Third Annual Report of Inspector of Prisons.doc

Role of the Irish Inspector of

Prisons and Places of Detention

The Office of the Inspector was established by an order signed by the Minister for
Justice, Equality and Law Reform on the 21st February 2002. There is a statutory
provision in the forthcoming Prisons Authority Bill for the establishment of a Prisons
Inspectorate. The following are the terms of reference for the Inspector of Prisons
and Places of Detention.

TERMS OF REFERENCE

To -

(a)

Inspect and report, as the Inspector considers appropriate, to the

Minister on prisons and places of detention under the aegis of the

Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

(b)

Report in particular on conditions in those institutions and on the

regimes in place for prisoners and detainees.

(c)

Investigate and report on any specific issue referred to the

Inspectorate by the Minister.

(d)

Submit to the Minister an Annual Report on the activities of the

Inspectorate.

GUIDELINES

In carrying out an inspection of any prison or place of detention the Inspector will, in
general terms, have regard to such matters as:

(a)

the quality of the regime

(b)

the attitude of staff and inmates

(c)

the health, safety and well-being of prisoners

(d)

the condition of the buildings

(e)

questions of humanity and propriety

(f)

any general pattern which may indicate possible
inadequacies in the management of the prison.

As the terms of reference provide, the Minister may also request the Inspector to
investigate and report on specific issues or incidents connected with the running of
any prison or place of detention. Furthermore, the Inspector may raise issues of
concern, arising out of an investigation or an inspection, either with local
management, the Director General of the Prisons or the Minister. To facilitate the

CONTENTS

Page

Introduction

5 - 7

The Programme of the Inspector of Prisons

and Places of Detention from the 1st May 2004

to 30th April 2005

8 - 17

Mental Health

18 - 24

New Inspector of Prisons in Northern Ireland

24 - 28

St. Brigid's Resource Centre Killester Opening

28 - 29

Separate Prisons from Probation Service

29 - 31

Private Prisons

31 - 32

Beladd Training School for Prison Officers

The Visiting Committees

34 - 39

10.

Do Prisons Work?

39 - 41

11.

Prisons Headquarters

41 - 42

12.

The McBride Report

42 - 49

13.

The CONNECT Project

49 - 51

14.

Videolinking

51 - 52

15.

The Method of Inspection of Individual Institutions

52 - 53

16.

Visit to Prison

53 - 54

17.

Money has been wasted

54 - 57

18.

Individual Inspections

57 - 60

19.

Recommendations arising from the revisit of

Limerick on the 17th and 18th February 2004

67 - 64

20.

Revisitation to Portlaoise Prison on 17th and 18th May 2004

64 -68

21.

Miscellaneous

68 - 74

22.

Recommendations

74 - 78

Appendix I

Introduction

April 2005

Michael McDowell

Minister of Justice, Equality and Law Reform

84 St. Stephen's Green

Dublin 2

Dear Minister

I enclose my third annual report which I hope you will publish shortly. Much of

my report is repetition of points made in my two previous reports.

I want my office made statutory and totally independent. This is essential to

the existence of my office. However a senior official has told me more than

once that there is no political will to make my office independent. I would like

immediate clarification on this point. At the moment I do not have my own

independent website and I am quite prepared to use the Department's

website. However all the reports which I send to the Department should be

placed on the website in a time space of a maximum of six weeks. The

reports should not be altered by anyone save on security grounds and then

only with consent of the Inspector.

There is no real communication between the Department of Justice, Equality

and Law Reform or indeed with the Irish Prison Service. The result is that the

Inspectorate, which gets great assistance in prisons from the newest prisoner

to the Governor and all the professional people, the POA and many NGO

bodies, cannot use the Irish Prison Service or Department as a sounding

board properly to evaluate information coming from other sources.

In England the last two Prison Inspectors had to write books to shame the

mindset of Ministers and officials. I do get your replies to the question in the

Oireachtas but little else. However I must give full credit for the openness and

frankness of my discussion with everyone I meet in prisons. I do not set out

to be liked. I set out to ascertain the facts. In order to test the facts I need

co-operation which is conspicuously absent. In a Dail reply you said you

hoped I would be satisfied. Alas, I must report that I am extremely dissatisfied

and to phrase it another way I am less than gruntled! I realise that the two

persons in charge of the prison section in your Department and the IPS have

recently taken up office and are finding their way. I also realise that they have

a lot of problems. However, I would like some liaison person to meet me at

regular intervals. I trust that is not an unreasonable request.

I am also gravely concerned about statements made on your behalf by your

Department and by your spokesperson as reported in the "Irish Times" and

discussed in this report. It clearly emanated from your office. You are

responsible for it. Much of it is inaccurate and possibly defamatory. If you are

not responsible for these statements, the matter becomes sinister. I suggest

that you investigate the provenance of these statements. I look forward to

continuing my work. In April I inspected the Training Unit which is a shining

example of what can and should be done for rehabilitation of prisoners. It is

undoubtedly the best prison in the system but it is limited to 96 people

incarcerated at any one time. It is the only drugs- free prison in the entire

The programme of the Inspector of Prisons and Places of Detention

from the 1st May 2004 to 30th April 2005

In May I attended the POA A.G.M dinner in Ennis, County Clare as guest of

the POA.

I deposited my second Annual Report with the Minister during first week in

May. An edited edition was published in April 2005.

First two weeks in June inspection of Castlerea Prison.

10th June met Minister for Justice at funeral. He told me he sent the annual

report to the Attorney General for advice on whether or not it was defamatory.

I told him that I would defend any action for defamation and would plead

justification and indeed qualified privilege. He said he would not wish to be

sued as the publisher.

In that report I have drafted a bill to establish on a statutory basis this

inspectorate. I suggest so as to save embarrassment for any Minister of

Justice it should be sent by the Inspector to him in the first instance and then

six weeks later it should be sent by the Inspector to the Dail and the Seanad

and placed in their respective libraries and thus made available to the media.

The Minister would thereby not be involved in publication at all. The Tanaiste

has said that I have shown independence without any statute. Recently the

Minister has said that he is looking into the matter. I look forward to the draft

bill on which I must be consulted in early course.

I wrote suggesting that the report be sent direct to the Oireachtas.

Subsequently that idea was adopted in the publication of the Travers Report.

The Minister has rejected the idea. I must report annually to him unlike the

situation in Northern Ireland.

I prepared talk on the start of diplomatic relations 28 years ago between

China and Ireland and delivered it to the Irish Chinese Cultural Society. I

prepared and finished report on Castlerea and despatched it to the Governor.

He was informed that I would revisit Castlerea to discuss whether all the facts

were correct but not to discuss the nature of the report or its

recommendations.

17th July I went to my suboffice in Sneem, County Kerry with two trunks of

papers to be read. Some of that reading will be included in this report.

Early August Fr Paul Andrews who is Chaplain to a number of prisons in

Russia stayed with me and we had very interesting discussions. He told me

that drugs were not a real problem in Russian prisons. If drugs were found

prisoners are then charged in Court with a criminal offence and will get an

addition to their sentence. It is not done by the Governor or the Government

but is tried in the local Court. He said that this is very effective. Other visitors

during August included Prof. McCuthcheon (one of my volunteer inspectors),

who is the Head of the Law School at Limerick University and John Ward of

the POA.

In August I also returned to Castlerea to check that facts in the report were

accurate. Unfortunately the amiable Governor was temporarily indisposed

(but now thankfully recovered). However his management staff were

extremely helpful. I made a few minor amendments to the report. I sent it to

the Minister. It should be available on the Department of Justice website

under Inspector of Prisons. However it was not published until January 2005

which was unsatisfactory. They returned it after four months. I now employ a

professional proofreader.

In September we did a full inspection on Cork Prison which is a disaster.

However the Governor and his staff are coping well despite the appalling

condition of premises and despite financial cutbacks. There is waste of

money here as elsewhere. There is gross overcrowding in inadequate

premises. There is nothing to occupy half of the prisoners. Free time is spent

in the yard where they sit on the ground because there are no benches.

There is, of course, slopping out.

Also food is eaten in all cells and apparently this is regarded as acceptable

hygiene (as I'm informed it has been so passed by two different appropriate

inspectors) although I think it is disgusting that you have to eat in a public

lavatory which is basically what is happening. I have heard rumours that

there is an English case pending on this point in Europe.

There are just six cells in a new extension with any sort of in-cell sanitation.

It is for disruptive prisoners sent there from other prisons! Cork prisoner can

also be placed there if disruptive.

I attended as a guest of honour the Irish Lawyers Dinner in London. I also

attended the Law Mass for the beginning of the law year and the Lord

Chancellor's Breakfast. Also I dined with the Director of Communications in

Prisons, Lord Justice Thomas.

The Judges of the Irish High Court hosted a dinner for my colleague, Mr.

Justice Barr, and myself and made a presentation to each of us.

I attended a seminar at the Law Society organised by the Law Society and the

Human Rights Commission. I dined with the Chief Executive of Hong Kong

(where they have excellent prisons which I have visited) and the Hong Kong

Ambassador to EU Nations hosted by the Minister for Enterprise and

Employment. I was invited to return to Hong Kong.

I received Rick Lines of the Irish Penal Reform Trust. He presented a report

of which he is co-author on international experience in sharing needles not

merely for drug addicts but also to reduce the possibility of HIV or Hepatitis

infection.

I attended IASD conference in Cavan.

This conference dealt with "alternatives to prison". It is a matter on which I

have very strong views. It costs a fortune to run the Prison Service and it is

expanding presently and has plans for further expansion. In their annual

report they have a schedule of how many people are employed in other

jurisdictions in administration. Recently 120 were going to Longford; now it

has reached a figure of 159. Many of the senior people in the present prison

administration will not move to Longford so it means other Civil Servants who

wish to go to Longford (many of whom will have no experience in prisons) will

fill up the Directorates and become Directors and Managers in the pyramid

structure of the Irish Prison Service. I am glad to see that now at last one of

the Directors is an experienced bright and comparatively young Prison

Governor. It was an extremely interesting conference. However there were a

lot of lessons to be drawn from it. I have already in previous reports dealt with

wonderful work done by Sean Moriarity, the then head of the Probation

Service in Limerick. He delighted in bringing Judges around to see all the

work which his people were doing on the ground in Limerick. He also went to

the local District Judge and said, "Give me your worst case and just see how I

get on." The experiment was a success. The judge became a convert. I

strongly suggest that the Irish Probation and Welfare Service should be a

separate statutory body working with but not under the Irish Prison Service.

They should be encouraged to provide feasible alternatives to prison. Judges

should not send people to prison save as a very last resort. Despite the tough

stance of many Ministers here and in the United Kingdom the reality is that for

most prisoners prison does not work. Prison has three explanations or roots.

Firstly it is punishment. This is to deprive someone of his/her liberty but to

keep them in humane and reasonable conditions. Secondly it is to remove

from society people who are a threat to society temporarily. Thirdly and most

importantly (and most neglected) is rehabilitation. I have highlighted in my

reports how in Cork, for example, only 50% of prisoners have any occupation.

In St. Patrick's which I remember in 1970 had 18 workshops now has none!

St Patrick's is dealing with a very volatile uneducated group of young men at a

most formative stage in their development. The bulk of them would certainly

graduate with the passage of time to Mountjoy and other main prisons. We

are failing them in a most shameful way. Of course there is little sympathy for

prisoners but if they are rehabilitated they can become valuable members of

society and may even become taxpayers. The cost of prisons is astronomical.

The cost of probation is only a small portion of "the huge prison" budget of

which the then Director General so frequently spoke. Judges without

interfering with their independence should make it a habit to explain why

prison is the only appropriate sanction available in a particular case. It was

very sad that at this conference there were so few judges. The President of

the High Court opened it and Mr. Justice Moriarity, who is the Patron of IASD,

made the concluding remarks. The bulk of prisoners are sentenced by Circuit

Court and District Court Judges. There was no Circuit Judge at this

conference and there was only one District Judge namely the man who was

converted by Mr. Moriarity in Limerick and who has been responsible for the

successful "Nenagh experiment" which has now spread to Mayo. The

Probation authority should be independent and should strive to keep all

judges informed about feasible options and alternatives to prison. One of the

most interesting lectures at the conference was by a Finnish Professor with a

very impressive CV who told us that in the Nordic countries while crime is on

the increase the amount of incarceration is declining steadily. In this country

everyone wants to build big new prisons for an ever-expanding prison

population. In fact many people would lock criminals up and throw away the

key irrespective of cost. At present 7 out of 10 prisoners reoffend! Do we

want to follow the USA and United Kingdom in building more and bigger

prisons or the Nordic example of reducing the incarcerated? Neither system

by itself seems to reduce crime. The Government will have to decide

immediately which course to follow.

I am not trying to close all prisons. Prisons are necessary but not for every

small offence. Also in this day and age surely fines can be deducted from

wages, a small part of their social welfare or some other method rather than

send the person into prison? If a prisoner is working why not imprison him at

weekends? Also why should the state collect debts? If I am owed money

why should I put a person who is in default into prison? After he has served

the appropriate sentence he comes out still owing me the money. He has

been incarcerated at fantastic expense to the taxpayer in the hope that the

prison experience might coax him to pay his debt. Also prisoners may default

in their rent payment because they are "in prison" and thus become

homeless. While there is some effort to cope with this problem, in practice it

only adds to the homeless people who leave prison and depend on charitable

hostels and the Simon Community to keep them alive and sheltered. The

Probation Service should sell to the judiciary and the legal professions what

they have on offer as an alternative to prison. They must have total

independence. They are depending on the 1907 Act. That service for a very

long time (as I have pointed out in previous reports) didn't see itself in prison

at all. Now they are deeply involved in prison although occasionally criticised

for their work or lack of it in the prisons and in the aftercare of prisoners

particularly. We should seriously consider following the Nordic experience.

We have had young men working in farms and in the fresh air all day in

Coolamber, County Longford, but sadly that is now closing. It is run by

"rehab" for recovering drug addicts including graduates of Mountjoy. They

must also learn computer skills there. I have done a report on it. It is under

Health, not Justice.

The 2003 report of the Irish Prison Service makes very interesting reading. It

has about three pages dealing with my first published annual report. It points

out several times that some of my points were made by the Prisons Authority

Interim Board which included two extremely eminent civil servants. I was

supposed to have a meeting with this body but it never materialised so

therefore I don't know whether they are correct or not. Assuming that they are

correct, it means that I have come to the same conclusion, as they did,

without any help from them. The more people who come to a similar

conclusion the better in the "hope", that it just might influence political opinion.

In my job one has to be addicted to "hope" no matter how depressing "the

reality" may be. The report is also extremely defensive and impliedly justified

a greater increase in bureaucrats to run the prisons.

I have strongly suggested that an outside agency should look at the cost of

running prisons and the fact that there are two organisations each headed by

an assistant secretary, one in the department and the other in an allegedly

independent but as yet non-statutory prison service. While the prison service

can point to other countries such as the United Kingdom where they have

imposed another layer of bureaucracy in that the Director General of the

Prison Service was elevated to a correctional layer of which he is now

Director General, the mantra throughout the entire service should be

OPENNESS, TRANSPARENCY, EFFICIENCY, and ACCOUNTABILITY.

With the greatest respect to the Prison Service they are the last persons who

should decide that matter. I suggest that an outside organisation such as the

Smurfit's Business School should check the whole Prison Service and its

costs. One Clerk Grade I told me that the figure regarding the price of a

prisoner in a prison includes a substantial amount of headquarters expense.

He added that when you look at the figures you should always remember the

dictum "lies, damn lies and statistics". Is the Irish taxpayer getting value for

money? Why do judges send so many people to prison? Why don't they use

alternatives? Is prison really effective? It is urgently needed to have the

whole structure evaluated by an outside business consultancy. There is no

doubt that there should be at least a 10-year plan. The scandal of follies

being built and then left idle (as illustrated in this report) should be avoided.

Also is it necessary for senior civil servants to traverse the world (first class if

available) when efficient businesses use such junkets as an incentive reward

but their business is now conducted by videolink as being equally effective

and much much cheaper?

No one should be able to prevent the publication of an Inspector's report for

fear of being sued. I resent being told my criticism is "unjust". If it is, I must

be so persuaded publicly and I'll apologise and withdraw the comment.

The Inspector wrote three times to the Minister asking whether it was true (as

a senior official informed him) that there was no political will to make his office

independent. The Tanaiste had said it wasn't necessary as I was clearly

independent anyway which was flattering but not quite accurate. However I

am glad to say that I have been informed indirectly ("hearsay") that I am to be

made statutory. The sooner the better as far as I am concerned. It is

supposed to be the last step in the programme for government. If it is not

independent, it is a charade!

At the request of the visiting committee of Mountjoy Prison the Inspector

attended one of their monthly meetings and was very impressed by their

knowledge and dedication.

In late January the Inspector and his special adviser returned to Mountjoy

Prison (including the Dochas) to see how the prison was proceeding and how

many if any of his recommendations had been implemented and how much of

the business plan had been realised. The threatened closure of Mountjoy has,

of course, impeded the implementation of some recommendations. However

a lot has been done. Only some toilets in B wing have been done; showers

have not been done. Only the reception office at the main gate in the Dochas

has been improved.

Mental Health

I have been concerned about the Mental Health situation since 1970. In my

report on Portlaoise I comment:- " The issue regarding prisoners with mental

problems still exists although the recent arrangement with the Central Mental

Hospital when operational may help. The fact that there is a psychiatric

hospital within a few hundred yards from the prison is still being ignored and it

is an amazing waste of taxpayers' money to bring prisoners up and down to

Dublin-based psychiatric hospitals". Dr Harry Kennedy, Consultant Forensic

Psychiatrist and Director of the Central Mental Hospital, whom I greatly

respect, has written to me regarding the foregoing quotation. He tells me that

his colleague is now providing a weekly clinic in Portlaoise. This is great

news. He continues:- "All those in Portlaoise prison are serving long

sentences. All have a history either of serious violence or of links with groups

who could co-ordinate attempts to escape or abscond. None of those in

Portlaoise could possibly be treated in any local psychiatric hospital. All

require conditions of special security whenever they are to be treated in a

psychiatric hospital. I enclose an academic review of the therapeutic uses of

security. Tables 6 and 8 set out a system for assessing those who need

conditions of special security. In Ireland, only the Central Mental Hospital

offers medium security and high security as defined within the terms of this

article. Table 7 offers a counterbalance concerning how one might move an

individual from high, to medium, to low security based on clinical criteria. I

think it would be extremely unusual to find any inmate in Portlaoise Prison, or

for that matter in the Midlands Prison, who would meet the criteria for transfer

to the open wards at St. Fintan's Hospital, Portlaoise or even to a low secure

unit, if there were one available".

However the problems still exist. I was concerned about a local judge asking

for a psychiatric report. This entails the prisoner being brought from one of

the prisons in Portlaoise to Dundrum for a short assessment by possibly three

prison officers with overtime and there is a perfectly adequate and good

psychiatric service I understand available right opposite the prison. Surely it

would make economic sense to put a secure unit into the local hospital or

prison if it were necessary to leave a prisoner overnight? However that might

be too expensive!! The article cited by Dr. Kennedy of which he is the author

is a most useful and interesting one. However it seems to me that there are

two important issues involved in mental health in this country. One is the

distinction between insanity and personality disorder. Psychiatrists will have

nothing to do with the latter. In England they are now all under the

Department of Health. Certainly to put people who have either mental illness

or personality disorder in prison is no good to anyone. It doesn't cure them. It

will almost certainly make them worse. It puts an impossible burden on

Governors and prison staff and indeed on fellow prisoners (see later). People

with personality disorders should not be put into prison. It certainly makes life

impossible for everyone else in prison.

If the CMH is inadequate (as seems to be the case) then it should be

expanded or replaced. There is space in the grounds and there are parts of

the building which seem to me to be underutilised. However it now appears a

new and expanded criminal mental hospital is to be built beside the new

Mountjoy. This may be helpful. However it will be a hospital not an asylum.

Where do you put people with personality disorders?

Why not have a secure medical unit in one of the local prisons serviced by the

local psychiatric hospitals and with security provided by the prison

service? (cf. my report on a Spanish prison as reported in my first annual

report.)

Mental Hospitals are closing. Persons with personality disorders are dumped

into a "caring" society! Their antisocial behaviour frequently means they end

in a prison which cannot cope. The Central Mental Hospital refuses to take

them because they are not treatable and are "a management problem". This

problem of where to put people who are not insane but have personality

problems is not being addressed. In the old days they were lodged in mental

"asylums". Now mental hospitals will not take them. They are returned to

prisons as "management problems". They are certainly not suitable for

prison. They can be dangerously disruptive. They are being degraded and

denied their human rights by a society and a Government who just want them

hidden - out of sight and out of mind (in every sense).

Disturbed Prisoner

My office was notified anonymously about a prisoner who was about 28 days

in a padded cell screaming his head off and urinating and defecating all over

the place. As a result the other prisoners could not sleep and the staff were

under great pressure trying to cope with this unfortunate man. When I got the

information I contacted the Governor who told me what I had been told was

correct. With Governor Woods I visited the man in his cell. He was a pathetic

figure sitting on the floor talking both Irish and English but not making sense in

either language. Since there was a medical strike at the time he was not seen

by any doctors. That week indeed two doctors had come on two separate

days but they merely dealt with new committals. One doctor came from the

naval base in Haulbowline and had to return there later at night. There was

an excellent prison officer dealing with this man who had a calming effect and

persuaded him to have a cup of tea after our interview. I immediately wrote to

the Minister. He, as ever hyperactive, arranged for this prisoner and two

other prisoners to be moved. Seven weeks afterwards he was transferred to

the Central Mental Hospital.

I had received a letter from the Catholic Chaplain in Castlerea with a copy

letter he had sent to the Minister about a similar patient who was in the

padded cell in Castlerea. He pointed out that the Medical Director of the Irish

Prison Service would not certify him until there was a bed available in

Dundrum. This is an outrageous denial of Human Rights. However the

Minister had a prisoner from Cork and from Castlerea and from Dublin moved

to the Central Mental Hospital. Although I am expressly forbidden from taking

up the cudgels on behalf of individual prisoners I thought it appropriate to

check what happened to these three unfortunate men.

The prisoner in Castlerea prison is still in custody and is not due for release

for another six years. He has been transferred to the CMH on a few

occasions since midsummer 2004 and returned after a short period on each

occasion. He has inflicted bites and severe cuts to himself since and has

been both an inpatient and an outpatient at Roscommon General Hospital on

several occasions arising from self-inflicted injuries. He is deemed "a

management problem".

The prisoner held in Mountjoy was transferred on the 26th August 2004

having spent long periods in and out of the special cells prior to his transfer.

(He was visited by me on the 7th July in the special cell.) He was due for

release on the expiration of his sentence on the 27th August (next day after

his transfer to the C.M.H). The C.M.H. Authorities transferred him to St.

Brendan's Hospital, Grangegorman, on the 27th August and the prison

authorities have not heard of him since.

The prisoner in Cork was serving seven and a half years and is due for

release in about a year and a half. He was treated in the special cell (by the

prison psychiatrist) for 18 days and towards the end of this treatment he was

assessed by a member of staff of the C.M.H. but was not transferred to the

hospital. He was transferred back out into the general prison population

within Cork prison and has been seen regularly by the psychiatrist. He is

presently in Portlaoise Prison where he requested a transfer to go "for a

break" as he knows the Chief Officer there who served in Cork Prison

previously.

I have already recommended that the Minister of Justice and the Minister for

Health get together urgently and resolve this ridiculous impasse which is a

disgrace to all concerned.

I attended the launch of "Mental Health - your views" a report on stakeholder

consultation on the quality of mental health services and also a copy of their

annual report for 2003. Minister Tim O'Malley showed great enthusiasm and

determination to support the Commission and to implement its

recommendations. The Inspector is naturally concerned with the question of

managing dangerous people with severe personality disorder. In England it is

known as DSPD. In England in December 2000 the Department of Health

and the Home Office published the White Paper "Reforming the Health Act".

It sets out how the Government will modernise the mental health legislation. It

indicated that there should be new legislation making explicit provision for the

application of compulsory powers to people who pose a significant risk of

serious harm to others or themselves as a result of a mental disorder

including personality disorder. People with a personality disorder including

those assessed as DSPD will be dealt with under exactly the same powers

and processes and have access to the same safeguards as other mental

health patients. There will be no separate provisions for those diagnosed with

personality disorders. This is now an urgent task in Ireland. Hopefully

Minister O'Malley and the Mental Health Commission in consultation with

other interested parties will study the English experience and possibly

produce similar legislation. However the present unseemly, not to say

obscene, treatment of these unfortunate people who can be a menace to

others and to themselves should be resolved rapidly in any so-called civilised

society. In the old days they were lodged in an asylum. However this is now

gone. Dundrum is not an asylum but is a clinical mental hospital (and, even

as that, it is antiquated and inadequate).

New Inspector of Prisons in Northern Ireland

I, as Inspector, received great co-operation from my Scots and English

counterparts. Indeed the Scots Chief Inspector invited me to Stirling prison

where he was launching his annual report. He does not seem to have the

same restraints as those that are imposed on the Irish non-statutory

Inspector. In Belfast they have established a Criminal Justice inspection team

for Northern Ireland. The Chief Inspector is Kit Chivers. His office under

statute came into existence officially on the 1st October 2004. He has a much

wider remit than I do. He has a team of at least 10 persons as inspectors

together with a small support staff. He can and does inspect the following : -

The police service of Northern Ireland

Forensic Science in Northern Ireland

State Pathology Department

Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland

Northern Ireland Tourist Board

Northern Ireland Social Security Agency

The Royal Mail Group

The Inspectorate does not wish to be confrontational. Its aim is improvement.

Its inspections will examine the strengths and weaknesses of organisation

and may make recommendations designed to help an organisation to improve

in any aspect of its performance. Patently the inspectorate wishes to work in

partnership with those involved in administration and criminal offenders.

Inspections in Northern Ireland are based on a so-called common core of

standards (which I strongly believe should be the same in the Republic). The

standards are:

Openness and accountability (which I have discussed in another part

of this report)

Partnership with other agencies in a criminal justice system

Promotion of equality and human rights

Being a learning organisation responsive to customers and the

community

Delivering results in relation to the Government's objectives.

(I would like to see each organisation in the Criminal Justice System

assessing itself against the common core framework identified in the past.)

As honestly as possible, it should underline its own strengths and

weaknesses, not to be used against it but as a token of its commitment to

inspection as an aid to improvement.

"Undertaking honest critical assessment is not easy for a public organisation

which is used to being defensive about their practices and their

performances. (emphasis added) There might usefully be a day or two

seminar for senior executives to help them to prepare themselves for self

assessment."

Useful material has been provided by Dr. Dyson, an acknowledged expert in

the field, which can be obtained free of charge from the Criminal Justice

Inspection (Northern Ireland) info@ckini.gov.uk. The Chief Inspector in

Northern Ireland wrote in his covering letter with the newsletter: "I read your

first annual report with great interest I was impressed that you had got off to

such a strong start with such limited resources. I am just starting up here with

a rather wider remit but one in which the Prison Service is very important".

There are three prisons in Northern Ireland.

I may have been insensitive dealing with Civil Servants mired in traditional

systems. I would hope my ignorance will be forgiven. I would love to help in

their self-assessment as they must become transparent, efficient, and

accountable and forget and eradicate their traditional ways. I accept and

realise it will be difficult but it will ultimately improve the quality of their work.

It must be led by the Minister. I will be glad to be involved but since some

few officials may feel I am "an untamed bull in a china shop" I do not see my

participation as essential!

St. Brigid's Parish Resource Centre Killester Opening

On the 21st September 2004 the Inspector and his special adviser, former

Governor Woods, and personal assistant, Martin McCarthy, went to Killester.

In Mountjoy Prison in 1978 the community works party was initiated under

Prison Officer Niall McGroary. A small work party of prisoners refurbished a

training centre in Rathfarnham. Since then 21 other projects have been

completed including day centres, training centres, scout halls and community

centres. The three main objectives of a community works party are:

To allow prisoners to make a positive contribution to local communities.

To allow them to experience the value and therapy of working in a positive

environment.

To place them in positions of trust.

As the Governor of Mountjoy, Mr. John Lonergan, stated:- "After 26 years I

can now confidently state that all three objectives have been fully achieved.

Over 2,000 individual prisoners have participated in the various projects. 99%

have fully honoured the conditions attached to their release and many local

communities have benefited from the hard work of the work party. It is a quite

remarkable success story. Enormous credit is due to Niall McGroary who has

been with the group since its inception and is still its inspiration. Also to

Officer Paddy Maloney who joined the project in 1981 and has made a huge

contribution to it and who has now retired." While I as Inspector have been

very critical of Mountjoy and particularly its physical condition I must salute the

wonderful work done particularly by Messrs. Lonergan, McGroary and

Maloney. They are the unsung heroes of the Irish Prison Service. The media

frequently produce critical assessments of prisons and of those who work in

them. However this is a gleaming example of what can be done. It benefits

the prisoners enormously. It helps them to be reintegrated into society. Also

the public cease to fear ex-prisoners. There was an official opening by the

President of Ireland, Mrs. Mary McAleese, and it was blessed by Archbishop

Diarmuid Martin. There were a lot of speeches. Then there was a reception

for everybody, provided by female prisoners. This is a great piece of news

generating from a prison. The Inspector met there a number of parish priests

who are very keen to get the prisoners working in their respective parishes!!!

Separate Prisons from Probation Service

As I have quoted in a previous annual report:-

"The Minister stated at a debate in the Seanad as follows: - We need a new

statute for prisons. In case members of the Seanad think I am delaying on

this subject there were proposals that the Prison Service be put on a statutory

basis and there was an internal debate as to whether the Probation and

Welfare Service should be set up as part of the same statutory series of

bodies or be entirely separate. The view previously expressed was that the

Probation and Welfare Service should be separate. I am not so convinced

about that. No matter how good people's intentions are, if one sets up bodies

under statute and gives them functions, they are inclined to be careful of their

own patch. There is, to some extent, a public interest in wedding the

Probation Service with the Prison Service rather than making them become

competitors at the exchequer trough. When money is put into the general

areas of rehabilitation it should not be the subject of undue competition

between two separate agents. It cannot coordinate their activities to their best

extent.

This is not to say I propose to subjugate the Probation and Welfare Service to

the Prison Service which is larger. It is merely to say there is an argument to

be made for looking at them as two bodies whose activities should be

coordinated with a common intelligence driving their activities rather than

having two separate organisation structures and two separate sets of

promises, one for incarceration and the other devoted to rehabilitation in the

aftermath of punishment."

With the greatest respect the idea of one snout at the trough rather than two is

folksy but unsound. The Probation Service is the Cinderella of the various

bodies involved. It is, of course, dealing with people after they have been

punished or as an alternative to prison. However their function is far wider

and more important than that. Firstly they have a huge remit amongst the

ordinary citizens in dealing with problems such as the breakup of marriage,

the care of children, care of the elderly and liaising with social welfare and

housing authorities. They are also looked upon by the Judiciary, and very

correctly, as independent. Also both structures are directly under the Minister

for Justice who can provide "the common intelligence".

Since the Judiciary are supposed to regard prison as a very last resort they

depend on the probation service to provide them with alternatives. Some

judges seem to think that they have only two remedies, namely prison or a

fine. Since most of the clients appearing in the Courts come from

impoverished people, the second option is rarely available. However there

are far more fields in which the probation service do fantastic work.

Unfortunately judges and lawyers do not seem to be aware of what is

happening. Also the media can whip up public opinion rapidly but seldom

publish the wonderful work done by the probation service.

PRIVATE PRISONS

Unfortunately there were scandals in privately run prisons in the United

States. However it seems to me that private prisons may be essential for the

further development of prisons. The best prison in England according to the

Home Office is a privately run one. I have already cited people like the Chief

Justice of England in praise of private prisons. Of course, their shareholders

expect to be paid a dividend but if they are run efficiently and well the dividend

is secure. Private prisons have been very inventive. I visited Lowdham on

the Grange in Nottinghamshire and they were so proud of their achievements

there they asked me to invite the Minister of Justice and his officials to visit

them. It would be no harm if they did so. There has been another benefit.

The prison service now has to compete against at least four companies to

keep control of prisons. Last year the Prison Service regained a prison which

had been taken over by the private sector. The private sector build and

maintain and run at their own expense their own prisons. While the figures

differ there is no doubt that the private prison, if it is efficiently run, costs less

than state prisons. Also although the POA still have members who are

working in private prisons the management of such prisons do not recognise

the POA. There is a different union the PSU (The Prison Service Union)

which is less militant and which represents everyone working in the prison not

merely the prison officers. I strongly recommend that the Minister should

open at least one prison to private companies. The contract should be made

between the Minister and the private company not the Prison Service (who

will be the competitors for contracts with the Minister) Such prison should like

all other prisons in the state be subject to inspection by an independent

statutory inspector who should not be a civil servant.

Beladd Training School for Prison Officers

On Wednesday the 23rd June 2004 the Governors' group invited the

Inspector and his special Adviser, Governor Jim Woods, and his Personal

Assistant, Martin McCarthy, to the launch of the "Catering Quality System for

the Irish Prison Service" at Beladd House, Beladd Park, Portlaoise, County

Laois at 1.00pm sharp. Governor McDermott received us with a warm

welcome. There are two large buildings which are very modern. We were

brought upstairs where there was a great spread of food. There were all sorts

of savoury dishes of an extremely high standard. There were also mini

eclairs, decorated with various kinds of sugars, and cheesecakes and

strawberries and cream. Tea and coffee was readily available. It was a most

impressive spread. It had all been done on the premises. The Governor told

us he has accommodation for 40 trainee prison officers. He recently

commissioned 20 and he presently has about 13. A number of persons who

start on the course do not complete it. They are hoping they will have another

20 starting shortly. When I queried the demand for prison officers, he said

there was a continuous demand because there was so much wastage due to

retirement. So despite cutbacks this training college will be in action for many

years to come. Then we went to a magnificent indoor sports hall where the

Director General of the Prison Service spoke about "the compassionate ideal

of the Prison Service"! Then other speakers spoke about the courses which

had been provided and how the standards of hygiene and food presentation

and diets had all been very substantially improved after consultation with

various experts, staff and prisoners. After more tea and refreshment we left in

a midsummer deluge for Dublin.

The Visiting Committees

A Quaker lady and the Catholic chaplain were extremely concerned about the

aftercare of prisoners so they founded an organisation called PACE

(Prisoners Aftercare Community Effort). I immediately joined it. They

purchased a house in the country called Priorswood. It is now a part of the

new suburb of Coolock. That was over 55 years ago.

On behalf of the organisation I visited Mountjoy and St. Patrick's regularly to

interview potential clients who were anxious to have shelter when they left,

and would try to reintegrate into normal society.

The then Minister for Justice wrote to PACE and asked them to nominate

suitable persons to serve on the visiting committee of St. Patrick's. Two

names were sent forward. The official in charge of prisons knew the other

nominee so I was appointed! The Visiting Committee now operates under the

1925 Visiting Committees Rules (they, of course, are out of print and out of

date). In answer to a 1947 Prison Rules Dail question the current Minister

stated in January 2004 a list of ancillary documents in which he was

concerned. Number one was the new "Prison Rules". Some members of the

POA complain that while most of the Rules are inapplicable they are still used

occasionally to deal with allegedly unruly behaviour of the POA. As I have

already indicated in previous annual reports the Visiting Committee powers

(such as they were) are gone because of alleged "conflict of interest". The

Minister explained to the CPT that now all Chairpersons of Visiting

Committees would meet to discuss matters of mutual concern and that there

could be an appeal from any decision of the Governor in accordance "with the

Rules". That is Section 19 of the 1997 Act. Of course, there are no rules

under that Act.

Visiting Committees used to visit some other prison in the system to compare

conditions with what occurred in their prison. This has also been abolished.

Most prisoners don't know about the Visiting Committee or what, if any,

powers they have. Certainly people aren't appealing decisions of the

Governor. Frequently the punishment is inflicted and served before the

matter could even get to a Visiting Committee. However, if and when it gets to

that body, there is absolutely nothing they can do. They can, of course,

record it in their minutes. The reports (which would include minutes of the

Visiting Committees under the 1925 Act) are available free from the

Department. In other words the media or any citizen could apply for the

reports which would include the minutes of the meetings of the Visiting

Committee. They make most interesting reading. The Minister who

appointed me also appointed a few other people. We were shocked to find

that in previous years the Visiting Committee concentrated on two points in

their reports. Firstly they congratulated the Governor on the garden (such as

it is!) and the Chaplain on the great attendance at the annual retreat. We set

up a subcommittee to revise the rules and to give the Visiting Committees

more powers. We wrote to the Northern Ireland Office, the British Home

Office and the Cambridge Institute of Criminology. All of them replied and

were very helpful. We wrote to our own Department and they did not even

reply. Under the Act persons can be appointed for one to three years.

However we were appointed for just one year and always towards the end of

May postdated to the 1st January. This effectively meant that the prison was

without any Visiting Committee for five months each year.

We sent our suggested amended Rules to the Minister (which the Department

should still have). I waited until May and then went to St. Patrick's expecting

that I had been re-appointed for the year from the previous January. However

a very embarrassed Governor told me that I had not been re-appointed and

indeed none of the people on the subcommittee had been re-appointed. The

Catholic Chaplain was also removed. He unfortunately was not allowed to go

into the Institution to collect his papers or his coat. He was informed that his

successor would bring them out to him. I was distressed because I was

appointed by a charity in which I was deeply involved, namely PACE. (The

Headquarters of PACE was rent free for years, in my home.) I went to the

Minister. He didn't even realise that I had been dropped. I was re-appointed.

The other members of the Committee who had been dropped just shrugged

their shoulders and said "so be it". One went on to be a Chairperson of RTE

and the Catholic Chaplain went on to be a Bishop. I remained on the

committee until my appointment to the High Court Bench.

As Lord Acton once famously remarked:- "Power tends to corrupt and

absolute power corrupts absolutely." The obsession of some few in the

Department to adhere to the principle of POWER, CONTROL AND

SECRECY is long established. Indeed, if one looks at Dickens, Volume 1

Chapter 10 " of "Little Dorrit" one sees the importance to a Government of the

"Department of Circumlocution". Nothing can be done unless it goes through

appropriate channels. On another occasion the Visiting Committees had to

produce three years' annual reports over a weekend because of threatened

legal action by a politician. The same politician wanted to see some reports.

The Superintendent of Prisons directed the Governor of Mountjoy to allow this

man in to see them but they were to be on the wall quite high up and he was

not allowed to bring in a camera or a recorder or to take notes. That

unfortunate gentleman is now a spokesperson on Justice for an opposition

party in the Dail. It is with that background and experience that I make the

suggestion that an external qualified body report on the structure of the Prison

Service. No one can defend the fact that we have more prison officers than

prisoners. Some of the overtime payments problems are allegedly resolved.

However I can see very stormy seas ahead. In St. Patrick's the decision is "a

disaster". However the same can be said about other aspects of the prisons.

There are extremely dedicated and devoted people working in the prison

service and who believe in openness, transparency, efficiency and

accountability. That should be the real motto of the Prison Service. In the

annual report of the Prison Board they attempt to justify the large numbers in

the administration and point out that other countries have a high ratio. I

wonder who actually wrote that and why? The Prison Board are clearly in

favour of building the bureaucracy and increasing the cost of the Prison

Service.

Why should anyone oppose an independent inspection by a qualified

organisation into the cost of the prison service including the ever-growing

bureaucracy? They accept there will be an increase. 120 were to be

transferred to Longford. It has now reached 159. I may be wrong in my

reading of the situation: however the argument put forward by the prison

board in their annual report is not very convincing. As a senior official

explained to me when I was questioning the cost of each prison place, in

Loughan House it is €54,000; in Portlaoise it is quarter of a million euro per

prisoner per year. However it was explained to me that part of the cost of

headquarters is included in all of these figures and one must look at them with

some question marks in one's mind. He pointed out that there were "lies,

damn lies, and statistics". Take one example. In one country in Europe a

prison officer works 48 hours and in another country a prison officer works

only 35 hours. Normally they are not comparable. Also I pointed out that it is

ridiculous to send senior officials right around the world. If you are extremely

senior you must travel first class (if available). Members of the Oireachtas go

steerage and until recently so did judges. However, efficient businesses in

the real world now do consultations by videolink. Junkets can be given as a

reward for successful incentives. In England private prisons are some of the

best in the country and are cheaper to run. However the English Prison

Service now (having a competitor) have to bid. They have won back at least

one prison from the private sector. Nat urally the present beneficiaries of our

present system will oppose any alteration to it or even an independent

examination of it.

However, it will be depending on the Government whether we will need more

prisons, more prison officers and more general prison staff and, of course,

another board above the prison board, like in England, "a correctional board".

We have a large number of civil servants and a few public servants who want

to move to Longford. However, of the existing employees only 37 will be

moving. The others will presumably move into other departments. People

from the other departments who will want to go to Longford will be moved into

the Department of Justice and will thereby be "deemed" to be experts on

prisons. As already pointed out, none of the seven directors originally

appointed had any prison experience. The prison board seem to be all in

favour of empire building and expansion. The Government has to make up its

mind as to the direction of penal sanctions in the future. Do we go the English

American route or the Nordic route?

10.

DO PRISONS WORK?

The British Tory Party leader Michael Howard when he was Home Secretary

said, "Prisons work." All politicians in England and Ireland seem to agree that

"prisons work". However that is simply not true. It works for some. 70% of

the people going into Mountjoy will re-offend. The Governor there states that

he has three generations one after the other coming to stay as his guests.

There are such things as criminal families. Of course, people who have

suffered at the hands of criminals want to see them punished. That is

perfectly reasonable and understandable. If your bedroom is burgled you can

not re-enter the room without a shudder. One feels somehow violated. If

there were physical damage such as personal injury it is certainly something

you will never forget. Many people who have suffered would like to see the

miscreant locked away forever. In the old days people exulted when criminals

were thrown to the lions or bears or were hanged, drawn and quartered.

Several Chinese officials when I was visiting prisons in that great country told

me that the public demand the death penalty. If Ireland follows the tradition in

England and the United States of America we will want more prisons, more

staff and naturally several layers of bureaucracy. However, if 70% do not

learn from prison and become good citizens, it seems a terrible waste of

money. I would certainly not recommend it.

What is the alternative? Reduce the number of people in prison. Allow the

Probation Service to be totally independent of the Prison Service and allow it

and the judiciary and the lawyers involved to try alternatives. They have been

frequently extremely successful. They have 70 or more different activities.

They are much more effective than prisons and much more cost effective. It

costs far less for community service or some other routine. The Probation

Service should cease to be subservient to the Department. They depend on a

totally inadequate 1907 Act. They should be in competition with the Prison

Service and they should let the public know of the work that they do. I am not

suggesting that the prisons should be abolished but the intake of prisoners

can be substantially reduced. Judges should explain why (if prison is the last

resort) it is used in each case. Short sentences do not help rehabilitation. The

cost to the taxpayer is enormous and will continue to rise with no great

results. The present Minister is one of the few "hands on" Ministers in the

history of the State. He has pointed out that he has produced a huge raft of

legislation. Indeed far more than his predecessors. However, he seems

particularly slow in grasping the nettle of making my office independent totally

and making the Probation and Welfare service a separate body with its own

inspectorate, and giving over at least one prison to a private profit/making

company, and substantially reducing the bringing of prisoners to courts

instead of using the videolink. If they must go to Court he should get the

contract price from a private security firm. It may be better value and will

provide equal security to that of the present prison service. All of the above

suggestions will be opposed with varying degrees of intensity by various

vested interests.

The visiting committees should be brought up to full strength and given real

powers. They should all be living within 50 kilometres of the inspected

Institution. However, we are now mercifully in the age of accountability. Every

bureaucratic organisation starting with the United Nations and working

downwards are finding it essential to be "open, efficient and accountable" and

that "power, control and secrecy" should be gone forever.

11.

Prisons Headquarters

Joe O'Keffee TD asked the Minister about "the position in relation to the

proposed transfer of the Headquarters of the Prison Service to Longford, the

present staff numbers involved in Headquarters, the number who have

indicated a wish to relocate to Longford and the arrangements in place for a

building in Longford to house the service". He got a written reply dated 9th

November 2004 as follows:- "As announced by my colleague the Minister for

Finance, on 3rd December 2003 the Irish Prison Service Headquarters will be

decentralised to Longford. It is anticipated that up to 178 jobs currently

assigned to various Dublin locations including 130 staff of the Prison Service

employed at its current Headquarters together with other elements of prison

management including the building services, purchasing services and a

number of contract IT support staff will decentralise. The legal formalities

relating to the acquisition from Longford County Council of the site selected

for a new headquarters building are nearing completion. Based on the

decentralisation central applications facility (CAF) data, 17th November 2004,

37 employees of the Irish Prison Service together with another 8 civil servants

and 5 public servants have nominated Longford as their first preference for

relocation.

As the deputy is aware the CAF continues to be open for the receipt of

applications until such time as the decentralisation programme has been

implemented in full".

12.

The McBride Report

A commission of inquiry into the Irish penal system was set up by the

Prisoners' Rights Organisation and the Irish Jesuits. It was a commission to

inquire into the Irish penal system. It was chaired by Mr Sean McBride and

the editor of the report was the Rev. Micheal MacGreil, S.J., Ph. D., a lecturer

in Sociology at St. Patrick's College, Maynooth. It was published in November

1980. Sean McBride was a former Minister of External Affairs. He was also

formerly a Secretary General of the International Commission of Jurists. He

was President of the International Peace Bureau of Geneva,

recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize (1974) and the Lenin Peace Prize (1977)

and of the American Medal of Justice (1978).

Co-chairman of the public areas was Dr. Louk Hulsman, Professor of

Criminology in the University of Erasmus, Holland, and Chairman of the

Committee on Decriminalisation of the Council of Europe. The members of

the commission were :-

Michael D Higgins, Chairman of the Labour Party and Lecturer in Sociology

University College, Galway; Senator Gemma Hussey, member of Seanad

Eireann and representing the National University of Ireland constituency;

Michael Keating TD, Fianna Gael spokesman on Human Rights and Law

Reform and former chairman of the Visiting Committee of St Patrick's

Institution 1974 - 1978;

Dr. Mary McAleese, Professor of Criminal Law at Trinity College, Dublin, and

member of current affairs programming of RTE and now the President of

Ireland;

Patrick McEntee then and now a leading Senior Counsel at the Irish Bar

specialising in Criminal Law.

Rev. Dr. Micheal MacGreil SJ, Lecturer in Sociology at St. Patrick's College,

Maynooth, and Vice-President of the National Youth Council of Ireland and

the editor of the report;

Matt Merrigan, General Secretary of the amalgamated Transport and General

Workers Union and President of the Socialist Labour Party;

Muireann O'Briain Barrister at Law and secretary of the Association of Irish

Jurists;

Mrs Una O'Higgins O'Malley, Solicitor, Council member of the Glencree

Reconciliation Centre; Independent Human Rights Dail candidate;

Catriona Lawlor, Secretary of the Commission, subsequently the public voice

of the Irish branch of Amnesty International.

There had been growing concern in Ireland about the increasing number of

prisoners and the increasing cost. It queried:- "Is this vast expenditure

serving any useful purpose or is it merely perpetuating a system which breeds

recidivism?"

(emphasis added by the Inspector)

It asks:- "What should be the objective of our prison system? Retribution?

Punishment? Reform? Rehabilitation? Reint egration into society? Is custodial

incarceration the most effective form of treatment? Would community service

not be more effective and less wasteful? "These are some of the questions

which the members of the commission have sought to examine. It is not

claimed that we have found solutions for the many problems that beset our

penal system. Many of them arise from structural defects in our society -

poverty, unemployment, bad housing, lack of parental responsibility. Others

arise from moral, physical, or educational handicaps affecting some would be

offenders. Whatever the causes, society has a duty to attempt to rehabilitate

and so reintegrate into society those who have transgressed its rules. It

should also be remembered that prevention is better than cure.

"We have sought I trust with objectivity and in a constructive spirit to analyse

the problems involved and suggested some remedies."

I hope that the Government will receive this report as a serious contribution to

the solution of what is a grave problem. We had hoped that the Minister for

Justice and the Commissioner of the Gardai would have been prepared to

meet with the Commission to discuss the problems under examination. They

both declined.

The Commission held 21 meetings. Over 50 submissions were made to the

Commission from experts and other persons in a position to provide relevant

information. A major contributor was Dr. Mary Robinson, subsequently

President of Ireland and more recently Commissioner of Human Rights in the

United Nations. The correspondence between the Chairman and the Minister

and the Commissioner of the Gardai is appended to the report of the McBride

Commission which gave a history of the establishment by the PRO and by

the Jesuits of the Commission. They had finished their hearings and were

considering their conclusions but would like to obtain the personal views of

the Minister who has been dealing with these many problems. The meeting

was to be confidential and informal. After the initial letter dated the 1st May

the then Minister of Justice replied on the 5th May 1980 as follows: "Perhaps

you would let me know to whom your commission is to report and what is its

terms of reference are and what precisely are the "problems" to which you

refer. I would also be interested in knowing what persons or bodies have

given evidence and whom you would have in mind to look for evidence from.

What kind of a meeting do you envisage? Do you perceive it as being

measurably in weeks or merely in hours? Would you envisage meeting, for

example basic grade of prison staff and specialist staff such as welfare staff

and teacher" Mr McBride replied on the 19th May 1980.

A brief summary of the high points of that letter are as follows:-

"The Commission in the first instance will address its report to you, to the

Minister for Health, the Minister for Education and to the Prisoners' Rights

Organisation. The terms of reference to the Commission were as indicated in

my letter of the 1st May.

As to the problems which the Commission has been addressing, they are

many and I feel certain they are already well known to you. They have

frequently been discussed in the press and have been the subject of many

representations to the Government and its agencies from numerous non-

governmental organisations.

In brief the major problem is the escalation in offences being committed in our

society, the effectiveness or inadequacy of the rehabilitation process, and, in

particular, the problems arising from juvenile delinquency. There is, as you

are no doubt aware, some considerable doubt as the effectiveness of the

existing methods for dealing with offenders..... At the moment we are not

contemplating inviting any other persons to give evidence or make

submissions to the Commission other than your goodself and the

Commissioner of the Gardai and such other officials or prison staff as you

might care to suggest...... I do not expect it (the meeting) would take more

than half a day or an evening. It would be for the purpose of discussing with

you informally and confidentially possible remedies to the problems which

undoubtedly exist. The aim of the Commission is to try and find constructive

solutions to some of the problems which exist. It is not the aim of the

Commission to indulge in destructive criticism. Therefore the Commission

would greatly welcome any views or advice which you might be able to give to

the Commission in regard to all or any of the problems under consideration".

That information was provided in a subsequent letter by Mr. McBride. Finally

on the 25th June 1981 the Minister replied:- " I have your further letter. I was

interested in the information given by you in reply to my queries as to whom

the commission is to report and as to those who have given evidence.

I do not wish by agreeing to any of your suggestions to be put in a position of

appearing to give some form of official approval for an exercise prompted by

the organisation referred to in your reply and to which the Commission intends

to report".

The Garda Commissioner wrote on the 30th May:- "As Commissioner of An

Garda Siochana and with responsibility for law enforcement it does not come

within my area of competence to discuss or otherwise comment on the prison

system or the treatment of prisoners. Accordingly I don't feel that it is

appropriate that I or any of my officers should attend as requested by your

letter."

The Commission therefore got no assistance from the Department or An

Gardai, although it was a very responsible body. In the report the introduction

states: "The laws of society are for the most part the expression of the

dominant group. This inevitably leads to the existence of subcultures i.e

groups whose values or norms are at variance with the dominant group. A

high proportion of offenders are likely to come from such subcultures.

Therefore the existence of a normally high crime rate amongst the members

of a particular group may be due more to a failure in education and learning

than to an innate propensity for crime or even behaviour in the group. This

failure is often due to social, cultural, and familiarised economic deprivation;

such deprivation is ultimately the responsibility of society as a whole."

However the McBride Report did get extensive coverage in the media. It is

still well worth reading and there is a great deal of useful discussion on all

alternatives to prison and on rehabilitation and restitution. I recommend that

the Minister and the Department, the Prison Board, the Prison Service and the

media should read it.

The attitude of the Minister and of his officials is possibly understandable in

that they regarded the Prisoners' Rights Organisation as being subversive.

Perhaps they may have the same view of the Jesuits! However it confirms

the view that they were obsessed with "power control and secrecy". However

two years later they set up the Whittaker Commission. It had an equally good

list of Commissioners. They made a report which was made public. Some of

the recommendations have been implemented. Others such as the

suggestion that St. Patrick's should be closed down and that no amount of

money should be spent on it to improve it because it was basically inadequate

and could not be improved and should be closed were ignored.

Dr Whitaker and Mr. Justice Henchy tell me that this official commission was

badly treated by the then Minister and his Department and that a helpful

official was punished and penalised. Other significant reports which should

be considered were the Costello Report and the O'Briain J. Report and a

report of 1946 which was published by four member of the Labour Party and

is very depressing. (Report on Certain Aspects of Prison Conditions in

Portlaoise Convict Prison 1946) This visit was permitted by the Minister.

After the publications the rules were updated or replaced by the Government

with Prison Rules 1947 - still in force but most are obsolete and seldom fully

enforced. A departmental committee was set up in 1964 under the

chairmanship of the Department of Justice to enquire into prevention of crime

and punishment. It was never published.

13.

The CONNECT Project

The CONNECT project was launched with great publicity a few years ago. I

was very concerned about the CONNECT project. This had huge potential.

It was set up in a blaze of publicity. The National Training and Development

Institute (NTDI) was an integral part of CONNECT. Apparently €60 million

was being provided by the EU. I do not know how much if anything was drawn

down out of this €60 million allocated by the EU or how it was spent. The EU

were responsible for the first two years and then under the National

Development Plan it was to be €47 million p.a. from the State. The NTDI have

withdrawn completely from the CONNECT project. It was to spread to all

other prisons by the end of 2003. There were a number of very dedicated

people who believed in its potential and worked hard to make it flower. The

CONNECT Project is still working in a restricted way in the Dochas and also

very well in the Training Unit and is "sort of starting" in Limerick. Interestingly

enough in the annual report of the Prison Service it is not mentioned at all. It

was a great idea. It was greeted with great enthusiasm and was to spread

through the entire service by the end of 2003 but now it is being "forgotten". I

think one is entitled to ask why. What has happened to Connect? What

happened to this money? How was it spent? If not spent, where is it? This

might usefully be a subject of a report on my recommendation by an external

body which should investigate the whole of the prison costs and staffing and

waste of money (if any) A similar scheme in England and Wales is called PS

plus. It is an employment project funded by the European Social Fund and

the Prison Service. It helps prisoners to get employment, training, education

and accommodation on release: "UNLOCK your potential DISCOVER your

future".

Recently CONNECT has reached Limerick. It is established but is not yet

fully "up and running". I deal with it in a report on my revisit to Limerick which

has not yet been sent to the Minister.

It is interesting that many of the recommendations that I have made are

duplicated in the report of the Catholic chaplains and in the reports of the

various visiting committees. However the Prison Service in their annual report

seemed to ignore both of them. I am flattered that they have given my report

such attention but sad that they have ignored these excellent, independent

assessments of the prisons and their problems.

14.

Videolinking

Mrs Justice Denham of the Supreme Court chaired a committee to advise the

Government on Videolinking. The Commission came out very strongly in

favour of it. I, as Inspector of Prisons, attended the handing over of the

Commission's Report by Mrs. Justice Denham to the Minister. The Minister

was very supportive of the idea. It will certainly reduce the cost of escorting

people to courts. It also means that vulnerable people such as minors do not

have to undergo the trauma of appearing in court. It is planned in the

immediate future to expand videolinking to key centres of population. This is

to be encouraged. It can be used not merely for court appearances but also

for interviews between clients and their lawyers. It already exists in Cloverhill

Remand Prison. This is a great achievement. It should be very cost effective

and reduce trauma. My first case as a High Court Judge was where a minor

client made a complaint of sexual assault. Counsel for the Defendant insisted

that his client was entitled to meet his accuser "eyeball to eyeball". I queried

the accuracy of that statement. I suggested that blind people would not have

that option. However I followed a dissenting judgment of the American

Supreme Court. With the assistance of the Bar I investigated how the system

worked. I was horrified to find that it was defective. Firstly the child was

brought into a friendly room with a friendly female court usher. There were

bean bags and toys of various description in the room. In the corner was a

soundproof chamber or cell from which the complainant could be seen in the

court by the jury, the judge, the accused and the lawyers involved. However

the lawyers and myself found out that the transmission did not show the whole

of the little cell and that it would be quite possible for a prompter or any even

innocent person to be hidden totally out of sight inside that private cell. Also it

was not soundproofed so the conversation of officials in the main room could

clearly be heard in the court room. I made inquiries and had evidence that in

fact officials travelled around the world to get the most perfect equipment.

The one in Dublin was an amalgamation from three continents! In my written

judgment I suggested that in future the lawyers should test out the videolink

before they consent to its use in a trial. Initially there will be a pilot project

videoconferencing in five courts in four prisons. The five courts are to be the

Central Criminal Court in Dublin, a High Court in Dublin, Cloverhill

Courthouse, a Circuit Court in Dublin and a District Court in Cork. The

prisons are Cloverhill Remand Prison, Limerick Prison, Cork Prison and

Castlerea Prison.

15.

The Method of Inspection of Individual Institutions.

After I inspect a prison I send my report firstly to the Governor. After a short

period I return to the prison and ensure that the figures and facts are correct.

They do not enter into a discussion on what future plans may be or indeed

into any of my conclusions or recommendations. My report is suppose to be a

snapshot of what I and my team found at the time of our inspection. This is

then proofread and then sent to the Minister. He should put it on the Internet

not later than six weeks after he receives it. It is intended that he should use

that time to prepare a demurrer or riposte. The report and the demurrer or

riposte (if any) should be put on to the Internet within six weeks of the receipt

of the report by the Minister. It should not (as happened with the Castlerea

Report) take longer than six weeks, without the consent of the Inspector. It

cannot be altered by the Minister, or any, member of his staff, without the

consent of the Inspector and only then for security reasons. In England the

annual report of HM Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales is presented

pursuant to Act Eliz. II 1952 S5A(5) to The House of Commons who order it

to be printed and it is published from the stationery Office in London. The

statement of purpose in the English annual report is as follows:- "To provide

independent scrutiny of the conditions for and treatment of prisoners and

other detainees, promoting the concept of healthy prisons where staff work

effectively to support prisoners and detainees to reduce re-offending and to

achieve other agreed outcomes."

16.

Visit to Prison

I welcome independent qualified people who will give of their services to the

Inspectorate. A newcomer to the team is expected to attend for a least one

day and preferably one more for an inspection. He/she will soon get the feel of

the inspection. Primarily the Inspector has to investigate all aspects of the

prison. However he is not allowed to take up individual cases. Normally he

and some of his team get briefed by the Governor and interview any prisoners

who wish to see him. However it must be explained to prisoners that the

Inspector cannot take up the cudgels of a particular prisoner about his

particular grievances. He must inspect the education, welfare, medical

(including dental) facilities and the persons who provide them and the

chaplains and the P.O.A. and any other persons and premises that he/she

deems appropriate. The team will enjoy the same lunch as the prisoners are

getting on the day of the visitation. The team will inspect the entire premises

and pay particular regard to welfare and safety and fire precautions. The new

inspector can be allocated the notetaking in relation to a particular person or

group and is required to produce a short statement of the main points raised

during the interview. If the new inspector feels that he/she has a special

expertise, he/she should request the inspector to allow them to deal with

particular aspects of the inspection. The Inspector or his special adviser,

Governor Woods, are available at all times during the inspection to assist new

inspectors to understand their role and assist them in achieving their goals.

17.

Money has been wasted

Planning seems to be "ad hoc". It is essential that the Minister and his

mandarins produce a minimal 10-year plan rather than ministers raising a folly

in the grounds of Cork Prison by a now useless 5 million euro-costing wall.

There are many examples. Another one that comes to mind is "Chateau

Kelly" which has never been fully used in St. Patrick's Institution. There

seems to be no real forward planning. The poor tax-payer will continue to pay

for these "white elephants" accompanied by burgeoning expensive pyramid-

building bureaucracy. There has to be an independent, detailed and urgent

assessment of "the huge prison budget". We must progressively get rid of the

old idea of power, control and secrecy. That should be replaced totally by

openness, transparency, accountability and efficiency.

Cork Prison is on a fine site on one of the hills on which Cork is built.

However it is blatantly over-crowded. Slopping out in this day and age is

demeaning to everyone involved.

I have strongly urged that a bridge be built to Spike Island. I am glad to see

that in a reply to a question the Minister states that his officials are talking with

the Board of Works. They should also be talking with the County Council and

the Harbour Board. The matter should be given priority for any proper ten-

year plan.

However the money spent on Cork may not be totally wasted. It could be

retained as a remand prison. It is easy to access prisoners. Their families,

solicitors, and police can visit the prison. When many of the prisoners are

from Cork City, it will be a long journey from Cork through Ringaskiddy to

(Spike) Fort Mitchel.

What I have described as "the folly" (that's namely the 5 million euro wall)

might in fact be useful. The prison should be much smaller than it presently

is. There is no justification for its present appalling existence which demeans

the prisoners and those who work there. It is a disaster. The site could be

used for a juvenile prison (as long as there is space for playing games) or a

remand prison or a female prison. In other words it should be used but for a

far smaller group of prisoners. I also hope that the bridge to Spike will be

expedited as the potential there is enormous. I do not believe that "big" is

necessarily better and it might be possible to develop different types of

prisons on that island. It certainly has great potential.

I am gravely concerned about the allegations made particularly against the

G.P in Cork Prison. I feel that the head of the medical services in the IPS

should discuss his alleged attitude to prisoners with him. The Governor is

pleased with the service he provides. None of the prisoners who spoke to us

spoke well of him. Patients must have faith in their doctor.

I was gravely concerned about the injuries to a man in "D" wing of Cork

Prison. The Gardai were requested to investigate this matter by the Visiting

Committee at my suggestion. Investigations of allegations by prisoners

should not be carried out by the Department or the IPS (see quotation in

appended article by Fr. Peter McVerry, S.J.). They should not be judges, in

their own cases. I was informed that he did not wish to speak to the Gardai

when they arrived to interview him.

I was informed that the new prison rules will apparently be available "before

Christmas 04". I have a set of the earlier ones but have not as yet been

consulted about how the draft might be. Under my so-called contract I do

have an interest so far as the rules deal with Visiting Committees and the

Inspector (if they do!) As a matter of great urgency the Inspectorate should

be set up as a separate body as recommended in my two previous annual

reports and in the various reports and in the submissions to the CPT in

Strasbourg by the Irish Government and their own programme for

Government.

I hope when this report is published (if it is) that all the reports I have done on

prisons and places of detention are available and can be downloaded from

the Department's website. "Prisoners have no rights," said a famous Minister.

Now they have but I am forbidden to look after their interests. The officials

look after all problems. There should be a Prisoners' Ombudsman who

should be an independent lawyer just as they now have in Northern Ireland.

I have drafted a bill which is included in my second just published report. I

would amend it by requiring my annual report be made not to the Minister but

to the Oireachtas as was done with the Travers Report.

18.

Individual Inspections

St. Patrick's Institution

There was a borstal in Clonmel. As far as I know it was run by the

Department of Education. Young men were sentenced there for a minimum

of two years and a maximum of four years. One famous judge described it as

providing a good secondary education at no cost to parents. That was

certainly the intention though I think it was far from the reality. However it was

closed and the inmates transferred to the former female prison in Mountjoy. It

was called an Institution so that no one need say they were in prison.

However it is a prison in every way. The distinction is merely semantic. At

the time of my inspection the boys were aged between 17 and 20 and it could

take boys up to the age of 21. When I was on the visiting committee in 1970

there were 18 workshops including an excellent workshop where boys were

taught to be mechanics and where the officers had their cars serviced. Also

boys were taught how to drive and some of them passed their driving test

which enabled them to drive. Some of them still do drive heavy lorries from

Dublin as far as Moscow. There were 18 workshops. Now because of

cutbacks there are NONE. There are plans to open two. It will be better than

nothing. To leave young men locked up for seventeen or eighteen hours by

themselves in their respective cells (admittedly with television) and then leave

them with nothing to do is a recipe for disaster. It certainly does nothing to

rehabilitate them. It certainly punishes them. They walk around dreary yards

and there is a great deal of bullying and assaults amongst themselves. It

almost certainly ensures that they will graduate to Mountjoy Prison within a

short time of their release. The Minister and the Oireachtas should be

ashamed of treating our young citizens in this way which ensures they will

never be rehabilitated.

Part of the ad hoc and knee jerk reaction of the Minister and his Department

has resulted in a colourful new building which is in an open space in St.

Patrick's. I nicknamed it "Chateau Kelly" after a High Court Judge who was

rightly appalled at there being no place for young persons who are out of

control. To put such an institution into a prison seems the height of bad

planning. However it was built and will now never be used for the purpose for

which it was built and this is another example of bad forward planning. It cost

€11 million. I recommend that St. Patrick's should be destroyed immediately.

The Whittaker report pointed out 20 years ago that it was totally unsuitable

and that no money spent on it would be justified because it was incapable of

being a juvenile prison. However one must accept that it exists. Apparently it

is planned as a separate institution (at the proposed new prison on a

greenfield site). It should not be in a prison. It should not be run by Justice

but by the Department of Education. The aim should be minimum time in cell

and the rest of the time in fresh air, exercise and serious and prolonged

rehabilitative education and work. As it presently stands it is an indictment of

the Irish people. However the staff are undoubtedly very dedicated and work

hard with the tools with which society (through the Minister and his officials)

have provided. The full report on the visitation which took place from the

15th-19th November 2004 can be downloaded under the Department of

Justice, Equality and Law Reform under the heading "publications". In

summary, it should be replaced immediately. Until that is feasible workshops

should be provided immediately. "Idleness" should be abolished. Remand

prisoners should be kept separate from convicted inmates. There should be

immediate and total separation. All new committals should be interviewed by

the head teacher or someone acting on his behalf to make them aware of the

educational facilities available and to establish the educational requirements

for new arrivals. Many children both inside and outside of St. Patrick's do not

like school and do not want to go to school. However young prisoners should

be given an inducement such as a small daily honorarium or even a reduction

in their sentence to get them to follow a planned rehabilitative course. To get

rid of illiteracy may require almost certainly one-to-one teaching.

Staff refresher training in B.A and C & R should be undertaken as a matter of

urgency and the instructors recertified so as to enable them to give

instructions in these particular areas. Emergency exit signs and assembly

point signs should be erected in the appropriate locations. The management

and staff should be more actively involved in the elimination of bullying and

harassment amongst the inmates. The current Minister may blame his

dispute with POA for the retrograde steps which he has taken but the result is

that St. Patrick's is now nothing but a "warehouse". The inmates will naturally

deteriorate in such a system. Additional facilities coming on stream next year

may be a benefit to the Institution; however, these promised extra facilities are

dependent on approval of additional funding plus agreement from the POA. I

agree with Whittaker. St. Patrick's should be closed and no more money be

wasted on it.

I am also concerned about the number of prisoners who appear on (P.19)

reports for smuggling drugs or similar offences. While the standard of

hygiene is good and the inside of the Institution was also acceptable, the

exercise yards are very dull and dreary. I want to thank the Governor and all

the staff without exception for being receptive, helpful and courteous. I also

want to thank the outside consultants for giving time and expertise and

insights. They include of course my special adviser, former Governor Jim

Woods, Professor William Binchy, Dr. Maurice Manning, President of the

Commission of Human Rights, Dr. Owen Carey and Mr. Patrick Keane, S.C.

19.

Recommendations arising from the revisit of Limerick Prison on the

17th and 18th February 2004

The Inspector has already inspected and reported on Limerick Prison. The

reader should download and read this report. This revisit report is also on the

Internet and the Visiting Committee is quoted extensively in relation to a

number of problems. The Visiting Committee are obviously very active within

their extremely restricted remit. They are very concerned that no new

members have been appointed to replace those who have completed their

terms of office. The explanation given to them is that the Minister is going to

revise the law regarding visiting committees. However in the opinion of the

Inspector this is a matter of great urgency. The reasoning behind the

furthering restriction by Section 19 of the 1997 Act about the Visiting

Committee allegedly because of "a conflict of interest" is not tenable. The

Visiting Committee should be given far more extensive powers and more

heed paid to their reports. They should be an effective watchdog with real

powers. I repeat; there should be a lawyer (not from the Civil Service)

Ombudsman for prisoners immediately.

The major change on entering Limerick Prison from our previous full

inspection is the new "C" wing which has just been commissioned. On our

last full visit it was merely a building site surrounded by hoarding. The newly

rebuilt wing appears to be built to a high standard and gives a good

impression of the prison on entering from the main gate area. The removal of

the temporary office accommodation and the installation of the proposed

water feature will further add to its appearance.

There were nine recommendations made arising from the first inspection and

on this inspection three had been fully implemented i.e. additional punch

bags, bullying being kept under review by the Governor and fire drill training

exercises. They are working on facilities for visitors arriving early to protect

them from the rain for which Limerick is notorious, while the expansion of the

library area providing a new medical area with waiting room and extra

educational facilities within the one area hopefully will be provided with the

proposed new wing but this apparently could take another two years before

completion. I will be doing a short revisit in the near future. The value for

vouchers for work done above the norm has not been unified across the

services by headquarters. The psychiatric care is still not on a par with that

provided in the general community. This is sad because if you cross Gaol-

house Lane you reach the regional mental hospital. The report of the visiting

committee is cited in full on this revisit and I am also really concerned about

the lack of structure, particularly in dealing with the drug problem.

The conclusion of the full inspection report highlighted some concerns such

as the design of the dignity screen in the cells of the female prisoners which

has not changed. The Visiting Committee members and the Probation and

Welfare staff now meet, which had not happened previously. In fact I

introduced them to each other during the formal visit. The food served to

prisoners is now distributed on delph plates as I had criticised the paper

plates which they had previously used. Refurbishment work on C & E gate

lodge is now almost completed. The staff morale does not appear to have

improved and may have got worse with the budgetary cutbacks and the

uncertainty of their future role within the service. A number of staff are

seconded from Fort Mitchel hopefully temporarily.

The business plans for this prison for the years 2001 to 2003 contain 26

targets outlined from 2.1 to 28.1 and from these 15 were completed on time

and targets met. Four were partly completed while seven others were not

reached.

This highlights a practically universal practice of outlining targets, setting time

scales and completion dates on a considerable number of issues which have

not been reached. So realistic targets should be set and those responsible for

their implementation should show reasons as to why such is not happening. If

targets are not met, business plans are a waste of time and energy and

money and can only be justified under a branch of "Parkinson's Law". The

prison was clean. The newly furbished sections are a wonderful improvement

in the new buildings and there are great plans for future improvements which

is very encouraging. There is an urgent need to refurbish the A & B divisions.

There are concerns regarding the outcome of the industrial relations which

have taken place between the POA and the Minister. In fact the "POA

roadshow" is, I understand, visiting Limerick. It will visit all the prisons and

places of detention and then there will be a ballot. I hope the ballot is decisive

as it will create many problems for the future if it is indecisive. The cutbacks

in the budgetary allowance being implemented at present will have a knock-

on effect on programmes for prisoners which were it to happen would be a

pity. The sooner an agreement is reached the better for all concerned. I want

to thank the Governor and staff for their welcome. The hospitality was much

appreciated also. The proposed agreement with the Minister and the POA

seems to me defective. I see lots of problems even if it is decisively accepted.

I sincerely hope I am wrong.

20.

Revisitation of Portlaoise Prison on 17th and 18th May 2004

Accompanied by former Governor Jim Woods I revisited Portlaoise. The

purpose of the visit was to follow up on points of note and recommendations

made arising from the full inspection of the prison on the 9th - 11th September

2002. It was also to examine any significant changes in the meantime and to

look at the prison's business plans for the years 2001 - 2003 to see if targets

set within them had been achieved or completed. It was not to inspect the

whole regime, facilities, services or management of the prison and the revisit

is not to be taken as a full inspection. The Inspector intends to revisit in a year

or two all prisons and places of detention which have had a full inspection

carried out and to establish if the findings or recommendations of the full

inspection have been ignored or implemented.

The Governor showed us plans for an elaborate new building. A stand alone

prison building which is under the Governor of the Midlands is being

transferred to Portlaoise to which it is in fact closer. A museum is to be

developed. There is now a more satisfactory psychiatric service as Dr. H.

Kennedy, the Director of the Central Mental Hospital has agreed that a

forensic psychiatrist from his staff will provide a service to the prison. Also a

husband-and-wife medical team provide a 24 hour medical cover. There is

now a psychologist one day per fortnight and it is hoped that this will become

a half-day per week service. He is based in Limerick Prison. The Governor

believes that the half-day a week will be sufficient in this prison. It has now

got five qualified state-registered nurses, one of whom was a former medical

orderly. I had recommended an increase to the Probation and Welfare staff.

This has not been implemented. However the Governor says that new

committals are seen by the Probation and Welfare within three days of arrival

at the prison. The Governor was asked about accommodation for prisoners

leaving the prison. It was stated that out of the Governors Fund together with

what they might have earned nobody left without at least €100 at their

disposal. He has also commenced a pre-release course which is run by the

head teacher and is operating successfully. This is a new programme for

prisoners since the last inspection. There are efforts to try to prevent "hooch"

making but it is still being manufactured. No one has ever been hospitalised

from drinking it. Staff are now in the process of receiving hepatitis vaccines.

The treatment is not yet complete but it is on-going. The kitchen has

achieved a hygiene mark for the first time this year. The method of serving

food has also been dramatically changed. There is now a universal 28-day

cycle of menus in all prisons. We then went through all the recommendations

set out in the full formal inspection. There was no progress made and there

was a suggestion that the Irish Prison Service headquarters were to set up a

meeting with other Government agencies responsible for housing and social

welfare issues regarding prisoners' entitlements. This is something which has

concerned me for over 30 years. When Frank Cluskey was Minister of Social

Welfare over thirty years ago he, despite advice from his civil servants that he

couldn't do it provided the dole for every prisoner leaving prison on the day of

his release. When that inspired Minister left, the old regime was restored.

Now we have "an examination of the whole thing in progress". This is

reprehensible. The answer to our recommendation was "no progress made in

this area". We objected to the doctor wasting his time giving out certificates

for runners, toothpaste and duvets. Now the doctor has been relieved of

these duties. They are dealt with directly by management. The doctor can of

course change diet for medical reasons but otherwise diets are the standard

approved for the service. We suggested that an appointment of a

doctor/psychologist, updating of files, and facilities, and supply of medicine at

weekends be expedited immediately. This has all been done. A local doctor

and a psychologist have been appointed and are available. Medicines at the

weekend are available from a local chemist. On-call files are updated.

Medical records system is now on computer. It is operated by nurses or

medical orderlies only. We also asked for a further telephone. An additional

hand phone has become available. The number of prisoners has decreased

since the previous inspection and we were told that the demand for phones is

not so great.

There was a problem with a gate which I suggested should be examined by

the local trades staff. If found faulty it should be replaced. The result was that

an outside contractor renovated the gate and it is now working perfectly.

I recommended that the Irish Prison Service Headquarters address the issue

of prisoners with mental problems being detained in hospital. New

arrangements with the Central Mental Hospital may improve the situation but

they are not up and running yet but should come into operation in the next few

weeks. I recommended that the management have the toilet/shower facilities

in the exercise yard brought up to an acceptable level of hygiene.

Repair/replacement work needs to be carried out immediately. I was informed

that the toilets have been renovated and that the showers are not in use as

the showers in the prison are sufficient. The shower cubicles in the yard are

now permanently closed.

I recommended that Headquarters examine the situation about staff training in

general (especially B.A. Training) in view of the age profile of the staff

involved. The answer is that staff resources did not allow for staff training and

in view of the recent cutbacks the situation is even worse.

I recommended that a decision should be made immediately by the Irish

Prison Service Headquarters concerning the future use of "E" block and if it is

to continue (against my advice) as cellular accommodation that a smoke

extractor system should be installed. I was informed that it was not feasible to

be adopted. The Governor is awaiting a decision from Headquarters this year

regarding its future use.

In view of the age and condition of the prison, consideration should be given

to rebuilding the whole premises. The Inspector strongly recommended the

demolition of the prison. The redevelopment of the prison has recommenced

and is likely to take up to seven years to complete fully.

I recommended that a provision of an adequate and complete CCTV system

immediately. I was told that it is going into the new gate block and being

extended to the various areas within the prison and should be completed

within two years from now (ie 18th May 2004).

The balance of this report on this revisit can be seen if one downloads from

the web from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform under

"publications".

This revisit presented an entirely different scene to our full inspection in

December 2002. There are outside contractors working flat out and much of

the work is on target. The new facility is under the direct sole control of the

contractor and is not due to be handed over to the Prison Authorities until the

work is completed which is expected to be next September or October. I look

forward to my revisit. The handball alley as pointed out in the report is very

important for the many prisoners who feel as strongly about its retention as do

21.

Miscellaneous

During the last year the Secretary General of the Department of Justice,

Equality and Law Reform, Mr. Jim Dalton, resigned on reaching the age of

retirement. I had always assumed that Cork produced all our Senior Civil

Servants. However I was informed by a priest who had taught classics in St.

Brendan's seminary in Killarney that more than half the Secretary Generals in

the Irish Civil Service were graduates of that centre of learning. He described

Tim Dalton as the most brilliant student he had ever had. Also Martin

Mansergh in the "Irish Times" paid a most powerful tribute to the great

contribution he had made in the Irish Peace talks in Northern Ireland. I

certainly wish him a long and healthy and happy retirement. He has been

replaced by the former Director General of the Prison Service, Mr Sean

Aylward, to whom I have written expressing my good wishes. Mr. Dalton will

be a hard act to follow but I wish him well.

I want to thank my small staff who have worked very hard all year. Firstly I

want to thank former Governor Jim Woods who has great insights into prisons

and their workings. He is a superb liaison man.

Ms. Pauline Kearney is my secretary. She is an extremely dedicated hard

working person. She is always a cheerful member of the team. Unfortunately

occasionally she is grossly overworked.

I want to praise my excellent personal assistant Martin McCarthy. Pauline

Kearney and Martin McCarthy have been seconded to my office from the

Courts Service. Martin used to participate in inspections particularly on the

sports side but now has been confined in his duties to being my driver. In

practice he does a great deal of work for me. He is a very loyal and very

good-humoured member of staff and has great diplomatic skills. I am of

course, greatly dependent on volunteers who include Professor William

Binchy of Trinity College Dublin; Dean Caroline Fennell of the Law Faculty of

University College Cork; Professor Paul McCutcheon, Head of the Law

School at Limerick University; Dr. Maurice Manning, President of the Human

Rights Commission; Patrick Keane, Senior Counsel; John Smyth, formerly

Registrar of the Courts of Human Rights in Strasbourg and then Assistant to

the Director General of the Council of Europe; Dr. Owen Carey; Dr. Jim

Ledwith; Dr Anne Smyth; Paul Ward of the University College Law

Department Dublin. I hope that in the coming year that I will have the same

people to help and additional volunteers.

When I emerged one evening from the Training Unit Martin McCarthy told me

that the OECD had been on the phone to know if I would sit as a Judge in

Paris the following week. It was very short notice. However I got Martin

McCarthy to work hard so that I could do some prison work. He immediately

got to work. I would like to thank his Excellency the French Ambassador to

Ireland, M. Fredric Racid Grasset, for his immediate and helpful intervention.

Martin then got in touch with M. Patrice Molle who is Head of the Prisons

Directorate in France and Mde Blandine Froment, Inspector of Prisons, who is

my French equivalent. I got a very warm reception and I hope established a

good friendship with my French equivalent. I am also grateful to the Irish

Ambassador to the OECD, Mr. Rowan, and particularly to his ever cheerful

good-humoured secretary Edel Quinlan. I promised Mde Froment that I would

send her copies of all my reports to date and she will send me her reports.

We are both anxious to have further discussions. She works in the Ministry.

She insists that she is totally independent and is so regarded by the other

people in the Ministry. I met with the Irish Ambassador to the OECD, and

Mde Froment, Inspector of Prisons, Jean Massot President of my Court in the

OECD, Colin McIntosh, the Tribunal Registrar, and Martin McCarthy. We

celebrated St. Patrick's Day at a most informative lunch party. I am in postal

communication with Mde Froment and hope to learn more about the office

and duties of Inspectors of Prisons in other countries. I have received a

number of invitations to visit them but as presently advised I do not have time.

I have chosen to make my so-called "part-time" job one in which I work much

harder than I did on the Bench or at the Bar! We should be tough on crime

but that does not necessarily mean prison.

We should be tough on causes of crime. Abolish poverty would be a fantastic

step forward instead of dividing society into the "haves" and the "have

nothings"! In St. Patrick's many inmates come from Dublin 2, none from

Dublin 4 or 6.

On Thursday the 31st March 2005 an article appeared in the "Irish Times"

written by Liam Reid, political reporter. It is headed "Libel Fears Hold up

Second Report on Prisons". I know that the Minister is anxious to publish my

second annual report. So am I. I have been in correspondence with the

Minister, which correspondence I believed to be confidential. We both wanted

to resolve a perceived problem. However the Minister has now purported to

reveal all. However the information in the article supplied by the Minister is

partially true and in parts is totally wrong. I suggest since he has used our

confidential correspondence that he publish the correspondence in full. The

Department never actually asked me to amend the sections considered

defamatory by the Attorney General. Firstly I do not believe the Attorney

General has found any part defamatory. I suspect he stated that part of the

report could be construed as defamatory. It would of course be a matter for a

jury to decide as to whether in the circumstances it was defamatory or not. I

asked for the opinion of the Attorney General and was refused it for

understandable reasons. I was never asked to consent to the publication of

the report with the sections omitted from it. I did not know what the

corrections would be I did not know who was going to delete the sections. I

did not refuse to agree to the publication of the report with sections omitted

from it because that proposition was never put to me. I did suggest that he

should appoint a "Dr. Bowdler" of his own to "purify" my text. He felt this

would interfere with the independence of my office! He is probably right.

However he suggested that he get an independent senior counsel to prepare

a redraft. I have stated that I will consider a redraft and that I may or may not

sign off on it. I realise that I am the first Inspector of Prisons since 1835. I am

gravely concerned about the independence of my office and certainly my

reports will not be censored just because officials don't like it and threaten to

take proceedings. I told the Minister I would gladly defend any proceedings in

respect of my reports. He has the Department of Finance behind him and I

doubt if the Department of Finance would protect me. I am not even statutory.

However I do understand the attitude of public servants and civil servants who

have been brought up in a protective cocoon for generations and who have

evolved a great deal of power in the Department owing partly to the fact that

most Ministers are part time from remote constituencies. The article

continues:- "An independent barrister has redrafted the sections in question

and Mr. Justice Kinlen is considering the redraft.". He may well be redrafting

the report. I have said that I will consider it but I want to see the case to

Counsel sent to the Senior Counsel. It is essential to know the question

before you read the answer. Since I wrote that letter I have received a redraft

but I have not got the case to Counsel. I am not asked to "sign off" or

comment. It was amended and in that form has been published. The

previous paragraphs I have indicated are only partially true. I would ask the

Minister to publish our correspondence fully as they are no longer confidential.

The article continues "spokesperson for the Minister for Justice, Mr. Michael

McDowell, said that he was "keen to receive and publish a fair professional

report as the Inspector is mandated to do but is constrained from publishing

elements which he is advised by the Attorney General are defamatory". I

doubt if the Attorney General said anything was defamatory. He probably

said that certain statements might be construed as defamatory. I am not

afraid of being sued although I might have to meet the decree from my own

assets but it is essential that this office be properly established at its initiation.

I am prepared to make the sacrifice to achieve it. The Minister has accused

me of being unjust and has suggested that my report is not fair, professional

or in accordance with my mandate. I wonder would the Attorney General

agree with me that possibly those statements could be construed as

defamatory? I certainly do not wish to sue the Minister for defamation but if I

have to do so for the future of my independent inspectorate I certainly will do

so.

22.

Recommendations

Establish immediately by statute the office of the "Inspector General of

Prisons and Places of Detention" or "Chief Inspector".

Provide in the Bill that his/her annual report will be published by submitting it

o the Oireachtas by the Inspector on or before the 30th of April each year.

Individual reports by the Inspector should be put on the Department's website

not later than six weeks from the date it is sent to the Minister.

All reports including the annual report must be published without alteration

unless such alterations are made with the consent of the Inspector and will

be made only on security grounds.

Engage a prominent external group to examine and assess the whole prison

budget and its bureaucratic structure. Is it efficient and transparent? Is the

taxpayer getting value for money?

Establish by statute a separate and independent Probation and Welfare

Service in charge of all their present duties and activities, and give them

special roles in dealing with prisoners, their problems and particularly their

aftercare.

They should specialise in providing alternatives to prison and should inform

fully judges, lawyers and the public about what is available to punish and

rehabilitate. This service should have its own totally independent Inspector

General.

Close St. Patrick's Institution immediately and replace it elsewhere.

Children should be kept in totally separate accommodation well away from

prisons. All prisoners under the age of 16 years should be in the care of the

Department of Education and not the Department of Justice.

The Government must decide whether to follow the USA and the UK as to

whether to build new and bigger prisons or to follow the example of the Nordic

counties by reducing incarceration and using real alternatives to prison in lieu.

10.

Since the February 2005 Northern Ireland has had an Ombudsman for

prisoners. At the moment here the prisoners have no real opportunity to

make complaints. The Visiting Committees insofar as they have any power

have been neutered and the Inspector of Prisons is specifically forbidden to

act on any complaint by any prisoner. The Ombudsman should be a human

rights lawyer who does not come from the public service. He/she will provide

added assurance about the treatment of prisoners and ex-prisoners about the

treatment they received in prison and provide prison staff with added

protection against vexatious complaints.

11.

The Government must address the problem of how to cope with people

(including prisoners) who have personality problems but now have no

asylums. They should not be put into prison. They should be under the

Department of Health rather than Justice. They are presently treated unjustly

and despite individual efforts to cope they are placed in an impossible and

disgraceful situation which is unfair to them, to Governors and staff, and fellow

prisoners by incarcerating them in a prison.

12.

Give over one prison to a private security company for a specified period. It

should be subject to the same inspection as our State prisons. If successful

all prisons public, and private, should compete for contracts every five years.

(At the moment the prisoners have no real rights and no person or persons to

intervene to protect or promote such rights which they have under

international law and EU law and as well as Irish laws. I am specifically

prohibited from taking up the cudgels on behalf of individual prisoners. A

prisoner has a right of appeal to the Governor and he can seek judicial review

in the High Court (in both cases they are seldom realistic option).

The Oireachtas should

(a)

Restore visiting committees and not only greatly restore their original powers

but grant them additional powers. Preferably they should live within an hour's

drive. They should be capable of being rapidly convened if needed. There is

a prisoners' Ombudsman in England, Scotland and, since February of this

year, in Northern Ireland. It is something we should certainly emulate rather

than the present tendency to reduce and ignore external supervision.

On occasions the Minister replies to questions in the Oireachtas and makes

me wonder if we are talking about the same prisons. On the third of March

this year he was asked about the rehabilitative programmes for prisoners

provided over the last ten years. In the course of that reply he states:- "Each

prison and place of detention has in place a range of prisoner rehabilitation

programmes catering for its particular prison population. Across all of the

prisons the array and content of such prisoner rehabilitation programmes

continue to evolve with additional elements to take account of changing

needs". (emphasis added) I would refer the Minister and the general reader

to read my reports including Cork and St. Patrick's. After the

recommendations I have added as an appendix to this report an article

entitled "A look inside Our Prisons" by Reverend Peter McVerry S.J published

in The Redemptorist magazine "Reality". It deals with my first annual report. I

am publishing it with the consent of the author and the editor of the magazine

in which it first appeared. It was written two years ago. Nothing much has

changed. In particular I would emphasise Fr. McVerry's statement that the

existing complaints system is "worse than useless". Officials have nothing to

fear if they come out of their bunkers and if they are open and transparent,

efficient and accountable.

In the same answer to the same question the Minister states:- "I would advise

the deputy that I obtained a budget for the Irish Prisons Service of €369

million for 2005. This compares to a budget of €180 million provided for