Tanczos Nandor: Urgent Debates — Corrections Department—Ombudsmen’s Report 
Tanczos Nandor: Urgent Debates — Corrections Department—Ombudsmen’s Report 
[Volume:639;Page:9828] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I would like to begin by acknowledging Liam Ashley and his family. Liam’s death at the hands of George Baker on 17 August last year sent a shock wave through our country and led ultimately to the Office of the oOmbudsmen conducting this inquiry. I hope this report gives the family some comfort and the opportunity to heal some of their grief. 
I think this report demonstrates the importance of the Office of the Ombudsmen as an independent Officer of Parliament. The report was conducted carefully and thoroughly and its quality has reinforced the confidence that members of the public and members of this Parliament can have in that office. In particular the ground-level scrutiny that was conducted has ensured a report of great rigour. The Office of the Ombudsmen was not satisfied with official documents or bland assurances. The investigators even went to the extent of riding in prisoner transportation vehicles themselves and required physical demonstrations of how emergency hatches opened and things like that. It is that thoroughness that has been the key to the solidity of this report. I want to thank that office for an extremely good piece of work. 
I think that in that sense the report also emphasises the crucial need for a genuinely independent prison inspectorate because this work should have been done not to respond to a tragedy but to avoid one. That is what we expect from a prison inspectorate. It is clear now I think that structural independence from the Department of Corrections is essential to ensure that this does happen and the Green Party continues to work with the Government on developing policy in that area. 
Independence from the Government in this kind of thing is absolutely crucial. I was deeply disturbed to hear the sniping by Government members on the Ombudsmen’s report and in particular the gross misrepresentations of the recommendations made. Today during question time the Minister repeated those misrepresentations claiming that the Ombudsmen have recommended stopping transportation every time a prisoner wants a pee and giving prisoners the ability to open escape hatches for themselves. I can only think that the Minister has not read the report because I do not believe he would deliberately make misrepresentations. The Ombudsmen did not make those recommendations. 
What the report does suggest is that prisoners who are being transported—some of them for up to 7 or 8 hours—need access to toilet facilities. His report outlines examples of inmates urinating inside vans because they are unable to hold on or more frequently suffering severe pain for having to hold on for extended periods of time. The report specifically recommends that the department review prisoner access to toilet facilities en route. It states that the department “should consider guidance to staff on stopping at specified secure areas and take into account the existing communication difficulties within prisoner transport vehicles.” Of course that raises the question of how the guards would even know a prisoner wanted to pee seeing as they cannot communicate with prisoners in any way. 
In addition the Ombudsmen found that access to emergency exits was inadequate in most vehicles. When staff were asked to demonstrate whether the emergency exits actually worked—which one would think is a pretty routine piece of maintenance—some staff had serious difficulty opening the exits. In addition the policies on emergency exits are wildly inconsistent around the country and in some cases roof exits are individually padlocked from the outside making unlocking them in an emergency pretty much impossible. Again the report specifically recommends that the department “undertake a full review of the emergency facilities in prisoner transport vehicles; formulate evacuation procedures and ensure escort staff are trained in and have drills to practise those procedures; ensure that all cages can be opened without keys; ensure that all emergency hatches operate easily without keys;” and “formulate a policy with regard to whether prisoners should be able themselves to operate emergency exit hatches;”. The report does not say that prisoners should be able to operate emergency hatches; it says that a policy needs to be formulated to cover that area. 
Now I like Damien O’Connor but the thing that really worries me about this report is not the litany of inadequacies errors and apparent deceptions it details but the response of the Government to the report which I think has been unnecessarily defensive and flawed. Misrepresenting—perhaps not deliberately—the report of this Officer of Parliament in order to achieve Government spin is in my view deeply offensive and so is the false dichotomy the Government continues to assert between public safety and humane treatment. They are not incompatible requirements. In fact the law passed by this Parliament in 2004 requires both and that is the obligation of the Government. 
Equally disheartening for me is the announcement of a proposal to secure all prisoners in waist restraints when being transported. To be clear we are not talking about lap-belts as in seatbelts; we are talking about cuffing all prisoners’ wrists to their waists when in vehicles. This is directly contrary to the report’s recommendations. The Ombudsmen are explicitly critical of policies to restrain all prisoners in vehicles. Chubb currently handcuffs all prisoners in transportation in respect of which the Ombudsmen say: “We consider the practice of Chubb to handcuff all prisoners is wrong. We recommend the Department review the different usual practices of handcuffing in prisoner transport vehicles and establish clear national guidelines that will ensure consistency of decision-making.” 
The Ombudsmen’s concerns around safety will be exacerbated when prisoners’ wrists are cuffed to their waists rather than in front of them together as they are currently because the ability to use one’s hands to protect the head is entirely removed in that case. What response will the Minister have when the first prisoner suffers brain damage because that prisoner neither is seatbelted nor has the ability to use his or her hands to protect his or her head in an accident? I think that in that regard the Minister has ignored the report. 
So what does the report actually say? It represents a major criticism of the Department of Corrections; almost every page contains criticism. It outlines a number of failings in the area of prisoner transportation. It states that conditions are inhumane for journeys some of which may last up to 7 or 8 hours. Temperature extremes create significant discomfort while ventilation and heating are virtually nonexistent in many cases. Access to food and especially water is a problem and often is according to the whim of staff. When we are talking about long journeys such as I have outlined that is entirely unacceptable. 
On the issue of safety the report is equally damning. The lack of seatbelts and inadequate access to emergency exits mean that transportation is often physically unsafe a condition that will be made much worse by the universal use of waist restraints because not only will prisoners be unable to protect their heads in an accident but they certainly will not be able to get out of an escape hatch even if the staff can open it. 
I want to highlight one area that was repeatedly mentioned by the report. This was an issue that was raised by the Green Party at the time of Liam Ashley’s murder. The report makes the point that resolution of this one issue would help resolve a number of secondary concerns. The issue is the inability in almost all transportation vehicles to adequately monitor all of the prisoners in them. It seems to me just incredible—absolutely incredible—that prisoner transportation vehicles do not already have the ability to monitor the prisoners in them. One would think it was kind of “Corrections 101” really. First of all there is a public safety issue. How do staff know that prisoners are not trying to escape if they cannot see them and they cannot hear them? How do staff know that prisoners are not beating up on each other if they cannot see them and they cannot hear them? How do staff know that prisoners are not trying to commit suicide if they cannot see them and they cannot hear them? How do staff know that prisoners are not suffering a heart attack? I say that because the time lag between a heart attack occurring and the staff stopping at a secure facility and seeing what is going on with the prisoners inside could be the difference between life and death. I know cases of people who have died in Department of Corrections custody—not in transportation but at a remote prison—where the time lag was an absolutely crucial issue and it just seems to me extraordinary that we do not already have vehicles set up so that the guards can see and hear inmates and thus check up on them. 
My final word is one for the staff and I echo some of the comments of Ron Mark. Like all professions there is a mix of good and bad staff and I would be very concerned if this was seen as a general attack on Department of Corrections staff who I think have an enormously difficult job—a very difficult job. That is not to say that they all do their jobs well but some of them do their jobs extremely well. I have met a number of conscientious excellent Department of Corrections staff who I think are genuinely committed to the work to doing a good job and to the rehabilitation of the people they are overseeing. I do not want to tar them with the results of this report but the report does outline systemic problems of such magnitude that I strongly urge Department of Corrections management to get serious about communicating with its staff and to get serious about engaging with its staff—listening to them. These are the people on the front line. That is not to say that everything staff say will immediately be put into practice but the management has to get better at listening to its staff engaging with staff ideas and using the ideas that have merit. 
Management also needs to support staff to do the job to the best of their ability. There is a strong thread in the report that indicates staff are loath to take decisions that may result in more humane treatment because they are scared that if they make the wrong decision they will be out on a limb and that will be them—they will be gone. So management needs to support staff when they are doing a positive job while being unafraid to require accountability where necessary. It is hard to see how these problems which run through the hierarchy of the Department of Corrections will be easily resolved. I think it is an enormous job and I congratulate Damien O’Connor for even taking it on—it is a hell of a job. I am convinced that an independent prison inspectorate as advocated by the Green Party is an absolutely crucial part of the answer. I look forward to the introduction of that legislation.