We must be patient because the Minister for Justice has not been alerted to the fact that the debate concluded earlier than anticipated. I would ask Deputy Fennell if she would mind waiting until he is here.
Adjournment Debate. - Prison Visiting Committees.
If you wish, I will endeavour to reply to the debate. It is within my domain of competence.
I would like to thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, for allowing me to raise this important matter on the Adjournment and to thank the Minister opposite for waiting to reply. Although I am disappointed, I understand why the Minister for Justice is not here for the debate.
An unprecedented situation exists at present in our prisons, in that with only one exception — Wheatfield prison — there are no visiting committees meeting. This means that within those prisons there is no independent body to which a prisoner can have recourse with a complaint, a grievance or even a plea for help with a personal problem. No other Minister, as far as I am aware, has ever so long-fingered these appointments. If this is not the Minister for Justice breaking the law, it certainly is a case of treating it with cavalier disregard. In section 2 of the Prisons (Visiting Committees) Act, 1925, it states: that there shall be constituted, in the manner provided by this section, a visiting committee for every general prison, every convict prison, and every such visiting committee shall consist of such numbers of responsible persons, not being more than 12 nor less than six — as the Minister shall think proper.
This is a statutory requirement and despite numerous requests from several Members of this House in the past four months, no action has been taken. I suggest the Minister's failure in this event goes beyond a likely breach of the law. For the people living in tense conditions, such as is the case in Mountjoy, having the facility to speak freely in private with a member of the visiting committee could make all the difference in preventing an outbreak of violence or indeed a suicide. I feel a dangerous situation prevails now.
Why has the Minister left this matter so long? Does he see the committees as an irritant which he could well do without? Perhaps the delay in question is linked with, but should not be linked with, the controversy over the 1988 Mountjoy Prison report, which has been with the Minister for 14 months and has still not been published. From the leaked version of the 1988 report in The Irish Times of Tuesday last it is a critical account of conditions and events. It calls for action, as has every other prison report before it.
The people who drew up this report, the facts of which are now in dispute, are deeply committed lay people who give a great deal of their time voluntarily. They take the job of being a prison watchdog very seriously. It was, I know, only after very careful reflection and consideration that they made such a frank report and included it in the allegations of the actions of male prison officers in the women's prison during disturbances there on 31 December 1986. Such an allegation would not have been thoughtlessly made, and I am told that all the members of the former committee, despite the fact that they come from different party political affiliations, are standing as one behind their claim. There are other serious criticisms in the report about prison hygiene, shocking over-crowding, particularly during hot weather, and the awful conditions in the women's prison. All of these deserve answers. As was pointed out in the editorial in this morning's The Irish Times, there is mounting public unease about the conditions in Mountjoy Prison and it makes a call for action.
I think it is hard not to feel that the Minister really does not know what is happening in the prisons. Indeed he misled the Dáil in answer to questions from Deputy Jim O'Keeffe on 13 March last. To the question about the delay in publishing the report, he said — column 2293 of the Official Report:
The publication of the report referred to has been unavoidably delayed due to staff commitments to other areas of pressing urgent work within my Department. The report will be published in the next few weeks.
What does he mean by "staff commitments"? The truth is that there was an unholy row going on and it seems any old reason was good enough for the Dáil as long as he could keep the lid on the row. A further answer, again at column 2293, Question No. 142, on 13 March on the reason visiting committees have not been re-appointed says:
I am finalising arrangements for the appointment of visiting committees to prisons and places of detention and expect to appoint these committees at an early date.
What is "an early date"? Almost two months later there has been no announcement and no action. If these are the visible signs of ministerial inaction on prison policy I dread to think what the extent of the inaction in areas that we cannot see and examine is.
It is most regrettable that the matter of prison administration and prison reform has to be dragged up so tediously on Adjournment Debates like this and that responses have to be dug out of the Minister and the Department and that they are so inadequate and lead to no real solutions. Will the Minister wait until we have a serious riot like Strangeways before taking effective action?
This debate and our Adjournment Debate of 7 March are only scratching at the surface of the real problem. What is needed is the setting of realistic targets for prison reform, based on the Whitaker report, and the allocation of funds on a phased basis for these reforms.
I accept, as does the editorial in this morning's The Irish Times, that in other areas of his Justice portfolio the Minister has shown enlightenment and taken decisive action but in the prison area his style is to lie low and do nothing. I would like to assure him that those of us who raise this matter do so from a genuine concern to push reform ahead as quickly as possible. I accept that the ideal solution, as envisaged by the Whitaker report recommendations, would be beyond the possibilities of public spending at the present time, but some reform initiatives and a response to the very real problems must be forthcoming. I believe it would be in his interest and certainly in the interests of prisoners if he would see those anxious for penal reform, such as the visiting committees, Members of this House, social workers and others, as allies and not adversaries.
I would make three recommendations to the Minister for serious consideration, all of them in the Whitaker report, and none would cost exorbitant amounts: 1. Appointment of an inspector of prisons with overall responsibility for monitoring their efficient, fair and orderly administration; 2. Alter the method of appointment of visiting committees. Change delegated responsibilities and improve the procedures under which they operate; and 3. Appoint a full-time, permanent medical director to Mountjoy Prison who would be responsible for all forms of therapy for offenders.
In conclusion, I would ask the Minister to end the considerable bitterness over the 1988 Mountjoy report by publishing it, by thanking the prison visitors for their three-year contribution and either reappoint all of last year's committees or by the end of the week announce the new members. Most importantly, Deputy Burke should come into this House and state what his prison policy is and give other Members an opportunity to contribute objectively and practically to a debate which could deal comprehensively with the needs of our prison population and those who work in prisons.
On behalf of the Minister who is unavoidably absent due to the collapse of the earlier debate, I would say that the reports of prison visiting committees are published as part of the annual report on prisons and places of detention. The annual report on prisons and places of detention for 1988, which was printed some time ago, is being returned for printing in order to include in it a statement which contains the following:
This Annual Report, in accordance with normal practice, includes reports by the Visiting Committees attached to the various custodial institutions. One of these — the Report of the Mountjoy Visiting Committee — contained material which, in the Minister's judgement, required investigation prior to publication. The Report, which is expressed to be "for the calendar year 1988" states that—
We are appalled that male officers attired in helmets and visors and equipped with riot shields should chase and baton female prisoners in enclosed areas. The use of such force even to quell such a disturbance is abusive. In the heat of the moment the excitement and fear of such confrontations is increased dramatically. The use of excessive force should be forbidden and new rules introduced to prevent its recurrence.
Neither the prison authorities nor the Department of Justice had any knowledge of any incident of the kind described taking place during 1988 or indeed of any incident prior to that period in which "excessive force" had been used or allegedly used. Because of the gravity of the allegation and its potentially serious implications for offenders and staff alike, it was obviously ncessary to investigate the matter.
The Visiting Committee, when contacted, acknowledged that no incident of the nature inferred had taken place during 1988. As a result of further investigation it emerged that they were referring to an incident which took place on 31 December 1986.
The prison records show that at 6.20 p.m. on that evening offenders in the recreation area began to behave in an aggressive manner towards the staff present — all of whom were female officers. They were complaining that they had no cigarettes and were informed by the staff that cigarettes would be supplied. By 7 p.m. the offenders had become more aggressive and began throwing chairs and other items at the staff. The alarm was sounded and male officers who had earlier been placed on stand-by as a precautionary measure were then called in to restore order. The disturbance was quickly brought under control.
The report of the Medical Orderly states that eight women proceeded to cut their arms and were treated for those injuries at the prison. Two of those concerned were escorted later to hospital and returned within an hour. Three further offenders were also escorted to hospital and they, too, were returned within an hour.
Disturbances among female prisoners are normally dealt with by female officers. If, however, a situation arises where these officers consider that they require the assistance of male officers, this assistance will be provided. When a disturbance is sufficiently serious — when there is a clear risk of injury to staff or other offenders as there was on this occasion — the officers may, if the prison authorities deem it necessary, be supplied with batons and other protective equipment which is available.
It appears that this equipment was supplied to staff on the night in question. The disturbance at the prison was quickly brought under control but there was nothing to suggest that the degree of force used to bring this about was excessive.
The statement goes on to deal with a number of other points in relation to the visiting committee's allegation, and finally, it includes a letter on the matter which the Minister received from the legal advisers of the Prison Officers' Association.
Incidentally the Minister issued a press statement last week dealing with the visiting committee's allegation. Copies of the statement are available here should any Deputy wish to have one.
In relation to Deputy Fennell's query about the appointment of a medical director for Mountjoy the position is that interviews have been taking place this week for the post. The Minister expects to receive a recommendation from the Civil Service Commission and to be in a position to announce the appointment of a medical director very shortly.
On the question of overcrowding in prisons generally and particularly in Mountjoy, the position is that Wheatfield Prison which has 320 cells is being filled gradually. It is already two-thirds full and it will be fully occupied within the next few months. A new unit is to be constructed in Mountjoy for prisoners suffering from infectious diseases. It is clear that significant progress is being made in providing additional accommodation.
In regard to the women's prison, where this unfortunate difficulty arose, the Minister has already stated on a number of occasions recently that it is not feasible, unfortunately, to close the women's prison at present. He is satisfied that the best interim solution is to have it fully refurbished which he is proceeding to have done at the earliest possible opportunity.
When will he be reappointing the visiting committees? Has the Minister any information on that?
At the moment a visiting committee is appointed for Wheatfield. The term of office of the other committees expired on 31 December. The arrangements in relation to the appointment of visiting committees to the other prisons and places of detention are now being finalised. The Minister for Justice expects to appoint those committees very shortly.
The Dáil adjourned at 7.10 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 8 May 1990.