in custody.
The Minister has stated elsewhere that he is having this matter specifically examined by his Department at the present time with a view to deciding what measures might be taken to secure a more extended use of alternatives. I would have to enter a note of caution, however, as he has done consistently whenever the subject of alternatives is raised by making the point that, for a substantial number of offenders in prisons, the idea of serving sentences in the community is just not on. It is simply not true — the Minister has repeated this point over and over again — that prisons are chock-a-block with minor offenders such as fine defaulters and debtors. People in this category occupy only about 1 to 2 per cent of prison places, on an annualised basis, because they serve very short sentences.
With regard to the second issue referred to in the motion, the concern that "the rate of deaths in prisons has increased alarmingly in recent years", let me say, first, that I am sure this House will agree that in discussing this very sad problem it is desirable to begin by getting the facts right. While I have no wish to play with statistics — each death is a tragedy — it is important that the House should be aware that the number of apparent suicides in 1989 was four which was the same as the figure for 1988. More significantly, however, the figure for one four month period in 1985-86 was also four. The figures, in other words, fluctuate. This is no consolation but it benefits nobody, least of all those who may be disposed to take their lives and need our help, to begin talking about "alarming" increases without looking at the facts.
It is a fact that prison deaths are a worldwide phenomenon and successive Ministers have made this point. It is a fact also, sadly, that suicide is a community issue. It is not simply a prisons problem and it is clearly illogical, in the light of this, to attempt to blame all suicides on prison conditions such as accommodation pressures. The fact is that prisoners have died in single cells as well as cells with more than one occupant. And it is also a fact that the expert medical advice in some cases is that offenders at risk should be placed in single cells and in others that they should not be placed in such cells.
On this issue, again, the Minister took an important initiative. While recognising that prison suicides are a worldwide phenomenon and an extremely complex problem, he felt that it was an issue which should be made the subject of specific examination and that is why he established an expert group to look at the problem. He expects to be examining some interim recommendations by this group in the very near future.
With regard to calls for the "closure of the Women's Prison in Mountjoy", which is the next element in the motion, I have to say that the closure of that prison, now, is quite simply impractical. The relatively small number of women involved — about 35 in custody with 15 or so on temporary release at any one time — includes some quite serious offenders including drug traffickers and two murderers. I am sure nobody would suggest that offenders in this category should simply be set free if the institution were closed today. I believe that the policy the Minister for Justice has adopted, that is, the total refurbishment of the women's prison, is the only feasible option, at least in the relatively short term. Other options may have to be looked at in the longer term. Demands have been made for the construction of a new women's prison but this, with the best will in the world and on the basis of all available experience, is something which would take several years from the time of decision in principle to actual delivery. I am sure nobody seriously suggests it is wrong to make a serious attempt to improve conditions in that prison in the relatively short term.
The next reference in the Labour Party motion is to: "The delay in publishing the Annual Report of the Mountjoy Visiting Committee for 1988". The Minister has explained the reasons for this delay very fully in a statement which he issued some time ago and which now is included as a preface to the report. The facts, in a nutshell, are that the Visiting Committee in a report which is said to be "for the calendar year 1988" expressed itself "appalled" that male officers attired in helmets and equipped with riot shields should chase and baton female prisoners in enclosed areas. This was an extremely grave allegation and since neither he nor his Department knew anything about such an incident taking place either in 1988 or at any time, it was obviously incumbent on him to investigate the matter. It turned out that the incident took place in 1986 and while, as he has said elsewhere, he has no wish to be involved in controversies with any Visiting Committees I think it reasonable, in fairness to staff who have to deal with disturbances of the kind which took place in 1986, when chairs and other items were hurled at female officers, to ask why the committee, which expressed itself to be "appalled" in 1988, had remained completely silent on the issue for some years. They could have reported the matter to the then Minister in their annual report, in any of their monthly reports or in a special report. They had statutory power to conduct an investigation but for some reason or other they did not follow any of these courses. Statements have since been made by four women concerning this matter as a result of which he immediately requested the Garda Commissioner to investigate the allegations which they made. For this reason, I am sure the House will accept that it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on this matter.
With regard to the reference in the Labour Party motion to: "the rooftop protest against the conditions of their detention by prisoners infected by the AIDS virus" I would again appeal to the House to have some regard to the facts which, incidentally, the Minister fully outlined in reply to the Private Notice Question in the Dáil on 8 May. The first fact is that five of the ten offenders who appeared on the rooftop are not in the segregation unit because they are known to be HIV positive. They are in special detention on one of the landings, segregated from the HIV offenders because, and only because, they are among the most difficult prisoners in the system.
With regard to "the conditions" in which HIV victims are detained, it is important to mention a few more facts. In the first place, those involved in the protest are detained in the segregation unit in Mountjoy which was totally refurbished only a few years ago. Secondly, it is not correct to describe it as overcrowded. Thirdly, the oft-repeated assertion that those concerned are deprived of medical services appropriate to the HIV infection is simply without foundation. They are attended daily by a doctor who specialises in treating the condition and are referred to hospitals for appropriate treatment as and when medically advised. Those suffering from drug addiction — the reality unfortunately is that both problems very often go hand-in-hand—also receive appropriate treatment, advice and counselling. Some evidence of the truth in this is provided by the fact that offenders suffering from the HIV virus who have been released from Mountjoy have actually sought to have their periods of release terminated in order to avail of the services provided.
Those who have read the above mentioned report of the Mountjoy Visiting Committee for 1988 will note that while they express concern about the health and safety of prisoners and indicated that they would be issuing a special report, which incidentally was not received, they also state:
The health of most prisoners is very good. Indeed, the health of many prisoners, especially drug abusers, improves while they are in prison. Access to hospitals and medication is better than it is for many members of the public.
I do not for one moment suggest that everything is perfect. The Minister's decision to build a special unit for those suffering from contagious diseases is a clear acknowledgement on his part that we could possibly do more, and indeed demonstrates in a very practical way his determination to do so. Expressions of concern are all very well and are understandable but, at the end of the day, what counts is action and he is taking positive action.
The main point he is making is that the picture conjured up in relation to "conditions" in the segregation unit are not very closely matched by the facts as I am sure most of those who have visited the unit, indeed whom the Minister has facilitated in visiting the unit, will acknowledge. What is extremely worrying, is the implication that the life-threatening behaviour which took place during this so-called "protest" is somehow justified. The action taken by prisoners was utterly disproportionate and I have no doubt this House will agree that comments tending to imply that it was somehow justified are very unbalanced indeed.
On the subject of balance, the 1988 annual report said various positive things also. I should mention for the sake of balance that as well as criticisms the visiting committees comment favourably on many aspects of our prison regimes and it might be no harm to mention some examples. The Mountjoy Visiting Committee comment that education at the prison continues to have a most positive and rehabilitative effect. In relation to the health of prisoners the committee said that the health of most prisoners is very good. Indeed, the health of many prisoners, especially drug abusers, improves while they are in prison.
The Cork Visiting Committee refer to members paying visits to the prison outside meeting times and finding that business of the prison to be at all times as it should be. The Arbour Hill Visiting Committee note with satisfaction the many valuable activities taking place in the prison and refer, in particular, to the excellent educational facilities being provided. There are many other favourable references throughout the visiting committees' reports and, while I accept they also contain criticism which need to be addressed, it would be a pity not to place some emphasis on the very valuable work being done in the prisons by staff and management, together with the various support services.
I have no doubt either that ordinary law-abiding citizens take a different view of incidents of this kind and that it is appropriate that their commonsense views should be reflected in any discussion concerning prison protests. The offenders who got on the roof did so by force and, in the process, inflicted injury on a prison officer who was simply doing his duty. They included two remand prisoners, one on remand for carrying a firearm with criminal intent, an offender serving two years for receiving stolen goods, one serving four years for robbery, one serving five for supplying drugs, one serving six for arson — arson, incidentally, of a house while the family slept upstairs — one serving seven years for robbery, one serving eight years for robbery and one serving nine years, again for robbery. Those serving such sentences are not minor offenders, they are not the type of people who could suitably be placed on alternatives and clearly they are not in Mountjoy because they happen to suffer from a contagious disease.
The average citizen would feel we should spare a thought for victims of crime and spare a thought also for the elderly and vulnerable in our society who suffer at the hands of criminals. I believe, too, that, as public representatives we should, consider what the people whom we represent must feel when they see those who should know better straining to catch the words of criticism uttered by such a group while engaged in an act of gross provocation with apparently no regard for their own safety or that of others. What does the ordinary person make of the spectacle of people in public life practically falling over themselves to get their own words of solidarity on tape or on screen?
All of this carries a price. There is little doubt that the protest which took place in Limerick last Sunday night, for example, was influenced by the belief that the consequent publicity and posturing by various people would have an impact. These offenders inflicted superficial wounds on their necks. One does not need to be unduly suspicious to suggest that this type of action is influenced in no small way by the expectation that the understndable concern expressed when prison suicides or attempted suicides take place, might be extended also to the offenders involved on this occasion.
While it is regrettable, obviously, that any offenders should behave in this way, there is really no basis for extending sympathies. Those involved were, again, a group of quite serious offenders, one serving two years, two serving five years, three serving ten years, one serving 14 years and one serving life for offences which included possession of drugs with intent to supply, producing a firearm to resist arrest, manslaughter and murder. Their complaint, which, in the circumstances, can hardly be said to be justified, was that the level of supervision applied to them when receiving visits was too tight.
We simply cannot afford to allow prisoners to believe that the way to "get action", which, make no mistake about it, for them includes the removal of essential controls, is to get on a roof or take some other disruptive action with the virtual guarantee that various people, many misguided, will hype things up to the point where authority is tarnished and its hand forced. I can assure this House, now, that such tactics will not work. The Government, while dealing with those in custody as humanely as possible, with a view to their ultimate resocialisation, are also determined to protect the public. There are various channels through which offenders may express their grievances. They are used every day and problems are resolved every day. The channels do not include rooftop protests and nobody should attempt to shroud such actions with any veil of legitimacy.
Finally, with regard to the suggestion that "the present prison policy [is] gravely flawed" I am sure that, in the light of what I said, the House will readily acknowledge that there is nothing to substantiate the assertion. Prisons policy embraces many elements but if I mention some of what I would regard as essential elements, and outline briefly what the policy is, I am sure the House will have no difficulty in agreeing that the right policies are being followed.
It is necessary to have a policy of secure containment. I have made it quite clear that this is an essential element and that the Government are determined to see to it that the community is protected. Difficulties inevitably arise from time to time but I feel that, in relation to the serious situations which have developed in recent times, the House far from describing the approach as flawed will join me in complimenting the prison governors and staff concerned on the manner in which they have dealt with these situations.
There has to be a humane approach. Again I am sure the House will recognise that various initiatives for which the Minister for Justice has been responsible in this area indicate, quite clearly, that the humane approach, which incidentally, has been the characteristic of Irish prisons policy down the years, is not only being maintained but is being further developed. The Minister has already mentioned his decision to establish a group to advise on the problem of prison deaths, a decision motivated entirely by humanitarian considerations. He is also bringing together an appropriately qualified group to advise on the future handling of those suffering from contagious diseases. Last Christmas, with Government approval, he granted Christmas leave to categories of offenders who were not previously considered for such release. This, I am glad to say, was a resounding success. Of course he has also established the Sentence Review Group which has the job of providing him with independent advice on the administration of long-term sentences, including life sentences.
A prisons policy should, I believe, involve an element of openness and here, again, I think the House will acknowledge that the Minister has taken a number of initiatives. He has facilitated visits by an all party Oireachtas group to our prisons. One such visit has already taken place. He has also facilitated a visit by representatives of the Joint Committee on Women's Rights to the Women's Prison and, of course, he has facilitated visits too by various representatives of the media since he took office as Minister for Justice.
With regard to the Whitaker report let me say, first, that it is unfair to that committee to suggest that their report has been ignored. It had an influence on many developments which have taken and are taking place. I might mention, for example, the extended use of alternatives and the introduction of new duty rosters. The Minister established the Sentence Review Group, which was also a Whitaker recommendation. He is specifically looking again at some of the recommendations made in the report on the subject of alternatives to custody and he hopes to be in a position within the next few days to make an offer of appointment to a medical practitioner who has been recommended by the Civil Service Commission for appointment as medical director. There are various other recommendations in the report which he shall also be examining in the months ahead.
With regard to the assertion that prisoners spend almost 24 hours in their cells, very few offenders spend lengthy periods in their cells. When they do so it is for very short periods. The reason for this is that those concerned need protection from other prisoners and more often than not, they welcome the protection provided.
In regard to the Department of Justice delaying publishing annual reports, one of the reasons for the delay in publishing the 1989 report was that the Department had not got a report from the Mountjoy Visiting Committee. I think it was Senator Upton who made the point that a committee of experts on AIDS should be established. The Minister has already done so.
An assertion was made that drugs are freely available. Suffice it to say that it is not the authorities who supply them. The precise reason for the disturbances in Limerick Prison on Sunday night was that major criminals, including major drug traffickers object to the level of supervision exercised during visits.
Far from being flawed, I would argue that prisons policy is soundly based and that its development is on secure footing. In the light of what I have said I would strongly commend to this House the amendment to the motion which has been put down by Senator O'Donovan.
I am extremely disappointed by the tone of the Minister's response. There is confrontation in terms of what the Department will do, how they will run the prisons and how they will rule the prisons. I do not think that is the proper way to go about it, Everything I have done in the last number of years is in line with the recommendations in the Whitaker Committee of Inquiry. I listened to what Senator O'Keeffe and Senator O'Donovan said, and it is not good enough for Senators who should know better to simply attack the person and try and divert attention from the failures and the negligences in the system and by successive Ministers for Justice. I am not saying that the present Minister for Justice is worse than any of the others. He has put some useful provisions in place and some others he has in the pipeline of which I am very much in favour. For example, he is now agreeing to look into the area of alternatives to prison. He is setting up an expert group to look into the position of prisoners with the HIV virus. That should have been done ages ago. He has set up the sentence review body. Of course, the recommendation of the Whitaker Committee of Inquiry was that it should be on a statutory basis — which the Minister has not done. He, hopefully, will appoint the medical director, a promise which was made earlier.
I do not think any speaker said prisoners were kept in their cells for 24 hours. I certainly did not. I said 16 hours, or two-thirds of the day, so there is no need to refute something that was not alleged.
With regard to the appointment of the Visiting Committee, the Minister has not addressed that. Why has it taken five months to appoint a visiting committee when the Minister is statutorily bound to appoint it? A visiting committee should be in place at all times. He said the reason the 1989 report was not published was that there was no report from the Visiting Committee of Mountjoy. The Visiting Committee have to make an annual report. If it is not forthcoming, then the Minister must demand it. That is his duty and his obligation. Let him not use that as an excuse for the Department of Justice not publishing their report.
With regard to the allegation that drugs are freely available in the prisons, naturally enough the Department of Justice are not making illegal drugs freely available but they are allowing illegal drugs to be freely available. Quite a number of prisoners have died from overdoses of illegal drugs.
These are the nitty gritty we can get involved in. I am talking about a general overhaul of the prison system. The Whitaker Committee of Inquiry have made a broad set of recommendations as to how the prison system is to be overhauled. That is what I am talking about. I have always spoken about a set of policies that will give us a humane prison system, an efficient prison system and a cost effective prison system. Such a prison system would benefit all — it would benefit the prisoners because it would take their needs into consideration and it would benefit the prison officers because they are the people who are also imprisoned. They are the people who want the Whitaker Committee recommendations implemented because they spend a lifetime working in the same conditions as prisoners are detained in.
It would benefit society because the whole purpose of prison reform is to make it effective so that the 50 per cent plus level of recidivism is ended and people who go to prison, particularly young people, will realise that it is not simply a university for crime as it so often is, because of the lack of segregation in prisons right across the board and because of the overcrowding in the prisons, as well as the other aspects of the prison system, particularly in our main prison, Mountjoy, where roughly 60 per cent of the prisoners are processed. We are talking about a system that will benefit everybody.
It is not making hotels or holiday camps for prisoners. I am not talking about that. Everybody who commits an offence against society should be punished. I am in favour of that, but while they are being deprived of their liberty let us ensure that the maximum is done to ensure they do not go back and inflict a similar offence on society and for that we must have a proper rehabilitative system in the prison. We must have an after-care service when they come out of prison which matter the Department of Justice wash their hands of in the present circumstances. Once the door closes they are not concerned about the situation. People continue in the cycle of crime. We are talking about a comprehensive look at our prison system.
We have been dealing with some of the nuts and bolts, but if we look at it overall the purpose of imprisonment must be examined. Who do we put into prison? Why do we put them in? How long are they going to spend in prison? While the Minister says there is only a tiny per cent — only 1 to 2 per cent — of people in for such offences as non-payment of debts or non-payment of fines, we are still talking about 10 to 15 per cent of the people who go to prison. Roughly 10,000 people go to prison every year. The last figure we had for people who go into prison for non-payment of fines was 1,250. We are talking about 10 to 15 per cent of the people who go through the prison process who could be kept out of it entirely. Their inclusion leads to the prison system being clogged and overcrowded.
There has been a suggestion that I am not concerned with the victims of crime. The victims of crime are the people who get the worst end of the stick in our society. I admit that. This is one of the areas that must be addressed on another day and in another debate. First, they are brought through the harrowing experience of having to go to court in very difficult circumstances and being cross-examined. There is no support of any description either psychological or financial for those who have been subjected to injuries of a personal or traumatic nature. I am concerned with that. I am involved in that. I have been very much involved with the people who have set up the association for the victims of crime. I will continue to be involved with them which, I would say, is probably more than most of the people do who criticised me on matters here in the House.
We are talking about the quality of life in society. We must establish an effective system which we do not have at present. That was the reason the Whitaker committee was set up. It was set up to look into the whole area of prisons and the penal service. It criticised it and put together a comprehensive set of policies. We should be examining how all of those could be implemented so that we have a better system. It has not been done. The Minister takes credit for dealing with certain parts of it. Let me say that that has been a tinkering with it.
We must look at the overall system and at a comprehensive overhaul of the system. The first thing that must be done is to define the sanction of imprisonment. What is it? What does it do? We know who goes to prison. Why they go to prison? What does the punishment mean? Does the punishment fit the crime? We must look into the structures in which the prison system operates. The Whitaker Committee of Inquiry recommended that the prison system should be taken out of the control of the Department of Justice in its day-to-day operations. That was five years ago but we have had no response from the Minister in relation to it. Are we going to have the bureaucracy operating a prison system that must be flexible, adaptable and able to respond to such things as an epidemic of the AIDS virus, the drugs problem and the people who are in prison for those issues which relate purely to the 1980s? I do not believe the Department of Justice can do it and that is not a criticism of the Department. It is a criticism of the fact that you cannot have a type of Civil Service bureaucracy, which the Department must be.
I must reject the terms of the amendment. I ask the Minister to reconsider the motion the Labour Party has put forward, to take on board its main provisions and to see about overhauling the prison system.
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 28; Níl, 16.
Tá
- Bennett, Olga.
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Hugh
- Byrne, Seán.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Conroy, Richard.
- Dardis, John.
- Fallon, Seán.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Foley, Denis.
- Hanafin, Des.
- Honan, Tras.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Michael.
- Lydon, Don.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McGowan, Paddy.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Donovan, Denis A.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- Ormonde, Donal.
- Wright, G. V.
Níl
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Joe.
- Harte, John.
- Howard, Michael.
- Jackman, Mary.
- Kennedy, Patrick.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Neville, Daniel.
- Ó Foighil, Pól.
- O'Reilly, Joe.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Raftery, Tom.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Upton, Pat.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Wright and Fitzgerald; Níl, Senators Upton and Costello.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.