Vol. 534 No. 5
3 Mr. Flanagan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he has received correspondence from a person (details supplied) regarding an integrated complementary medical service for prisoners at Mountjoy women's prison; if so, if he will state the nature of the service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11237/01]
I can confirm that I have recently received correspondence in relation to this issue from the person referred to. The position is that a cranial osteopathy practitioner who has done work in the past with the prison service in England, has also practised this treatment until recently on a voluntary basis with the Dóchas centre in Mountjoy women's prison. She has now proposed a programme for this activity in Irish prisons to be funded entirely by my Department to the tune of £250,000 per annum. While the proposal remains under consideration, preliminary information suggests that the prison authorities do not regard it as cost effective. In addition, initial observations from the governor of Mountjoy Prison indicate that there is no tangible evidence to suggest that the programme was changing the behaviour of the more difficult women.
The programme is based on cranial structure treatment – that is, head massages – which can be integrated with acupuncture, homeopathy, aromatherapy, reflexology, yoga, counselling and other treatments. I have to say that I have not had any of these treatments myself—
I think the Minister could benefit from some of them.
It might do him no harm.
—although it does occur to me that a number of people here would do well to engage in the exercise. It claims to give healing energy to patients involved in this type of treatment. Prisoners' health care arrangements generally match public health care provision in the wider community. Cranial osteopathy would be regarded as a complementary health care activity and, as a general rule, this would be outside the range of public health care provision in this country as is made available from public funds. I have no plans to introduce elements of complementary medicine in the prisons here which are not available in public health care provision in the wider community.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he elaborate on his suggestion that this scheme is not cost effective? In the context of habitual offending, we have learned over the years that the revolving door syndrome exists in our prisons. The same people who have served their sentences, or a portion thereof, return to prison through a cyclical system in Mountjoy and other prisons throughout the State. It might be worthwhile to examine the best preventative and therapeutic treatment that is available. Has the Minister considered the success of the integrated complementary therapeutic programme in the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom? Will he ensure that every opportunity is taken by his officials on the prison services board to explore new methods within the prison system if they can succeed in breaking the cycle of habitual offending?
Last year, following a previous bid for funding for this form of treatment, which was supported by various claims regarding the involvement of this organisation in various English prisons, the director of prison medical services made inquiries with the English prison health policy unit regarding this matter. Contrary to their claims, it appears that the complementary medical services in prisons organisation does not currently, and has not had for some time, any involvement on a funded basis there. It appears that they were invited to make a supply proposal on a competitive basis but this was not forthcoming. The Prisons Service management there indicated that the CMSP was unwilling to accept an independent, audited and objective review based approach.
I am not aware, although Deputy Flanagan might be, of any objective scientific based evidence to support the claim that this form of medical approach has proven to be effective. Furthermore, the support of testimonies included in the correspondence does not appear to have what I would describe as objective validation.
I am also informed by the director of prison medical services that the alternative therapeutic approach promoted has no statutory or other accreditation in this country. He would, on behalf of registered practitioners, have to seek guidance from the Medical Council with regard to the ethical approach for any co-operation with such an organisation.
It beats the hooch.
I have not tried the hooch either so I do not know whether it is better or worse.
No, but the Minister tolerates it in the prison system.
