Dr. Kevin Warner:

I thank the members of the sub-committee for the invitation to attend. My submission makes the case that there are multiple aspects of the prison system crying out for reform. We can see this whether we look at the overall or macro aspects of the prison system, or whether we look at what happens to individual men and women in prison, in other words, when we look at the conditions in which they are held, what it is like to be in a typical cell and so forth. In all these aspects of the prison system I stress that there are very strong models for doing things in a far better way such as, for example, in the Nordic countries. To show how things could be done differently I incorporated an article on the position in Denmark, Finland and Norway in my submission. The submission points to where reform is urgent in making 13 recommendations, all of which are eminently feasible. With every one of these proposals for improvement, we can learn lessons from at least one Nordic country and usually from several of them.

I wish to highlight four proposals for reform which relate to the shape of the overall prison system and, in particular, the way we plan the prison estate. We could and should plan for a reduction of at least one third in the prison population. This would merely bring Ireland closer to the rate of incarceration it consistently had up to the mid-1990s, or near to rates in Nordic countries today. We should have at least one third of that reduced population in open prisons, as is the case in Denmark, Finland and Norway. Ireland has only 5% of the prison population in open prisons such as Loughan House and Shelton Abbey.

There is another side to the coin in reducing the prison population. We should think in terms of having two thirds of all sentences served in the community rather than in prison; the rate currently stands at only about 30% in Ireland, but it is 67% in Sweden and 68% in Denmark. We should have much smaller prisons, as is generally the case in Nordic countries. In Ireland we are clearly incapable of operating prisons with more than about 150 prisoners without resorting to extensive, very destructive and costly segregation measures. Every one of the nine largest prisons, including Arbour Hill Prison, has severe segregation measures and it seems these systems do not work.

Looking more closely at regimes, by which I mean the way people in prison are treated and the conditions in which they are held, I would mention five serious deficiencies as I see them. First, 60% of those in prison in Ireland share cells, in contravention of the European prison rules. Second, as a consequence of that, most prisoners must go to the toilet in the presence of others. I cannot put it any more delicately than that. Third, lock-up time is excessive for the great majority in prison. "Excessive" is the word the Whitaker report used about lock-up times in 1985 and matters have worsened rather than improved since then. Fourth, an utterly inadequate gratuity paid to prisoners is due to be cut by an average of 28%. Fifth, access to structured activities has been greatly reduced in prisons in recent years due to a variety of factors. I will give just one example. Up to 2008, 125 or more long-term prisoners were involved in third level study each year, mostly through the Open University across the prison system but also through an NCAD course in Portlaoise. Today, that has been reduced greatly, to approximately one third of the previous level. I would be happy to elaborate on any of those points or on any matters in my submission.