I wish to share three minutes of my time with Senator Honan.
Adjournment Matters. - Inspector of Prisons.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
If it had been necessary to invent a character to epitomise an independent inspector of prisons it would have been difficult to do better than the recently retired UK Inspector of Prisons, Judge Tumin. His concern for the prisoners, the prison staff and for the need for imprisonment in present day society, combined with his obvious independence from the system, made one feel that no matter what the inadequacies of the British Home Secretary or what political pressure he or she might be under, the inspector would speak his mind.
Following the establishment of the State the administration of the prisons was transferred to the Department of Justice. Many, including the members of the Whitaker committee, feel this has had a detrimental effect on the management of prisons. The Whitaker report, as the Minister of State knows, urged the establishment of a separate prisons board. There was a prisons board established in 1878 but it was abolished 1928. A prisons board would help depoliticise the management of the prisons. I do not have to spell out how political the whole issue of prisoners has become. A board with a director who would report on the management and administration of the prisons directly to the Minister would be preferable to the present arrangements.
The Whitaker report also recommended the appointment of an independent inspector of prisons, who would be of equivalent status to the director of the prison board and would report directly to the Minister through the Secretary of the Department of Justice. Recommendation 14.12 of the report states:
The Inspector should be empowered to inspect all aspects of the work of the prison service, including the treatment of prisoners and conditions in prisons. Ad hoc inspections at the request of the Minister should be provided for. Each year the Inspector should make a report to the Minister and, subject to any omissions necessary on security grounds, the report should be published in full.
Most people have agreed with this. At present each prison has a visiting committee and all prisoners have a right to appear before the committee. However, in view of the furore over the most recent Mountjoy Prison visiting committee's report, it is easy to see how these reports become politicised.
The Management of Offenders — A Five Year Plan considers the appointment of an inspector of prisons. Recommendation 6.10 of the report states “The Inspector would be empowered to inspect all aspects of the work of the prisons, including the treatment of offenders and conditions in prisons”.
In the past the Department of Justice had taken the view that since we have fewer than 20 penal institutions in this country and there is constant interaction between Department officials and prison staff, regular visits to prisons by officials, contact with voluntary groups and so forth, an inspector is not needed. However, others would consider that the closeness of contact makes an inspector vital. The Department has reconsidered recently and agreed in principle that an independent person should be appointed with sufficient authority and access to institutions, offenders, staff and management of the prisons. The report goes on to say that while the position should be statute based, there is no need to defer such an appointment pending the introduction of an appropriate statute. Indeed, an inspector has been promised by 1999. I am concerned about the status of the management of offenders document and whether its recommendations still stand.
Having read the 1995 annual report of the Mountjoy Prison visiting committee, it is hard to see why there was much excitement about it — it is the same as the previous four or five reports, if perhaps only a little worse. There were more details of the medical service, or the considered lack of it, and these were more explicit. The value for money of this service was also questioned. Would it have received such publicity were it not for the coincidence that a girl hanged herself in Mountjoy women's prison — a middle class girl who was not the typical stereotype of a Mountjoy inmate? Was it this coincidence which resulted in so much attention being given to the report, because past reports which were similar have received little attention?
A distance between the Department of Justice and the prisons is essential for their management to appear independent. The total separation of the administration of the prisons from the Department of Justice has been long urged, as has the establishment of a prisons board. There is a feeling that everything must be shipshape before a prisons board can be established, which I do not understand. I have not heard the same reservations expressed about the establishment of an inspector of prisons as were made when we were considering the appointment of an inspector of mental institutions. A first move in trying to rationalise the situation as regards the management of our prisons would be the appointment of an inspector. I hope the Minister for Justice, who I realise is very busy, knows of this debate and will be encouraged to make this appointment.
I support Senator Henry's call for the appointment of an independent inspector of prisons. I would like to outline why this is very important to women prisoners who represent a small portion of the total prison population. The main women's prison is attached to Mountjoy Prison for men. The Second Commission on the Status of Women made searching recommendations in relation to women prisoners. I appreciate the Minister for Justice would be more than sympathetic to implementing the recommendations, one of which was the provision of an open prison for women, however, I accept that is not possible because of the deferment of the building of the new prison and women's prison beyond this year.
A report on radio this morning highlighted the difficulties facing women in prison, particularly those who are separated from children. When some of the files of former women prisoners were examined it was found that they had since died. Women in prison tend to come from backgrounds of poverty and low educational attainment and have social problems, notably in relation to drugs. If an independent inspector of prisons was appointed, these issues would be highlighted to a greater extent and they might be addressed.
The Commission on the Status of Women recommended that a halfway house and follow up services after release for women prisoners be put in place. When I visited the prison as a member of the commission I heard that some of the women leaving Mountjoy have so little support on the outside that they are anxious to go back to prison where they feel safe, are fed and have a place to sleep. They have support in prison which they do not have on the outside. That is a terrible indictment of society.
Because it costs so much to keep women in prison, we should look at ways to support them when they come out. By providing follow up services, we could ensure that they would not reoffend and return to prison. Women officers who had been in the prison for a number of years said it was frightening to see the children of women who had been in prison when they first started in the service now entering. It is a vicious circle. We are only talking about a small number of people — the present women prison population is approximately 42. I urge the Minister to accede to Senator Henry's request immediately and to address the issues I raised.
This is a welcome opportunity to discuss this issue and I thank the Senators for raising it. The appointment of an inspector of prisons would be a relatively small development. The Minister for Justice has prioritised reforms of the prison system and has decided to tackle as a matter of preference such questions as prison accommodation, drugs in prison, mentioned by Senator Honan, etc., and has successfully addressed these issues.
The idea of an inspector of prisons is not new. A similar post has been in place in other countries for many years. In 1985 the Whitaker committee, which submitted a comprehensive report on the penal system, recommended the appointment of an independent inspector of prisons. The idea was that such an inspector would report, through the secretary of the Department of Justice, to the Minister for Justice. The inspector would have extensive powers to examine all aspects of the work of the prison service, including the treatment of prisoners and conditions in prisons.
In the following years the view was taken in the Department that there were more pressing issues to be addressed and that, because of the small size of our prison system, there was less urgency to consider such an appointment. The pressing needs, it should be said, were very often the need to implement more important recommendations made in the Whitaker report. In the meantime, the Department looked at inspection systems in neighbouring jurisdictions and in 1994 the Department, in its five year plan for the management of offenders, accepted that, notwithstanding the existence of other supervisory or control arrangements, it was right in principle that an independent person should be appointed as inspector of prisons with an appropriate level of authority and with the necessary access to institutions, offenders, staff and management alike to perform his or her task as envisaged by the Whitaker committee.
The Minister for Justice has endorsed the five year plan. The Whitaker committee, however, made its recommendation in the context of a review of management structures for the prison service. This is clearly the context in which any such appointment should be made. As this House will be aware, there is a commitment in A Government of Renewal that the question of establishing a prisons board to manage the day to day running of the prisons would be examined. The question of establishing a prisons board is currently under active examination by officials of the Department of Justice in consultation with their counterparts in the Department of Finance. When those consultations reach the appropriate stage the matter will be considered by the Minister for Justice and, if necessary, brought to Government. It is in this context that the question of the appointment of an inspector of prisons will be considered.
The Seanad adjourned at 8.40 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 30 May 1996.