Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Jun 1996

Vol. 147 No. 15

Mountjoy Prison: Motion.

Dr. Henry

I move:

That Seanad Éireann calls on the Minister for Justice to implement the recommendations of the 1995 Report of the Visiting Committee of Mountjoy Prison.

The 1995 report of the Visiting Committee of Mountjoy Prison caused a little flurry of interest when it was released. However, within less than a month, concern for any of the recommendations seems to have subsided. The report was similar to those produced by the committee over the last few years and little, but nothing, has happened to their recommendations either.

One cheerful note, however, is that in all the reports the Governor of Mountjoy and his staff are frequently praised for the efforts they make to run as humane a regime as possible in impossible circumstances and with minimal facilities. It is a consistent theme throughout the report that they are doing all they can in trying circumstances.

The Management of Offenders report is now two years old. There has not been much action on it, although it continues to be Department of Justice policy. However, the authors of the report should not complain too much because the Whitaker report is 11 years old and its recommendations also await implementation. I express my sympathy to all those who have put such hard work into these various reports to see so little achieved in an area where changes are so badly needed.

The following is a summary of the recommendations made by the Visiting Committee of Mountjoy Prison. First, to appoint an Inspector of Prisons with specific proposed powers, duties and terms of reference; second, to provide separate remand facilities for prisoners; third, to introduce a legal ceiling to numbers in Mountjoy Prison; fourth, to immediately commence the building of the Women's Prison; fifth, to review and restructure the Permanent Suicide Prevention Committee; sixth, to formulate one coherent medical services policy; seventh, to introduce structures of medical accountability; eighth, to increase the powers of the Medical Director of Prison Services; ninth, to review present guidelines for padded cells; tenth, to initiate a survey to establish the real extent of drug abuse within the prison with a view to setting procedures in place to eradicate the problem.

On an Adjournment debate two weeks ago I addressed the need for an Inspector of Prisons. In her reply, the Minister said it would be a relatively small development, recognised it was recommended in the Whitaker report and in the Management of Offenders report, but said it would have to wait until the question of an independent prison board was being considered. This, therefore, is one recommendation which has been put on the long finger.

Other Senators have kindly agreed to address some of the other recommendations. I wish, therefore, to focus my attention on those involving the medical service in the prison and the role of the Medical Director of Prisons. The 1995 report section on the primary medical care services and the psychiatric services states:

This medical report highlights much of what has already been reported in previous Visiting Committees' Annual Reports as well as that which has been reported to the Irish Government by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the CPT Report) which was published on 13 December 1995. As a basic starting point we reluctantly accept that the provision of a satisfactory level of health care is almost impossible in a prison which is 'overcrowded, unhygienic and has very few regime activities' (CPT p. 43).

As the Minister will be aware, the doctors servicing the prison work on a part-time basis. This is desirable because exclusively prison work has been found in other jurisdictions to be detrimental to the doctor's skills.

The complaints centre around the main prison which, regrettably, is a remand prison as well as a detention centre for sentenced prisoners. No negligence is claimed by the report, but it is critical of what could be described as the quality and the quantity of the medical service to prisoners. In view of this, members of the committee decided to do a time and motion study on the medical services in the main prison. It could be described as an attempt at a medical audit. The report to the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland on Medical Audit by the late Professor John Pritchard states:

An audit is a detailed and critical evaluation of quality and quantity. In modern speech the word is used mainly in a financial context—so its application to medicine has unpleasant and sometimes threatening connotations. But medical audit in its broader and proper sense is not new—although the rapid development of a technical jargon has given the impression that it is. Doctors have been making critical evaluations of their work for centuries. Almost every physician has taken part in innumerable audits since he was a medical student: every death conference, every clinico-pathological conference, each clinical trial, every ward round is potentially an audit.

With the severe financial pressures in the prison service and the need to ensure that the best medical care possible is given to prisoners, it is hard to see why the medical services inside Mountjoy Prison should be excluded from audit when those of us who work outside have to become involved in them. Medical audit involves the systematic collection of data and the use of this data to improve the quality and efficiency of patient care. The visiting committee appears to be concerned about the remuneration of these doctors. Page 30 of the report states:

The remuneration records in relation to medical services (obtained from the Department of Justice) clearly state that both doctors in the Main Prison earn over £15,308. In effect this means that Dr. A earns over £15,000 for providing a medical service for 107 days in the year with some 20 medical visits being as short as 20 minutes or less. Dr B also earns over £15,000 while providing a medical service 142 times, with 21 visits being 21 minutes or less. We are puzzled as to why Doctors A and B in the Main Prison should be reimbursed at such a profitable rate— compared, for instance, to the Women's Prison, (approximately £9,000 per doctor) — particularly when the sessional time spent in the Main Prison can on occasions be so brief.

They also query the number of patients seen by the doctors in a very short length of time. For example, it reports that Dr A saw 40 patients in 50 minutes on January 13, six patients in ten minutes on 17 February and 43 patients in 40 minutes on 5 December and that the total visits of Dr. A to the prison in 1994 were 107, of which 53 were of an hour or less and 23 were of 20 minutes or less. At the same time, Dr. B saw 42 patients in 42 minutes one day and 31 patients in 35 minutes on another day and that the total number of his visits to the prison in 1994 was 142, of which 94 visits were of a duration of one hour or less and 21 visits were of a duration of 15 minutes or less.

This was the visiting committee's attempt at a medical audit. However, there was one vital ingredient missing, an ingredient necessary to undertake a medical audit, which the visiting committee has overlooked. A medical audit should be carried out by one's peers. Following this report, so that the doctors can be given a chance to explain the relevance of this data, it is essential that the Minister ask a body such as the Irish College of General Practitioners to set up a medical audit on the prison medical service in Mountjoy Prison. I am sure the doctors working in the prison will welcome the opportunity, as any professional would, to put their case to their peers. Explanations have been given that many of the prisoners who attend the clinics do so for trivial reasons, such as to get anti-dandruff shampoo. Naturally, any person would like a trip out of the cell block and a visit to the doctor cannot be refused; but the doctors involved should be given a chance to explain their case to their peers.

The report also points out that the Medical Director of Prisoners appears to have little operational control over the doctors who work in prison. It quotes from the report of the 1993 Committee for the Prevention of Torture, which states: "In practise the Director of Prison Medical Services has no operational control over the work of doctors in the prisons". This crazy situation must be addressed immediately — one would wonder why a Director of Prison Medical Services was appointed and then given no function. It smacks of a terrible waste of money for the State and a waste of talented man's time.

Concern was also expressed about the psychiatric services. These are provided by psychiatrists who are full time employees of the Eastern Health Board and based in the Central Mental Hospital in Dundrum. Often these doctors are not of consultant level, leaving very difficult cases to be dealt with by doctors in training. Many prisoners with psychiatric problems go unattended or unassessed for days, or even weeks, according to the report, because of the inadequacy of the psychiatric services in Mountjoy. There is a constant waiting list and the transfer of an offender, even when eventually seen and assessed as suffering from a mental illness, is often delayed due to lack of accommodation in Dundrum. This means that the medical staff of Mountjoy have to deal with psychiatric patients, a field in which they do not profess to have any proficiency.

The report quotes from the 1993 visiting committee report, which states "approximately 60/70% of the patients seen by the psychiatrists are essentially requests for sleeping pills, a situation which the average GP would feel normally competent to deal with". The committee also feels that the amount of money spent on paying psychiatrists is not value for money. About £35,000 is spent every year. They point out that this is given to people who are already in full-time employment.

The report suggests, and I agree, that the Minister for Health needs to become involved with this problem area. To help the early transfer of patients who are suffering from mental illness in Mountjoy, the Central Mental Hospital has 20 beds in an unused new building which should be opened immediately. The area of forensic psychiatry is in need of urgent attention. Psychiatrists say they cannot treat prisoners who have personality or behaviour problems. They say that these are social problems, not medical. They will treat such prisoners if they have a psychiatric disease but not otherwise.

When we commit people to prison, be it on remand or following sentence, we are obliged to give them proper medical care. Having read this report and the others I mentioned, it is hard to see how it can be said to be happening in the main prison in Mountjoy.

Mr. Norris

I am happy to second this motion from my colleague, Senator Henry. As she indicated, she asked a number of us to take specific areas. She asked me to look at the area of drugs and I am happy to do so.

The introduction to the report itself underlines the seriousness of the drugs problem in Mountjoy. The first paragraph states that the 1995 report was prepared against a background of considerable tension and difficulty for the prison service and goes on to say that it was yet again a year of increased crime and drug abuse. Not only do we have the problem of increased crime outside the prison, which is often related to drug addiction, but we also have a serious problem with regard to drugs inside the prison system. I note that only four pages of the report address this problem. An examination of this subject should have taken a greater proportion of space in the report. I hope that future reports will pay more attention to it.

There are certain fundamental areas which must be examined. One of them, for example, which is certainly not mentioned in the section dealing with drugs, is the related problem of AIDS. It is important that this matter be considered by the visiting committee in its report because it is a problem in Mountjoy. It is related to drugs and also to sexual activity within the prison. We may well like to pretend that sexual activity does not take place in prisons, but it does. We may well like to pretend that the injection of drugs does not take place in prison, but it does.

These are high risk practices in terms of disease and that high risk is intensified by the prison conditions because of the furtiveness with which they must take place and the lack of access to those prophylactic measures that are accessible to people on the outside, particularly the use of condoms and needle exchange. Despite the fact that some members of the public might think it wrong to make available either condoms or free needles within the prison system, it is important that we overcome our scruples so that both condoms and needles are made available because of the life threatening nature of the circumstances involved. Some people may dissent from this because they prefer to think there is no sexual activity and no drug taking in prison, but there certainly is.

The enormous pressure on the facility is a general problem. Mountjoy was built as a short-term prison to cope with less than half the numbers currently involved in it. There is a revolving door situation, so one not only has overcrowding but a constant throughput. This makes it increasingly difficult to monitor the drugs situation. As the House and the Minister know only too well, relatives of prisoners and prisoners themselves are extraordinarily ingenious in inventing new methods, sometimes very intimate methods, of introducing drugs into the prison system for themselves and their relatives.

I do not believe it would be possible to stamp out drugs until we are able to stamp them out in the wider community. I do not believe that is possible either. It certainly will not be possible to reduce it significantly until very radical measures are taken on a global scale. In this context I am talking about the removal of restrictions on drugs to destroy the economic base, but that is another argument.

There is no sign of our winning the war against drugs in the wider community and there is little sign that we can win it in the prison system. However, we have a responsibility to try, because prisoners are not only being punished or penalised; they are in the custody of the State. It is a fearful irony that young people go into prison drug free and, through a combination of boredom, peer pressure and so on, they come out as drug addicts and sometimes also carrying the inevitably fatal AIDS virus. It is incumbent upon us to try to do whatever we can.

Improvements in the medical service are required. My colleague, Senator Henry, was very tactful in her remarks about the medical service. I do not know much about it now, but over many years I visited Mountjoy and Dundrum. The medical services provided there were pathetic in the extreme and consisted largely of handing out drugs to patients in order to keep them subdued. Included in the report is a suggestion, which is very honest, that many members of the staff of the prison turn a blind eye to the consumption of drugs precisely because they can be used to damp down and control behaviour. It is clearly stated that a rigorous programme of prevention would include such draconian measures that the absence of drugs as a kind of anodyne in the prison system, coupled with the aggravation of these techniques, would almost definitely lead to serious unrest within the prison system.

In making these remarks I do not intend to be critical of the staff or the Governor. I am glad to agree with Senator Henry who made the point, which is also made repeatedly in this report, that the Governor has done an extremely good job. I have never had the pleasure of meeting him, but I have heard him on the radio on numerous occasions. He struck me as being a highly intelligent, humane and decent person and it is appropriate that he should be so complimented.

There are other matters which we could raise. For example, in the 1977 Misuse of Drugs Act provision was made for the creation of custodial treatment centres for people convicted of drug related offences. Where are they? They do not exist and, as the report rightly says, one of the problems is that judges have to sentence people and prisons have to accept them. This results in massive pressure on the prisons, including a significant proportion of people involved in drug related offences and helping to spread this kind of infection. Although provision was made for them in 1977, we have no custodial drug centres. On one occasion of which I am aware a barrister made an application to the judge, but the prisoner was sent to Dundrum. It is simply impractical. We must do something in this area.

I refer to the sadness with which I have heard repeated stories of people dying inside Mountjoy in circumstances related to drugs. This year I listened to the mother of a young woman who had desperately tried to get on to a methadone maintenance programme on the outside, had not succeeded, had gone back on the needle, had robbed or committed some criminal act in order to feed her habit, was sent into Mountjoy and hung herself. It is a comment on ourselves that this should be allowed to happen.

There is a lot more I could, and should say, but perhaps the few points I made will be considered. While they are not intended to be critical of the Minister, the drug free unit is largely cosmetic — it is the old training unit with a new name. The committee expressed the hope that a real facility will be established, that it has been promised a detoxification unit and that it looks forward to its opening in 1996. It must be opened and I hope the Minister can give us a commitment this evening.

Mr. Neville

I congratulate Senator Henry for raising this issue and the visiting committee on its frankness and openness when presenting its report to the Minister for Justice. The problems in prisons have been tolerated for too many decades and they must be dealt with and solutions must be found. Some of those solutions are contained in the report's recommendations. I concur with previous speakers by saying that the staff and Governor of Mountjoy are not at fault as they must deal with a very difficult situation. The Governor, Mr. John Lonergan, whom I met, is an excellent servant of the State and is operating in difficult circumstances in the best interests of the prison service and prisoners.

Like Senator Norris, Senator Henry asked me to deal specifically with the issue of suicide in prison and I am pleased to contribute in a positive way to this important debate. I am concerned about the number of suicides in Mountjoy. Since 1990 there have been 25 suicides in Irish prisons; 16 or 64 per cent, of those have been in Mountjoy, which contains 28 per cent of the prison population. It would appear that there is a particular problem in Mountjoy in relation to suicide. I appreciate the prison has taken steps to introduce a suicide prevention committee, about which I will speak later.

The three deaths this year were related to drugs. As Senator Norris said, this is probably a key issue in relation to the tendency to commit suicide in prison; I will deal with others later. Drug addiction and drug taking are very much related to attempted suicide and suicide. According to prison statistics, those returning after temporary release are at a high risk. The prison has ensured that they are not in a position to take drugs, because they often come in after taking drugs and there is a possibility they will overdose or suffer consequent depression.

It is interesting to note that most of the suicides in Mountjoy were committed by people under 30 years of age, a trend which is evident elsewhere. The highest suicide rate is among those aged 15 to 35 years. The most frightening thing is the high level of attempted suicides among women prisoners, which goes against all trends in society. Last year there were 15 attempted suicides by women — six were regarded as very serious — out of a prison population of 30 to 40. This is ten times greater than the figures for the male population. This trend is different from that in society. One female to four males commits suicide in prison.

I understand there is a culture in prison of discussing the taking of one's life as a solution to the difficulties women experience in prison. Those who understand suicide will know of the contagion or copycat effect. If suicide is constantly discussed by the women prison population, inevitably there will be more attempted suicides. This year we witnessed a very sad suicide in the prison. If something can be done to change that culture, it will affect the suicide rate.

The Samaritans have spoken about suicide and the warning signs. The risk of suicide is greater when there is a recent loss or break-up of a close relationship. Many prisoners find they have very little family contact and they are often rejected by parents or partners. I know the prison is aware of prisoners, especially women prisoners, who do not receive visitors, which would indicate that there has been a breakdown in relationships. Much of the criteria which identify potential suicides — many people show their suicidal feelings by being withdrawn — are particularly relevant to prisoners.

I welcome the suicide prevention committee. I hope it will link up with the suicide task force, which is preparing a report at present. The suicide task force should avail of the experience of this committee. There is little professional information and few guidelines about suicide prevention. A professional approach to suicide prevention is very difficult in prisons because information and expertise do not exist. I hope the task force will liaise with this committee to draw on its experiences and to see if recommendations on reducing suicide in prison can be made. I thank Senator Henry for asking me to deal with this particular issue.

Mr. Mulcahy

I praise the Minister for taking the initiative to publish this report. As far as I am aware, it is not usual for such reports to be published, but by so doing it provides an opportunity to have an important debate. The report called Mountjoy an "appalling institution" with which I agree, having visited the prison. This is a crisis issue and I agree with the sentiments expressed on overcrowding. The reports states:

We regard overcrowding in Mountjoy Prison as a crisis issue, which requires a crisis response by Government. These issues deserve a higher priority in terms of restoring public confidence, improving security, a reduction in crime and effective prisoner rehabilitation. In tandem with all of this, the 1995 budget announcement postponing the prison building programme was very dispiriting indeed and we question was it really necessary?

I agree with and support the list of recommendations contained in this report. It now appears that Mountjoy Prison is more a part of the crime and drugs problem than the solution. Inhumanity cannot be part of any legitimate fight against crime and the overcrowding, lack of separate remand facilities for prisoners and the situation concerning drug abuse at Mountjoy amounts to inhumanity.

The Minister for Justice, who so far has failed to properly deal with the problems of the lack of prison spaces and prison reform, should immediately appoint a person of standing and ability to head a thorough independent inquiry into the conditions in Mountjoy and this report should be available within a period of three months. It is absolutely unacceptable that the "appalling conditions" of Mountjoy — those are the words used by the visiting committee — should be allowed remain into the foreseeable future. This Government, by refusing to build Castlerea prison and bring forward proposals for changes to our bail laws, is itself guilty of negligence amounting to utter irresponsibility. Until the Government solves the prison crisis, it will never solve the crime problem.

I want to highlight some of the principal recommendations contained in the report. It says that

There is no separate remand prison in Ireland. Mountjoy, as mentioned in relation to overcrowding, suffers severely due to the fact that, unlike other prison Governors, Governor Lonergan is obliged to take every prisoner sent to Mountjoy. Mountjoy is the only committal prison for 19 of the 26 Counties of Ireland. On any given day there are 100 to 150 remand prisoners in Mountjoy. They should be facilitated elsewhere.

This committee is gravely concerned that remand prisoners in Mountjoy are mixing with sentenced prisoners.

It also stated that "It was yet again a year of increased crime and drug abuse, with consequent daily demand for spaces in Mountjoy regularly exceeding availability. In reality, the male prison, which could reasonably cater for 450 prisoners, has been accommodating, on average, 628 inmates daily during 1995.". It also said that "When we combine these difficulties with the regular practice for Mountjoy of releasing prisoners early just to create space, it makes a farce of our legal and judicial systems. If this problem is not taken in hand, it will be a spiral to certain disaster.". These are strong words.

While I appreciate the genuine sentiments expressed by Senator Neville about suicide, his entire speech hardly mentioned overcrowding or a reference to the fact that although finance had been provided in the last budget for the building of Castlerea prison, it was cancelled.

Mr. Neville

The Senator was not here when I explained my approach to this debate.

Mr. Mulcahy

I am extremely tired of being constantly interrupted and barracked.

Dr. Henry

On a point of information, I specifically asked Senator Neville to speak about suicide because of his great expertise in this area.

Mr. Mulcahy

That does not take away one whit from what I said. It is an absolute farce for somebody who is supposed to be representing the Government, to absolutely ignore the fact that the programme for building extra prison places has been cancelled by the same Government. In an interview given to the Irish Independent— I have quoted this before — Garda Commissioner Culligan stated that the lack of prison places was itself creating and adding to the crime crisis, which is exactly what this report says. I am not surprised that Senator Neville did not refer to this and did not concentrate on What is the greatest crisis in Mountjoy parison. This Government stands condemned like no other before it for failing to——

Mr. Neville

We have only been in Government for the past two years; this has been going for the past ten years.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

You have one minute left, Senator.

Mr. Neville

I could have brought in evidence on this which I have put on record.

Mr. Mulcahy

Sir, I hope you have taken into account the time I have lost from the unasked for interruptions from my colleague on the other side.

This Government is itself creating and adding to the crime crisis by refusing to provide the requisite number of prison places. This proposition has been accepted by the visiting committee and the Garda Commissioner. Given that the Minister for Justice appeared to be committed to the building of Castlerea prison in early 1995 and that we all know she was stopped or spancelled by her Government colleagues, especially the Labour Party, is this Government committed to——

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mrs. Doyle)

I will not reply because the Senator will make rubbish of the response.

Mr. Mulcahy

I was interrupted by the Minister, Sir, so I hope I will be given extra time for that.

Mrs. Doyle

All five seconds of it.

Mr. Mulcahy

There are another five seconds. Can we get a commitment from this Government, rather than adding to the crime crisis, to try to solve it by building this badly needed prison and by accepting the recommendations of this report? This is a matter of the gravest concern for our people; and until the Labour Party and this Government recognise it, there will be trouble.

Ms Gallagher

I am sorry to see that Senator Mulcahy seems to have a particular problem with the Labour Party. Then again, it may be because we are and continue to be in Government and he is on the other side.

Mr. Mulcahy

It will not last for long.

Ms Gallagher

It was a good idea for Senator Henry to put forward this motion and to debate it, as we hoped, in a non-partisan or party political fashion, because it is worthy of debate. It does no justice to the motion to debate it in the fashion adopted by Senator Mulcahy. The Senator alleged that the building programme had been scrapped by this Government. The report, if the Senator read it, recognises the continuing work on the female prison in Mountjoy. Therefore, this work is obviously ongoing.

This debate is so wide ranging that we have tried to separate it into various issues. I recall visiting Mountjoy Prison when I was a student and having my eyes opened for the first time with regard to what boredom really means. The vast majority of those entering Mountjoy would not be highly educated and would, therefore, find it difficult to pass the time by reading, etc. The sheer boredom of being there for up to a month would drive me demented. It was the first thing which struck me in terms of what people are faced with in the prison.

The second point which struck me was the friendliness amoung prisoners. I saw inmates openly welcomed by their friends already inside. There appeared to be a certain camaraderie amoung the prisoners who obviously came in and out of the jail regularly. However, that is another issue.

The major problem in Mountjoy Prison is the overcrowding caused by the fact that the jail and Governor Lonergan must take in remand prisoners daily. This is the most significant problem facing the prison because it means the number of people who must be catered for is up in the air from one day to the next. This makes the governing of the prison on a long-term basis most difficult. The simple solution is a separate prison for people on remand and, unfortunately, such a facility is required. The mix in Mountjoy Prison is unhealthy because it is unfair to remand prisoners and those who come into the jail with one problem and leave with another. Given that so many people learn about crime in prison, it makes sense to have a separate remand facility.

Ireland is probably in contravention of the 1966 UN Convention on Civil and Political Rights by not having a separate remand prison. Under the convention such a prison is required, save in exceptional circumstances, but I do not know to what that specifically relates. The provision of a separate remand home would address the most important ongoing problem in Mountjoy Prison.

The report praises the ongoing work on the new women's prison. The visiting committee pointed out that a drugs free unit and facilities for those undergoing detoxification will be provided in the new prison. It will also include a separate area for remand prisoners. I welcome this move because much noise, disturbance and hassle is caused by ongoing communication between the various units. This creates immense problems for women prisoners.

There is a need for more active rehabilitation. This is a huge problem in terms of the costs involved and how the purpose of prison is viewed, whether it is punishment for wrongdoing or emphasis on the rehabilitation and rights of prisoners. This is an ongoing battle in everybody's mind. However, in relation to boredom, it is critical that some means for prisoners to pass the time constructively should be provided. For example, workshop facilities could be increased. The report praises the Department of Justice for providing the computer and book archival facilities in the D wing. The committee felt these facilities were used a great deal. If the idea works in that section, perhaps it should be extended.

Many prisoners would benefit from more open educational facilities, not in terms of forcing it down their throats but perhaps in a more friendly fashion. The report states that a number of prisoners are taking adult literacy classes. This is most worthwhile, and it was done is a feasible way by giving the prisoners some privacy. The fitness courses and the awarding of fitness certificates would also appeal to many prisoners. It would be constructive in terms of prisoners passing the time in a worthwhile manner. It would also be cost effective in terms of reducing the problems experienced by prisoners.

I do not know the current position regarding the appointment of an Inspector of Prisons. The report is vague in relation to this issue, but irrespective of whether an inspector is appointed, there is a need for co-ordination between the various prison administrations. Perhaps such co-ordination already exists, but if separate remand facilities are established the entire prison population needs to be administered in a much better manner. It is just my opinion, but I think more co-ordination would be helpful.

The debate is specifically about Mountjoy Prison, but Loughan House, an open prison in County Cavan, is a welcome holiday home for many prisoners. They get a great break and good food before they go on their way. However, we should remember that many people end up in prison through no fault of their own due to difficult upbringings. Such people had serious problems from the start. If we are examining how crime is dealt with by society we must consider not just how prisoners are dealt with but also the causes of crime.

Professor Lee

In common with Senator Mulcahy, although I suspect I will diverge from the rest of his contribution in certain respects, I compliment the Minister for publishing the report. I only read it this afternoon and I am still shocked. One hears much about Mountjoy Prison but it is more emphatic to see it presented in such an unanswerable and restrained format, despite the obvious intense indignation of the visiting committee. It is impressed on one's mind in a way that makes it impossible to forget.

I do not know the Governor but I have seen and heard him on television and he comes across as most enlightened and humane. If this is the way matters stand with such a Governor, what would they be like with somebody of the opposite nature, or if an ordinary bureaucrat was in charge? The situation could be worse if we did not have the good fortune to have a Governor of that calibre. This should alert us to the need for a rapid response to the report.

Although the issue of a medical officer is important, I hope it will not be used by the media to divert attention from the central problems which will continue even if there is an improvement in the unsatisfactory medical officer situation. I am not being adversarial but many of the points in the report have been made in previous reports and the visiting committee stated there must be a resistance to change somewhere along the line. Perhaps it is at many places along the line, but one gets the impression there must resistance in the Department of Justice itself. There have been several good Ministers for Justice in recent years who must be aware of the validity of many of the points made. It would be most enlightening if the Minister could outline the main problems in terms of the implementation of a number of the recommendations. Perhaps money issues are involved, but that is a question of priorities.

Many of the report's recommendations are practical and appear to relate to relatively small scale changes in terms of use of space, etc. I am not familiar with the layout of the prison but the report lists a number of questions. It would be most helpful if the Minister could give specific responses to those questions. If time is required to implement certain matters, what is the schedule? If it is not a question of time but principle, why is there a resistance in principle to implementing a number of the proposals? It would be worthwhile to break down the causes of the delay in responding to successive reports, whether they relate to resources, time or principle.

I take the points about lack of space and the impossibility of planning because, as Senator Gallagher has said, of the way the courts are required to operate. Even if you were to do everything that the report recommends, the best you could do would be to contain and ameliorate the problem rather than make significant inroads into the basic issues behind it. As Senator Gallagher rightly said, it has to be seen in the overall context of the crime problem in this country and whether prison is seen mainly as a deterrent or as rehabilitation. It seems to be regarded as nothing other than a place where you keep them away for a while. Mountjoy is not acting as a deterrent because there is a 70 to 80 per cent recidivist rate. You would wonder why anybody would want to go back in; but a majority of those in there find themselves going back, horrible though the circumstances are. It has not sufficed as a deterrent and it has not succeeded from a rehabilitation point of view. There does not seem to be any large scale rehabilitation programme apart from valiant efforts in a number of smaller areas.

Senator Gallagher mentions boredom and there are phrases used in the report about prisoners wandering aimlessly about and away from the general melee in the prison. The phraseology suggests an awful shambles in terms of the use of prisoners' time. What are they doing there, beyond being kept in for as long shoved back out until such time as they return? It seems to be an aimless exercise in many respects.

I do not for a moment underrate the problems of a general criminal policy. We have done very little serious thinking about it except in terms of crisis management. There has been a general neglect of criminality in this country at academic and intellectual levels which reflects on our academic institutions. There probably has been a neglect at bureaucratic level. I would like to know, and perhaps the Minister can enlighten me, if there is comparative data on recidivism in prisons in other jurisdictions. Is there a better record than ours in Britain and Western Europe or does it seem to matter what policies are followed? Do we have the same problems coming back again?

We have to recognise that there is a criminal culture, and the report in a sense does. Crime has a different role from what it had 60 or 70 years ago. They talk about the situation in 1925 when the visiting service was set up. If we do not have a policy to try to combat crime in the wider society, the best we can do in Mountjoy or anywhere else will be palliative. Many of us would suggest that the general direction in which society is going is likely to lead to rising crime levels irrespective of individual policies.

If you can find an effective anti-drugs policy, that will reduce the highest profile cases in many respects. It will curb to some extent the most horrific examples of drug related crime, but it will not stamp out crime in the community. I suspect that it is highly unlikely, given the way values are going in general, that there will be a reduction in crime. The decision not to proceed with the building of Castlerea Prison was misguided because we are looking at a rising trajectory irrespective of what we do within the prisons, but that is no reason for not trying to cope with the appalling situation which has been exposed and documented in a large measure here. I congratulate the Minister on publishing this report and also the committee on drawing up this report and having told it as they saw it, with the potential of creating embarrassment. If you are not prepared to create embarrassment on issues of this kind then you may as well not have a committee.

Ms Honan

I discussed this issue with Senator Henry and I decided to talk about the report in relation to the women's prison. Women prisoners represent a small proportion of the prison population. There are 42 women in prison in this country and they have specific needs and problems which require attention.

I was a member of the Second Commission on the Status of Women and we made recommendations in relation to the women's prison in Mountjoy, which we visited. It was different to what I thought it would be. The first thing that struck me about women in prison is how open they are. They will tell you everything about themselves and discuss the most intimate details of their lives with you. Many of them had sad lives. If you look at the profile of our women prisoners, they are mainly young and are a victim of an array of personal problems. Characteristically, they come from a background of poverty. They have low educational attainments and have specific social problems. The vast majority are drug addicts. They are involved in petty crime to fund their drug problems. They spend a short time in prison, but they come back again and again. One of the sad things we learned was from a women prison officer who had worked there for 20 years, who said she is now seeing the children of women who were in prison when she first entered the service.

The visiting committee's report mentions that many of the women who were in prison in Mountjoy recently were now dead. They were drug addicts who continued their habit and died at a young age. Women are vulnerable in prison. They are looked upon differently to men by society. When men are in prison they receive great support from the women in their lives. The Governor of Mountjoy mentioned this recently in a newspaper article. He felt that the key to dealing with the male prisoners in Mountjoy was through their mothers. They had great respect for their mothers and if you could empower their mothers, you would go some way towards solving the problems of these criminals who are constantly coming in and out. I suppose you could say again that women are being held responsible, but the Governor was not holding them responsible. His approach was to invest in or empower the mothers of these prisoners. He felt that was the key to solving the problem.

Women in prison often find themselves isolated. The visiting group spoke about that when they were talking about suicides and deaths in custody. They said the tragic aspect of women in prison is the breakdown in family contact, with some prisoners having no visitors for months. In some cases they would have been rejected by parents or partners. That is specific to women and does not happen to men. They supported the proposal of the suicide prevention committee that a list be drawn up of all prisoners not receiving visits from family and friends and that a special effort be made to re-establish contact. It is important that mothers maintain contact with their children. The Governor and other people in charge within the system are aware of this, but it is a particular burden for women with children. Separation from their children when they are in prison is an additional punishment.

A halfway house or a support structure would be important for these women because the majority of them are so young and they are constantly in and out. A lot of them have been victims all their lives and they thrive physically when they are in prison in the sense that they are fed, have a bed and an individual cell where they are safe. From a physical point of view they are probably better looked after in prison than they are out in the community. I remember one of the women prison officers telling us that some of the women do not want to leave when they are released because they are safer in prison than they are in the outside world. That is a terrible reflection on our society.

A women's prison was recommended originally by the Commission of Inquiry into the Penal System in 1985 and it was also recommended by the Second Commission on the Status of Women. Many of the areas which Senator Gallagher discussed with regard to the separation of remand prisoners from those convicted, having separate units for drug addicts, etc., would be possible if there was a new women's prison. I was disappointed that the Government's decision to proceed was deferred for financial reasons and I hope the Minister will provide as soon as possible the particular facilities which women prisoners need. This can only be achieved by the building of a new prison. The design for the women's prison had included provision for educational training, counselling, psychological, medical and psychiatric facilities which would be welcome and much needed, because, as I said, many women prisoners have huge psychological problems. Eleven years after the Committee of Inquiry into the Penal System it is disappointing that there is no new women's prison. I accept that in the absence of the development of a women's prison there has been an improvement in the treatment of women prisoners — there is, for instance, single cell accommodation, which must be welcomed.

Another issue which concerned the visiting committee was the fact that female prisoners were accommodated separately until the latter part of last year when some of the male prisoners were moved back into the top floor, which caused disturbance and much distress to many of the women prisoners. Again, this shows the necessity for the urgent commencement of the building of the new women's prison.

A detoxification or drugs free unit would be possible with the construction of the new prison. Drugs are a serious problem and the issue needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. If the drugs issue was addressed in Mountjoy Prison, the women would not return to prison again and again.

Most Senators who spoke congratulated the Minister this evening. I also congratulate her for publishing the report of the Mountjoy Prison Visiting Committee and urge her to implement its recommendations.

Mr. Sherlock

The recent report of the Mountjoy Prison Visiting Committee made familiar reading. Successive reports have highlighted more or less the same problems for several years and a great deal of work has been done to improve conditions. In this regard, particular credit is due to the Governor of Mountjoy Prison.

When we impose a custodial sentence we are expressing society's abhorrence of certain actions by depriving the offender of his or her liberty. That is, or should be, the punishment we impose. But when individuals are sent to Mountjoy Prison we are sending them to serve the term in an overcrowded facility where the prisoner is immediately denied adequate basic medical, psychiatric, educational and, most importantly, rehabilitative services.

The only thing to which prisoners in Mountjoy Prison have ample access is drugs. It is extraordinary that day after day for the past number of years we have been hearing about this situation — the same applies in Cork city. One hears from time to time of the various methods being used to supply prisoners with drugs from outside. It is appalling, of course. Small wonder that addicts leave Mountjoy Prison with their addiction intact, ready once again to prey on society in search of a quick deal.

I welcome the improvements which have been made in Mountjoy Prison in recent years. I also welcome many of the recommendations made in the report of the Mountjoy Prison Visiting Committee which provide a useful starting point for change.

Appropriate punishment must be one of the pillars of any justice system. At present, prison is seen as the main sentencing option, an option which is often unsuitable. It is scandalous, for example, that a person should be imprisoned for non-payment of fines or civil debt. I have experienced people who think nothing of going to prison to pay their debts. This practice has developed considerably in the past four or five years and I am amazed that it should occur. We need to expand and develop the system of community service, ensuring that those who have taken from the community put something back. In those cases where prison is the only option we must ensure that it serves a rehabilitative as well as a retributive function. In this regard the Programme for Government makes a number of useful suggestions. It includes commitments to expand the use of non-custodial sentences, to end imprisonment for civil debt where possible, to examine the possibility of establishing a prison board to manage the day to day running of our prisons and a parole board to ensure prisoners are discharged in an orderly fashion. The full implementation of these elements of the Government's programme would, I believe, go a long way towards ensuring that Ireland's penal system serves both offenders and society.

Mr. Mullooly

The motion before the House this evening calls on the Minister for Justice to implement the recommendations of the 1995 report of the Mountjoy Prison Visiting Committee and I support that call. I would also like to be associated with the tributes which have been paid to the members of the visiting committee. They have presented us with a report which has pulled no punches but which is fair, honest and impartial. The report details clearly and concisely the many problems, difficulties and shortcomings which currently exist in Mountjoy Prison. It also outlines a number of recommendations which, if implemented, would alleviate significantly at least some of the problems the report identifies.

At the outset, I welcome the fact that the report has been published, as it appeared at one stage that there was some question mark over whether or not it would be published. I also welcome the opportunity to discuss the report in the Seanad and I thank the Independent Senators for putting down this motion. It is absolutely clear from the report that many of the difficulties in Mountjoy Prison stem from the huge overcrowding problem which exists in the prison. In the report's introduction we are told that the male prison, which could reasonably cater for 450 prisoners, had been accommodating an average of 650 prisoners inmates daily during 1995. This chronic overcrowding creates massive problems for prisoners and staff as well as putting huge pressure on medical, recreational, educational and other facilities.

Of course, the overcrowding problem would be much worse were it not for the early release policy which continues to operate in Mountjoy Prison. I must concur with the report when it states that the regular practice of releasing prisoners early just to create space makes a farce of the legal and judicial systems. The report goes on to say that if the practice is not taken in hand, "it will be a spiral to certain disaster". I would go further and say that the disastrous consequences of this practice are already a reality. Criminals who should be behind bars are being released daily and allowed out to commit further crimes.

The considered views of the visiting committee with regard to the solution to overcrowding in the prison are spelt out clearly in the final two paragraphs on page 1 of the report, which state:

We regard overcrowding in Mountjoy Prison as a crisis issue, which requires a crisis response by Government. These issues deserve a higher priority in terms of restoring public confidence, improving security, reduction in crime, and effective prisoner rehabilitation.

In tandem with all of this, the 1995 budget announcement postponing the prison building programme was very dispiriting indeed, and we question was it really necessary?

As a Senator from County Roscommon, I appeal to the Minister and the Government once more to look again at its decision to abandon the provision of a high security prison at Castlerea, County Roscommon. This decision must be reversed. Those prison places were never more needed than they are now. The Castlerea project was intended to provide accommodation for 150 male offenders. The initial decision to provide the high security prison at Castlerea was seen by the general public as an essential step in the fight against crime. It was seen as evidence of the Government's commitment to put the perpetrators of serious crime behind bars and keep them there.

The decision to abandon the project after £5 million had already been spent on the perimeter wall and on the relocation of the psychiatric patients was, as has since been proven, a disastrous decision. It is no wonder that even the most ardent Government supporters were dismayed by this decision. How could anyone be expected to believe that the Government is seriously committed to combating crime if, as this report points out, the daily demand for spaces in Mountjoy regularly exceeds availability, as a result of which many criminals who should be behind bars are free to roam the streets?

As regards the Castlerea project, the latest report circulating in County Roscommon suggests that the Minister proposes to provide a number of houses on the site which will be used as some type of open prison accommodation. It is also suggested that the Minister will require the occupants to sign a pledge that they will not escape. My advice to the Minister is to leave the provision of housing schemes to her colleague, the Minister for the Environment, and to reinstate and proceed immediately with the provision of the original 150 place high security prison. By doing so, she will be sending out a much needed signal to the public in relation to her determination and commitment to the fight against crime. She will also be sending a much needed warning to the criminal community that the pussyfooting days are over.

The provision of 150 extra high security prison places in Castlerea, together with the building of the new women's prison as recommended in the report, would relieve overcrowding throughout the prison system. It would then be easier to implement many of the report's other recommendations, such as the provision of separate remand facilities, the introduction of a legal ceiling for the numbers in Mountjoy, the initiation of a survey to establish the real extent of drug abuse in Mountjoy and the introduction of procedures to eradicate the drug problem.

The case for the appointment of an Inspector of Prisons is also well made in the report as is the case for the formulation of a coherent medical services policy, the introduction of structures of medical accountability and the provision of increased powers for the medical director of prison services. I regret that time does not permit me to deal in detail with all the report's recommendations. However, I repeat that the overriding need in the prison system at present is the provision of extra spaces. The chronic overcrowding makes it impossible to tackle other prison problems, such as drugs in Mountjoy. That is why I hope the Government's response, which this report calls for, will be forthcoming.

Mr. Lydon

I want to refer to the psychological and psychiatric services. As Senator Mullooly said, it is a good hard hitting and honest report. It is incredible there are only six psychologists for a population of 2,250, which would require 33 psychologists. The amount of money spent in this area is small. The report states that the psychological services are totally inadequate and that each psychologist is seeing only 12 to 14 prisoners for one hour a week. They are also involved in other things, such as the selection of prison officers, house and developmental training and so on. Most prisoners have emotional difficulties with which they cannot adequately deal. The report recommends that the psychological services should be expanded. I do not understand why this has not happened but I presume the reason is financial.

The psychiatric services are almost worse because there is a waiting list for admission and evaluation of undiagnosed, psychotically ill prisoners from Mountjoy to the Central Mental Hospital. The inadequacy of the psychiatric services is such that prisoner assessment is exceptionally low; it can take up to seven days to have a person assessed. It is difficult to get psychiatrists to attend because a lot of the work is done on a part-time basis and the fees paid are inadequate. A lot of money is wasted. It is estimated that the 11 psychiatrists in Mountjoy are paid approximately £35,000 for their work. This is in addition to their full-time salaries.

I am glad Dr. Charles Smith, the Director of the Central Mental Hospital, agrees with the need for a more committed, structured and accountable approach and co-operation between the Central Mental Hospital and Mountjoy Prison. He would like the psychiatric sessions by his staff operating in Mountjoy Prison to be part of the official job description of both trainee and consultant psychiatrists. I do not know why anyone would want to deprive a psychiatrist of money if they can get it on a part-time basis. It seems a waste of money when the psychological and psychiatric services are inadequate. I hope more full-time psychologists and psychiatrists will be appointed to do the job properly.

Mr. Quinn

I congratulate the visiting committee on this report and the Minister for publishing it. I express my appreciation to Senator Henry for the manner in which she issued instructions to us on what topics we should discuss. I will speak on welfare and probation.

We have a special responsibility to those in prison because what happens to them takes place away from most people's eyes. It is easy to forget about people in prison, particularly when we are concerned about crime. Members may have read what the Dublin Chamber of Commerce said about the huge cost of crime in Dublin city. Such people are often only concerned about putting offenders into prison rather than about what happens to them there, but we have a responsibility to think about them.

Conditions in our prisons should accord with our perceptions of human dignity. People do not stop being human beings once they go to prison. Yet, we must be worried about the conditions described by the visiting committee in Mountjoy. Particularly depressing is the fact that the report repeats that this has been said for years but nothing has been done. I hope the publication of this report and its discussion will show a new willingness to address the serious problem it documents. One can only have admiration for the people who must work in these conditions, but that is not enough. We should not inflict such conditions on prison staff either.

The problems mentioned in the report are exacerbated by a number of factors. The prison service is almost totally invisible to the public. Another factor is that because the welfare of prisoners has such a low priority in the public mind, prisons have been repeatedly missed out in the allocation of resources. The need for prison places has mushroomed in response to changes in our society. Cracking down on crime may be sexy, but it is not sexy to put money aside to look after prisoners or to improve prisons. Such spending does not improve our balance of payments and it does not help business infrastructure; it is the type of spending many people do not prefer. There must be something wrong with our priorities if we fail to deal with this problem properly. Even in purely economic terms we are taking a very costly road when we go in this direction. We are storing up trouble for the future if we let Mountjoy continue to be a tinderbox.

Prison has a number of functions but some of them tend to fade into the background, especially when resources are scarce. One function is to act as a deterrent against crime. Another is to protect society from criminals. Part of its function is punishment; the element of retribution by society which many people wrongly think is the whole point. Prison also serves to rehabilitate prisoners; mention of that function often produces a hollow laugh. Only a very idealistic person, and a fairly short sighted one at that, could believe that many prisoners could be rehabilitated in the situation outlined in this report; in today's conditions this is a faint hope. Our proof is the ratio of probation and welfare officers to prisoners.

There are seven welfare officers for Mountjoy Prison, which now houses a prisoner population of 700. Each welfare officer is responsible for roughly 100 inmates. By any standards, this is spreading things very thin. The case load is such that welfare officers never get to see many of the prisoners in their care. All their time is taken up with the most urgent cases.

If a prisoner wants to meet with one of the outreach agencies, there is a permanent waiting list of over 200. This bottleneck is counterproductive. These are the agencies through which a planned early release is possible. The visitors committee has been pushing for a programme of planned release since 1993 but this has not been put in place; neither has counselling been available for the families of prisoners prior to release. Releases are unplanned and, in some cases, undeserved, not in response to a person's likelihood of being better off in the community but simply in response to the need to relieve chronic overcrowding. As the report states, this makes a nonsense of the criminal justice system.

Much useful work is being done in Mountjoy in the area of probation and welfare. For instance two 12 week courses for prisoners and their families, one on alcoholism and one on drugs, were held. These were highly successful and offered us a glimpse of just what could be done in this area were more resources available. There are plans to hold four of these courses in the coming year.

Overall, two things are needed to make things better at Mountjoy. More resources are needed; there is no getting away from that. Perhaps the technology capable of giving us those extra resources could be used to do so. We spoke here two years ago about the American system of electronic tagging. At the time I thought it could be used in the area of bail. I now realise that is constitutionally not possible. It would be possible to offer probation on a voluntary basis where the prisoner accepts electronic tagging. This system is used in America and has been used very successfully in a number of instances. I suggest that the Department of Justice give serious consideration to it. It could be done on a voluntary basis. If a prisoner wants to be released on probation he or she may be so released where he or she accepts voluntary tagging. It would make space available in prison, it would reduce prison costs and would free up more resources.

Resources are just one problem. The second problem is the political and public will to do something quickly about these conditions. It is surely part of our job as legislators to help the development of that will, both on the part of the general public and within the political system. Tonight's opportunity to debate this report may be the start of creating that. I hope this debate gets the attention it deserves.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. Carey)

On behalf of the Minister for Justice I thank Senators for providing this opportunity to speak on the 1995 Mountjoy Visiting Committee Report. At the outset, on a more general note, I wish to say that there are visiting committees in all our prisons and places of detention, whether those institutions are closed prisons or open centres. I would like to put on the record the Minister's and, indeed, my own appreciation of the work which these committees do.

The members of these committees are appointed, usually for a three year period, by the Minister for Justice who happens to be in office as the vacancies arise in the various committees. The period of office of members can, in certain circumstances, straddle the period of office of more than one Minister for Justice or Government. There is a strong element of independence in the role of the committee. Probably the most powerful role the committees have is to act as a sort of watchdog, independent of prison management, on behalf of the Minister for Justice and to report to the Minister anything concerning the running of their prison which they feel ought properly be brought to the Minister's attention.

They have no function in the management of the prison. If they were to take over that function it would inhibit them in performing the role assigned to them under existing legislation. The management of the prison is primarily the function of the Governor and this leaves the committee free to be constructively critical of the prison administration. Any such criticism should be accurate and measured and need not be any the less trenchant for that.

I now come to the specific report which is the subject of this motion. The Mountjoy Visiting Committee report for 1995 has incurred some considerable controversy about one section and one section alone, that referring to the work carried out at the prison by certain individuals providing medical services to prisoners there under contract with the Department of Justice. Following rapid consultation with the Attorney General on receipt of the report the Minister asked the committee to confirm that it was satisfied it had behaved in an appropriately respectful way of the constitutional rights of the personnel it criticised in its report. The committee met promptly to consider the Minister's query and, having reflected on the matter decided, it stood over its comments. The Minister reverted to the Attorney General who advised that the report could at that juncture be made available as required by section 3 (4) of the Prisons (Visiting Committees) Act, 1925. This was done without delay.

Solicitors have since been retained on behalf of one of the individuals criticised in the report. The solicitors have, in turn, been in communication with my office. As this matter may yet come to a conclusion in another quarter, I will confine myself to the foregoing statement of facts about it. There are, in any event, plenty of other comments and suggestions in the report to consider and evaluate. This process has now commenced in the Department.

On a general note, the problems of the Irish prison system did not arise overnight. They are the culmination of a number of effects, including underinvestment in the prison stock, rising crime and prisoner committal levels. The Minister has been doing all in her power in her relatively short period in office to address these problems which have built up over generations. In the short time available to me here tonight I would like to deal briefly with some of the important recommendations made by the visiting committee in its report.

The appointment of an inspector of prisons was recommended by the Whitaker report and endorsed in the Department of Justice's 1994 document, "Five Year Plan for the Treatment of Offenders". The Minister envisages an inspector being appointed in the context of the overall restructuring of prison management. In this regard, the Government is committed in the Programme for Government to considering the management structure in the prisons. This exercise has already commenced in the Department of Justice in conjunction with officials from the Department of Finance.

The committee recommended separate remand facilities for prisoners. The average number of remand prisoners in custody constitutes about 10 per cent of the prisoner population, 270 persons, of whom up to 30 would be women prisoners. These prisoners generally have multiple previous convictions and prior custodial sentences. I make these points simply to put the proposal in context. The Minister favours the creation of separate facilities for male and female remand prisoners and her current prison building plans should create the scope to provide such separate facilities in the Dublin area at least.

The committee recommended the introduction of a legal ceiling to numbers in Mountjoy Prison. This is a nonrunner for the main committal prison in the State. Every effort is made to keep numbers there within bounds but this proposal does not provide the Minister with a magic wand to dispose of the prisoners who would have to be turned away if the "House Full" sign went up outside Mountjoy of an evening.

The Minister is as impatient as the visiting committee to achieve early progress on the building work in respect of the female prison. Revised plans and costings in regard to this project are being finalised with a view to early resubmission to Government.

With regard to restructure of the permanent suicide prevention committee at Mountjoy, contrary to the visiting committee's opinion, the committee in question is a permanent one. It will now have a representative on a new national prison suicide prevention awareness committee which the Minister recently set up under the chairmanship of a senior prison governor. This new national committee will include in its membership some of the most experienced representatives of prison management and staff as well as medical practitioners who are involved in prison work.

The Management of Offenders — A Five Year Plan, to which I have already referred, outlines in chapter 7 the objectives of the prison medical service. The medical policy aims stated there are based on the principle of equivalence with corresponding care in the community with publicly accepted standards. As well as outlining, in a policy sense, how medical services to prisoners should be organised and provided, this document sets out the nature of present difficulties and proposes remedies. Some of the medical concerns raised in this document have been remedied since the publication of the five year plan. Others are in the process of being addressed. The five year plan was circulated at the time of publication to all existing prison doctors and to the Medical Council, and comments were sought. None of them dissented from the tenor or thrust of the comments or proposals outlined in it.

I propose to deal with the following recommendations together as they overlap: the introduction of structures of medical accountability, and the increase in powers of the medical director of prison services. The ethical accountability of all medical doctors registered in the State is to the Medical Council which is essentially constituted to function as a watchdog of medical standards on behalf of the public. No doctor is ethically accountable to another doctor. In relation to medical management accountability, the appointment of a director of prison medical services in 1990, a newly created position at that time, did not focus on clearly defining the accountability of existing prison doctors to this new medical manager. While this omission is understandable, given the difficulties that occurred in recruiting a suitably qualified doctor to the position, it is clearly now time to revisit the relationship between the medical director and the medical practitioners out in the prisons. As a first step the Minister has asked the medical director to review his role and to make a submission to her in the matter. Once this submission has been reviewed the Minister will progress the matters from there.

I should point out that among the intentions of the proposed common contract for prison doctors which has been under negotiation with the IMO for some time, is to more clearly define the line management responsibilities of prison doctors to both prison governors and to the director of prison medical services.

As regards the review of the present guidelines for padded cells, the Governor of Mountjoy has already pointed out publicly the sheer practical necessity of putting prisoners in a place of safety when they start being difficult in prison. The guidelines in place for the use of padded cells require all such placements to be reported to the Department of Justice and the early involvement of the prison doctor where a stay in the padded cell is longer than overnight. It is simply not practical to call out the doctor every time the padded cell has to be used. Indeed, on many occasions it is used at the prisoner's request.

As regards the initiation of a survey to establish the real extent of drug abuse within Mountjoy, such a study has already been commissioned from a criminologist, now in independent practice, who carried out such a study on behalf of the Department of Justice in 1986. This study was commissioned some months back and I understand the Minister anticipates its early completion and intends to publish the findings of the survey.

There is nothing to hide so far as the operation of Mountjoy Prison is concerned. A fair measure of this is, I think, that the Minister regularly allows media access to the prison to the point where hardly a week passes without a reporter or camera team visiting the premises. The Minister recognises openly and freely that there are problems with Mountjoy as our main committal system because of its age and the growing pressures on the criminal justice system in which it plays such a big part.

Since the Minister took over in the Department of Justice there have been several positive changes in the operation and infrastructure in the Mountjoy complex. These have included the provision of new kitchens and services, new surgeries, search rooms, camera surveillance of visitor boxes, a 90 space drug free unit in the nearby training unit and a drug treatment unit in the prison itself which will open in the coming weeks.

In the face of unprecedented levels of criticism and negative publicity about the prison system the Minister continues to press forward with positive measures and initiatives on a daily basis in Mountjoy and elsewhere in the system and she will continue with that approach.

Senator Mullooly mentioned Castlerea Prison and the progress that is being made there. I understand that 25 prisoners will be lodged in Castlerea soon. That is a lot earlier than was planned by the previous Minister when she was in power. The Minister for Justice is making a serious effort to come to grips with the prison problem and I urge the Seanad to support her.

Mr. O'Toole

In any discussion on prison reform and implementing the recommendations of visiting committees, public representatives, no more than any other commentators, must keep a certain balance. That balance is between the question of society punishing and seeking to correct wrong-doing and rehabilitating people to return to society.

One of the biggest problems in Ireland today is that, unfortunately, prison society and the prison population tends to come from predictable and easily identified parts of the country. There is something wrong with a society where one can visit the nursery of a maternity hospital and spot from its parents' addresses that a child from one area is ten or 15 times more likely to finish up in prison than a child from another area.

The cost of keeping a youth incarcerated in Oberstown House or Trinity House for a month is as much as it would cost to employ a psychologist in the State education area for a year. We must look at the way we are spending money because the demand to solve crime is a knee-jerk response to today's difficulties.

Speaking as somebody whose house has been burgled ten or 11 times — I have lost count — I am familiar with being a victim of crime. However, while we can keep building prisons and expanding the prison population this will not in itself deal with the issues that cause crime. We need to achieve a balance in doing that. At a very early stage we need to identify where the young people are who become adults in the general prison population. That factor should always be tied into a debate such as this.

In many ways the Visiting Committee of Mountjoy Prison has the least envied of all jobs. It is trying to pick up the pieces where society, the education system and the community and State supports have failed.

The high incidence of recidivism among those incarcerated in prison proves patently that the system does not work. People become institutionalised in prison. They also become addicted to substances. They become dependent on the State and on criminal society and when they come out of prison they are no longer able to deal with society with the result that they are not long out before they are sent back.

There are two ways of looking at the problem of crime committed by people on bail. The populist way of looking at it, as can be heard in the local pub or wherever one meets people, is that it is disgraceful that people on bail can commit further crimes. Of course it is and of course we need to change the system but that is only one aspect of the problem. The next question is, why are they so stupid to commit those crimes knowing that if they are caught they will suffer all the more? The reality is that they do not know any different or any better. There is no difference to them between being out on bail and being out on release.

Where does that attitude begin? Usually it begins when a child of 13 or 14 years of age is sent to the assessment centre in Finglas. If that child is interacting with other children who are there on remand or serving a sentence, that interaction can serve to get them involved in higher levels of criminal activity. The same happens in Mountjoy and other places. People get sucked into the system. Once they have been to jail, all their friends are criminals who believe in getting more out of the system through burglary, violent assault, armed robbery and other crimes and this attitude become the norm. That is one aspect of the problem. Another aspect is that they become addicted or dependent on substances or they become involved in relationships with people in prison so that when they leave, other criminals are the only people they will know and the criminal environment becomes their norm.

The only way to address the problem is to try to change the mindset of prisoners when they are in Mountjoy and the only way to do that is through education and training. The report of the visiting committee emphasises time and again the problem of space. It talks about the lack of space in many areas but particularly for training, education and development activities. It also points out that few educational institutions have relationships with the prison population of Mountjoy.

Last Saturday's The Irish Times carried a report on the life of a former Provisional IRA member from his earliest memories to his current position in jail, and looked at the factors that brought him to the point where he walked into a pub and killed an innocent person who happened to be a policeman in Northern Ireland. One can see from the story that the person did not begin to think about what he was doing until he reached a particular age. The story is somewhat similar to the history of some of our political parties. Most of our political parties come from a revolutionary background; they came through a revolutionary or military process and developed from that. It is a perfectly understandable progression in which people think their way through a process. We must allow the prison population to learn and accept new parameters of behaviour and new norms of judgment and give them something on which to base their future.

We need to deal with the causes of crime as much as we need to deal with the criminals. We need to put a serious effort into changing the behaviour of people who are consistently involved in the vicious circle of under-privilege, overcrowding, poverty, unemployment, petty crime, crime and prison. A recent survey of the prison population in the UK showed that the introduction to crime for young people was pilfering food in supermarkets. We must ensure that people are not enticed into crime through hunger.

Dr. Henry

Reports such as that of the Mountjoy Visiting Committee are not party political reports and I thank the Senators who addressed this motion in that spirit. I also thank the Senators who addressed the specific areas on which I asked them to concentrate because of their expertise. Senators are elected to the Upper House on vocational panels and are expected to use their expertise in various areas.

The "Management of Offenders" report was addressed in a non-party political way also. It was an excellent report, the first report produced by the Department which gave any attention to the plans we should make for dealing with offenders. I compliment Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn on her work on that report and I also compliment the present Minister for continuing that work. It is depressing, however, that successive reports are produced but there appears to be no sense of urgency to implement their recommendations.

Senator Quinn is right in saying that prisons and prisoners are out of sight so it is easy to say that no changes need be made. There is little credit or votes in improving conditions in prisons. One of the most depressing aspects of this matter is that the public wants politicians to deal with the crime problem but they often do not understand — a fact we must make them understand — how desperately difficult is the correlation between crime, society outside and conditions in prison. We must try to address these areas.

I am pleased that assessments are being carried out on the drugs situation in prisons. That is very important. I am also pleased that the women's prison is to be progressed. It is most urgent because there is no space in which to locate a drug free unit within the women's prison at present. The centre for visitors is an absolute disgrace although that was not mentioned by the visiting committee. The Society of Friends and St. Vincent de Paul are jointly prepared to run the visitors centre if it is built. Indeed, the prison Governor is getting so desperate he may try to put up portacabins again. Similar centres have been built in Maghaberry in Northern Ireland and are being run with great success on a volunteer basis. It is incredible that so many people are prepared to help in the prison on a voluntary basis and it is some comfort to see that all Ministers are prepared to make use of the expertise being offered in these areas by those who can help.

If any of the prisoners heard Senator Gallagher's description of Loughan House or Senator Mullooly's description of how nice Castlerea will be, they will all sign pledges to go there as quickly as possible because they sounded most attractive places and hugely different from Mountjoy. I thank the Minister of State for giving of his time to discuss this depressing topic which must be addressed if there is to be any justice in the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Sherlock)

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. Neville

Tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.