Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will start by adding our voices to the condolences expressed by the Minister of State on the untimely death of the Inspector of Prisons, Judge Michael Reilly. From our point of view, he was an outstanding Inspector of Prisons. Whoever comes after him will have very big shoes to fill. The best tribute we could pay to his work is to take on board many of his very useful reports on the prison service.

I thank the Deputies who participated, particularly those who have supported the Bill and I echo their comments in my disappointment in the Government's reaction to this situation. I note the Government will not vote against the Bill. It would go through anyway and the reasons the Minister of State has put forward for not supporting it do not stack up. The first reason for that is that human rights cannot wait. The idea that this proposal is somehow being put forward to micro-manage in primary legislation the running of a prison is not true. This is the only part of prison rules which would be put in primary legislation. There would be total flexibility in terms of everything else. The reason for that is that it is sufficiently important to warrant that it be so. International human rights legislation states that we should be putting it in law. The UN Committee against Torture has said that any isolation of prisoners should be strictly and specifically regulated by law in terms of maximum durations, conditions and so on. That is exactly what our Bill attempts to do. The European Court of Human Rights has recognised prolonged solitary confinement as a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The revised Nelson Mandela rules also say that states should codify these practices in law. It is not inflexible: it is best international practice. It is worth pointing out that a prisoner in Wheatfield last January won a case in the High Court against a protected regime he was under. It was found that his constitutional right to bodily and psychological integrity was breached because he was held in solitary confinement, a breach that was neither necessary nor proportionate to the alleged and perceived risk to him. That decision was overturned by a higher court but nonetheless the High Court took that view in the case. Human rights are not optional. Human rights dictate that we address this situation. The Minister of State said the Bill would restrict the rights and obligations of the prison governor to ensure good order and safety. It would not; it just means he or she has to do it in a different way. It does not remove the power from governors to remove a prisoner for his or her own safety or the safety of others on a short-term basis, immediately for 24 hours or so. It absolutely allows that but what it does not allow is for those people to be left there. As other Deputies have pointed out, if we told them to put them in, break their legs so their legs can never be repaired and they will be wheelchair bound, we would have people out on the streets. It has been proven that being in solitary confinement for more than 15 days does irreversible psychological damage and we are harming people's health. It should not be allowed in any situation. Reasons have been put forward for justifying this practice, for example that under rule 63 some of these people have requested the measure for themselves. That is true but it should be immediately ringing major alarm bells that somebody would want to be insulated from all human contact. That person is already, by being in that situation, calling out for help. To say that prisoners are a danger or open to threats from other prisoners is to say we have not adequately resourced our prisons to deal with safety. Judge Reilly did an excellent report on bullying in prisons - it exists and can be dangerous for staff and prisoners. That means we have to do the job better. It does not mean we have to violate people's human rights. The Bill, as other Deputies have said, puts very specific provisions in place, such as the prohibition for prisoners with mental or physical disabilities. Deputy Lahart was very concerned that people with mental health problems would be in this situation but they are. They are there tonight and they should not be there at all. Let us be clear about it. These people are there because the Central Mental Hospital does not have the capacity to take them.

The Irish Prison Service is left with a situation where it has quite a number of seriously psychologically damaged prisoners under its watch at the moment and it can do nothing for them because the Central Mental Hospital will only take one at a time. There are people there who are acutely psychotic and need serious medical care. Perhaps one prisoner might be taken to the hospital and he or she would be lucky to be there for three or four weeks but then he or she would be sent back.

It is pie in the sky for us to pay lip-service while this is going on. The longer we avoid legislating for this, the more we are allowing this to continue. It is intolerable. We cannot have this logjam. It is not only about the inmates; it is about the staff in the prison who interact with them as well as the other prisoners. It goes against all human rights obligations and it is abhorrent in the modern age.

It is true and well known that the Irish Prison Service has done some excellent work in this area. The working group is in place and its members have examined practices in other regimes. There is advanced talk of setting up a challenging behaviour unit in the Midlands Prison to deal with some of these cases. It would involve a unique team of prison staff working on a volunteer basis as well as psychologists and so on. That is the route we need to go but it is not going to be delivered straight away and the plan is no good for the people who have already been damaged by the regime in place. We need to move urgently on this. Human rights cannot wait when it comes to these matters. I accept that work is being done, but unless we move provisions like this, there is no way the Irish Prison Service will get the support it needs to push this situation further. That is one of the reasons we need the Bill to progress.

The Minister of State says that the Prison Service would be unable to meet its commitment to ensure that prisoners would get access to structured activity and so on if the Bill was passed. I see where the Minister of State is coming from but the provisions are in the Bill for good reason. All studies indicate that structured activity and intervening with people while they are in prison are the only ways to get to a situation where those people can be rehabilitated. The Whitaker report recommended that people should be out of cells for 12 hours each day. In other jurisdictions, the view is that out-of-cell activity time should be as long as is necessary for people to engage in full human interaction, structured activity and so on. Countries like Finland and Germany take that approach. Developing an alternative to incarceration whereby people would be rehabilitated and restorative justice is delivered and so on is far preferable.

I accept this will put pressures on the Irish Prison Service and I certainly do not expect the management or staff to shoulder that burden on their own. I expect the Dáil to deliver the resources to allow them to move to a more humane and better situation.

In that light, the reason we are moving the Bill is twofold. I am delighted we are discussing prisoner issues today. I do not believe this legislation jumps the gun on anything. The Minister of State intimated that the Government agrees with what we are doing but that it is doing this in a different way, in its own time and suggested that it will get there in the end. That is not good enough for the people in these situations tonight. Some people have been in these situations for months and years and have already been damaged.

One good thing is that we have given some of these people hope with the contributions today and the fact that the Bill is going forward. It allows for a belief not only among prisoners but staff who have been working in this area that there is an appetite for reform and for a new prison policy where human rights of all in that bubble or prison world can be respected. It allows for a belief that we can deliver a system whereby citizens who have spent time inside can come out and be able to contribute to society in a far better way than before rather than perpetuate the revolving door system. It is useful to be here discussing these issues. I hope the Select Committee on Justice and Equality will take this forward as a serious project of work for the year ahead. I thank all Deputies for their support.

See this speech in context