As reported in today’s Irish Examiner, the IPS has not published the annual reports of the chaplains in the 11 prisons statewide. All of the reports were submitted as per regulation before March 31 last. Yet as late as December 6, the IPS was contacting chaplains purporting to express worry that some of the reports may breach GDPR rules. No specific breaches are identified in emails sent to chaplains. The mails were sent following a meeting in Portlaoise earlier this month at which chaplains expressed frustration to an IPS manager that the reports were gathering dust.

'Smokescreen'

“It’s an obvious smokescreen,” one source within the system told the Irish Examiner. “Ten months after the reports are submitted they say changes may be required and the reports be resubmitted within three days.”

A spokesperson for the IPS said that the “draft chaplains reports” for 2021 were received by the Irish Prison Service earlier this year. “However, there were some issues in a number of the reports that required further clarification. It is hoped to publish the reports before the end of the year.”

The reports are independent and are not submitted in draft form. The reports regularly illustrate conditions and the plight of some prisoners by including evidence-based examples of individual cases. The notion that chaplains would either deliberately or inadvertently identify any such prisoner would be considered an insult by practitioners.

“Chaplains more than anybody are aware of the need to anonymise people when referring to issues around conditions,” one source said. “Reports have always highlighted issues in prisons and done so respectfully and protecting people’s privacy.”

For some reason, this year someone in IPS thought that GDPR could be breached in chaplains’ reports.

Prison chaplains are an integral part of the criminal justice system. Here’s what the IPS has to say about them on its website.

“Chaplains have a crucial supporting role in prison life by providing pastoral and spiritual care to any prisoners who wish to avail of the service. The Irish Prison Service regards the chaplaincy as an essential service, making a significant contribution as part of the multi-disciplinary team in a prison, addressing the physical, social and spiritual needs of prisoners in a holistic way.” 

Fulfilling the role demands that chaplains call it as they see it. By nature, they do not kick against the system. But when they observe conditions and circumstances that are blatantly abusive or inhumane they would be dodging their duty not to report it. 

Chaplains are therefore the only independent bodies who are present to witness what happens on a daily basis.

That may be why the IPS discontinued publishing the annual reports in 2010. Then, in 2020, following a protracted process through the Freedom of Information Act, the Irish Examiner obtained the 2019 chaplain’s report from the Dochas Centre women’s prison. This highlighted major human rights breaches including “verbal abuse, xenophobic remarks, threatening language and pointed exclusion/favoritism of others”. Prisoners were afraid to complain for fear of “further penalisation from the staff involved” and some found it “nearly impossible” to book visits, even with their children.

Following that, the IPS looked up the PR manual and decided the best way forward was to publish the reports annually rather than appear to be hiding something. This was done last year for the 2020 chaplains' reports and most of those referenced some of the appalling conditions that prevail for prisoners with mental health difficulties. Against such a background, the reports for 2021 have not been published 10 months after all were submitted and GDPR has suddenly become an issue.

The alleged suppression of these reports comes in the same year that the previous inspector of prisons Patricia Gilheaney resigned her post before completing her term, reportedly due to frustration over difficulties in accessing information from elements of the service. The issue arises also against a background where chaplains are increasingly frustrated that those employed after 2015 are paid 33% less than the original salary.

As noted before on these pages, the guiding principle within the IPS appears to be that nothing must emerge from the state’s prisons which would cause embarrassment or controversy for political masters. There is copious evidence of this effect. Instead of taking stock of independent voices, and assessing where improvements can be made, every detail of abuse or inefficiency is viewed as a threat. In such a milieu, the prospect of fashioning a humane, appropriate, and efficient system of incarceration will remain beyond reach.