Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be brief because the legislation itself is short and I have to leave the meeting at 10.45 a.m. The Bill codifies in primary legislation the rules around the holding of individuals in solitary confinement. The first point was raised by the Minister and was, why primary legislation? Should we not just leave it for the Minister to provide through regulation? Are we trying to micro-manage in primary legislation? That is not on. The current process where prison rules are created by regulation obviously allows for a greater degree for flexibility, which I believe, by and large, is appropriate. That is not what this Bill is about however. It is about protecting human rights and protecting people from harm. In that sense, there can be no inflexibility. Putting the protection of fundamental human rights into primary legislation is good.

There is only one piece that might open me to a charge of micro-management, which is the amended section 35(2)(2A)(i). This provides that prisoners held in solitary confinement "shall have access to work, training, education, rehabilitation, and other services, and insofar as is possible this shall be in association with other prisoners". That might be the only charge of micro-management. Other than that, this is about protecting people from a violation of their human rights and it is entirely appropriate to have in primary legislation.

There may be some practical difficulties from the Irish Prison Service, IPS, although they are moving in the direction of dealing with this issue anyway. I would consider it complementary rather than causing a difficulty. I do believe the input of the IPS could help it happen. I think we can eliminate the practice.

Basically the Bill amends section 35 of the 2007 Act, which is the Act that allows the Minister to make rules to govern and regulate prisons. At present, prisoners held in solitary confinement in Ireland are held under either rule 62 or 63, which are made under section 35. This Bill inserts a provision which will oblige the Minister to make prison rules restricting the use of solitary confinement.

The Bill gives a definition of solitary confinement for the first time in Irish law, which is "the restriction of a prisoner’s opportunities for meaningful human interaction and communal association for 22 to 24 hours a day, whether by means of restricting the prisoner to a cell or by any other means". The reason we said 22 hours is partly because we felt is would be easier. I would have preferred 19. The international standard is 22 hours, because after that time we are looking at irreversible psychiatric problems if people are held indefinitely. I would obviously be much happier to see 19 and if the big parties supported 19, let them bring it on, but the reason we chose 22 is because it is the international human rights standard. It is the time period for which there is medical evidence. That is the definition.

We see the amended section 35(2)(2A)(a) as being very important. It is the most important section because it says that "no prisoner shall be held in solitary confinement for any reason for more than 15 consecutive days", because after the 15 days is when the damage sets in. I thought Deputy O'Callaghan's point on Second Stage was graphic for people. If we were talking about a prisoner being beaten or getting their legs broken people would readily understand it. This is similar damage to their mental health and has to be recognised as such. There are hugely damaging psychological effects, which can be long-term, and we need to have it outlawed.

I absolutely appreciate that the Prison Service and the current director general are trying to deal with this issue but we cannot just leave it up to chance. Who is going to come in after him? Perhaps it will be an austerity bunch and maybe there will be a different Minister. We need it protected in law.

The other provisions in the Bill are, very briefly, divided into two groups. One is to complement the principle that solitary confinement is so serious and damaging that certain persons can never be subjected to it. It should not be used as a punitive measure. Prisoners with mental illness should never be placed in solitary confinement and similarly neither should prisoners on remand. Flowing from that is the provision that solitary confinement should be the last resort. There is a group of measures to make sure that it is in fact a last resort by putting obligations on the Prison Service. These include daily visits from a mental health professional or the doctor, a system whereby there would be a review every three days, a requirement for the governor to keep a written log, access to treatment and so on, and then the provisions around work training, family visits and access to complaints. This is again important. It relates not just to general complaints but category A complaints, which are ones around which there is an urgency. Given the potential damage of this type of incarceration, this does need to be addressed promptly, as indeed medical contact needs to pick up any signs early.

To address some issues that arose around it, it has been noted that the IPS are working on this anyway. That is great, but it does not mean that we should not enshrine it in law. There is no reason why we should refuse to ban torture and that is what this essentially is. I think the IPS, like anybody, can bring about change in that when we bring in legislation. There are other issues about people who seek to be kept away from others. These issues are around protection. Where many people are on their own because of that, the reasons why they are in danger need to be addressed and the security risk to them needs to be tackled. If somebody is asking to be on their own and deprived of human contact, that sets off alarm bells. There are some serious other underlying problems there which need to be addressed.

There are good things being done, particularly with people with mental health problems, including attempts to set up facilities where they would be cared for in a different custodial environment. This legislation does not negate any of that. It actually complements it and simply puts it in primary legislation. It is pretty straightforward.