Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

I was a member of the McBride commission on prisons in the second half of the 1970s, which was a considerable time before the Whitaker report, and whose members included Gemma Hussey and others. I remember clearly that when we began hearings and published the first interim report, the then Minister for Justice, Gerard Collins, referred to us as a self-appointed commission. Be that as it may, we published a book about this towards the end of the 1970s.

It was easier at that time to speak about the welfare of prisoners and about conditions than it is now. It is incredible that the atmosphere has changed so much among the public, where people feel intimidated from speaking about prisoners' rights. However, we spoke about those rights and our report was followed by the Whitaker report, to which reference has been made, as well as a number of other comments on the prison system, including that of the Inspector of Prisons and Places of Detention. I also began teaching a course in 1969 on the sociology of deviant behaviour and the sociology of law, in which we discussed issues of imprisonment and alternatives to prison.

I remember the atmosphere towards the end of the 1970s. As sociologists, we were interested at one stage in setting up an institute of criminology. We were told by many of the fine people who worked in the Department of Justice that they could not openly attend our meetings, as they were forbidden to do so. That was an obstruction to the establishment of a professional body of people who would discuss issues of criminology.

Above all else, prison is about the absence of discretion from the prisoner's point of view. There is no discretion over time, over space or over body. That one principle explains the entire history of prison, right across the European and American systems. At different times, people have taken strategies in the running of prisons that concentrate on either the body or on the mind, or on different aspects of the removal of discretion. The running of prisons is something for which I have the greatest respect, as it is a very difficult thing to do. To do it well is nearly impossible. Again, research into the North American system over the past three decades is conclusive to the effect that private involvement in the running of prisons is almost disastrous. There are many reasons for this. From advanced models in the Scandinavian system, through different European countries and the entire American Continent, accountability in terms of basic rights and standards to the public and the legal system has been best delivered in an entirely public system. The private system works in a way that is seriously defective. For example, the bus that is described as moving people to a new prison is regarded as a degrading shuttle in the American system.

Other issues arise regarding principles of law, namely, the right of people to visit prisoners without being stigmatised. The entire system in private operation in the United States is about stigma that is not confined to the person who has been convicted. Looking back to the time of the McBride report and on to the Whitaker report, I want to say something about the incredible cult and culture of secrecy that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform imposed on the prison system. It was difficult to visit prisons — people were blocked from visiting them. We made an appeal to judges who had sentenced people to exercise their rights to visit any prison to which they had sent someone. We made that appeal to try to open up the system. At that time, the end of the 1970s, the issue was as elementary as getting the prison rules displayed on the wall where a prisoner might see them. They frequently went up before the visiting committees arrived — these were jokes. I am in favour of people being assisted who want to run prisons and that the best conditions are made available to those who have to look after prisoners. However, the visiting committees were, and remain, a disastrous failure. They were more an invention to secure expenses for political hacks than to make any contribution to the prison system.

After the prison rules appeared on the wall, so-called informal rules came into play. I recall a women's prison in which there were rules that were not written down about the number of times a prisoner could wash her hair, about not wearing any jewellery or make-up and the number of times she could change her underwear, etc. They were all put in as informal degradations that were additional to anything that was formal.

Another issue arose in our examination of prison conditions at that time and continued through the Whitaker report. It looked at something the Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice also examined, namely, the reason people were in prison at all. We looked at women prisoners in particular and the reasons they were in prison. One could see that if ever there was a case for non-custodial sentences and alternatives to prison, they were staring us in the face in terms of the reasons so many women had been convicted.

We moved on to something which I welcomed, the Dóchas centre which was an advanced system that was successful. I congratulate the people involved in terms of the reports published by those who have been caring for prisoners as well as those who have experience of being in prison and used the opportunity to turn around their lives.

I have been a Member of this House for more than 20 years. Shortly after I arrived in 1981, I gave a speech about what a condemnation of Ireland it was that the slopping out practice, which is still going on at Mountjoy, was being retained. Slopping out is a very interesting phenomenon in the context of the sociology of prison. It is the last change in every reformed system in Europe. It is kept because it is a significant degrading ritual and for that reason only. As I have pointed out, in a professional capacity, I have looked at reform systems in many countries in Europe and I noticed that this is always the last one to be changed because people hold on to it as a significant invasion of the prisoner's life.

It might be said that this new prison will eliminate these degrading practices for which Ireland has been rightly condemned by one Human Rights Commission report after another. It would be ridiculous not to welcome better provision as regards space or making it unnecessary for people to double up and have multiple occupancy of cells, which places prisoners at risk. However, we are discussing this as a planning matter without having discussed the alternatives to prison and the future structure of penal policy. We have not looked at the management system that would prevail or any of the guarantees which are necessary regarding the integrated use of the units to be formed on the site.

The idea that Thornton Hall will be used as a place of detention for refugees who enjoy guarantees under international law is absolutely outrageous. In addition, at a time when we are trying to reform the health sector, the idea that mental illness is to be linked in such a strong way with the notion of a prison setting is an outrageous and regressive act regarding not just penal policy, but also health. I appeal for a return of interest of all Members of the Oireachtas in prison welfare because the welfare of prisoners is one of the fundamental tests of rights. Those who care for prisoners deserve resources, but they also need to have the benefit of modern thinking, which is towards smaller prisons, where there is immediate care for illness and addictions and a real opportunity for prisoners to re-enter society. None of this is happening, except putting it out in the wilderness, shuttling people out and making it difficult to visit. This is to say nothing about the high level of illiteracy in prisons which is an indictment of everybody.

See this speech in context