Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 23 May 1930

Vol. 34 No. 20

Supplementary Estimate. - Vote 33—Prisons.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £60,572 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1931, chun Costaisí Príosún agus Fundúireachtaí Borstal, agus coinneáil-suas na nGealt gCuirpthe a coinnítear in Ospidéil Mheabhar-Ghalar Cheanntair. (17 agus 18 Vict., c. 76; 34 agus 35 Vict., c. 112, a. 6; 40 agus 41 Vict., c. 49; 47 agus 48 Vict., c. 36; 61 agus 62 Vict., c. 60; 1 Edw. VII., c. 17, a. 3; 8 Edw. VII., c. 59; agus 4 agus 5 Geo V., c. 58.)

That a sum not exceeding £60,572 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the expenses of Prisons and Borstal Institutions, and the maintenance of Criminal Lunatics confined to District Mental Hospitals. (17 and 18 Vict., c. 76; 34 and 35 Vict., c. 112, s. 6; 40 and 41 Vict., c. 49; 47 and 48 Vict., c. 36; 61 and 62 Vict., c. 60; 1 Edw. VII., c. 17, s. 3; 8 Edw. VII., c. 59; and 4 and 5 Geo. V., c. 58.)

The Estimate this year shows a decrease of a sum of £8,990 as compared with last year. Looking through the Estimate, Deputies will see that almost every sub-head shows a decrease. This is mainly attributable to a fall in the prison population. During the year 1929 the daily-average number in custody, including Borstal inmates, was 695 as compared with 729 in 1928 and 800 the previous year. This fall in the prison population has rendered possible certain reductions in staff and these are mainly accountable for the decrease in the Vote.

The figures given by the Minister of the decrease in the number of prisoners are encouraging. They point to the possibility of decreasing the number of Civic Guards, and the expenditure necessary for those Civic Guards, in due course. They also point to the fact that the country is now getting to the stage which we all hoped for, and which Deputy Wolfe, in a speech on another Vote, described as the stage when we would be more or less the same as England, where the forces required for the prevention of crime can be reduced to the very minimum. There has been a very considerable decrease in the number of crimes committed and in the number of prisoners convicted. As regards the crimes committed in 1924, the figure was 1,614, and in 1928 it was 1,187. Even since then there has been a decrease. The Minister has not given us the figures showing the decrease in the cases of crime, but he has given us the figures representing the decrease in the average number of criminals.

As regards the kind of prisoners in jail, we find in the Prison Report for 1927 an analysis of offenders. Of the 2,836 prisoners committed on conviction, 1,044, of whom 156 were women, had not been previously convicted. The number who had been previously convicted and sentenced to imprisonment comprised 872 women as compared with 885 men. Of the former, 508 had been convicted more than twenty times. The report is a little unsatisfactory because it does not give a corresponding figure for men. In the report for 1928 we find there was an increase in the number of habitual criminals. The number of prisoners committed on conviction was 2,704 and 993, of whom 152 were women, had not been previously convicted. The number who had been previously convicted and sentenced to imprisonment comprised 903 women and 808 men. Of the former, 537 had been convicted more than twenty times. We can see from that that there has been a slight increase in the number of habitual criminals. Most of the cases were offences for which they got imprisonment for a few weeks; but the prisoners are habitual; they are the type that have got into the habit of committing certain minor offences. I believe they are capable of regeneration, and it is for that reason I have drawn the Minister's attention to this particular matter.

Whilst there has been an enormous decrease in the number of prisoners generally, in the crimes committed and in the persons convicted, there is a slight increase in the number of habitual criminals. Their psychology is difficult to understand. Very often, they are persons who may be said to be suffering from uncontrollable impulses. They are persons who must be regarded more from the point of view of treatment by a doctor rather than persons who should undergo the severe methods of the prison. There is a league known as the Howard League and from time to time it tries to get prison conditions improved. There have been conventions held with reference to improvement in the conditions of prisoners every year since 1872. There was a convention held in Washington in 1910 and another in London in 1925. I suggest the Minister should find out when they are holding another convention in order that his Department may be fully informed as to the progress made, and the experiments that have been tried in regard to an improved treatment for prisoners. The basis of the attempt at prison reform is the moral regeneration of the prisoner, and the belief that hope should be used as a more powerful agent than fear. In English prisons in the course of the experiments which have been tried they have allowed the prisoners to hear wireless, and wireless entertainments and concerts are frequent. Instruction is also given to prisoners and the quality of the food has been considerably improved.

In America also experiments of that kind have been tried. A distinguished Irish medical practitioner paid a visit to the penitentiary in Delaware recently, where they have been trying a most remarkable experiment with what result I do not know. I do not know whether the Minister's attention has been drawn to this experiment. If so, if he has any definite view of the matter or, if he is in a position to make inquiries as to how far these experiments are working out successfully we will be glad to know. I know of course that to come to that matter one has to refer to other changes in America and, in order to forestall the temptation that is lying at the door of the Minister because of my mentioning a matter like that, I think it is only fair to say that there are a number of extraneous matters, matters bearing on prohibition, which have distorted the whole system in America. I think however that this experiment in Delaware for the purposes of the ordinary criminal, may be proved to be very successful. I think we should keep our eyes open for every possible attempt towards progress in this direction. I think that in the case of Ireland experiments of this sort could be tried which might prove very successful indeed.

I now come to speak of what are called habitual criminals. I hardly like to call them by that name because these are really persons who have got into the habit of committing a certain type of offence which brings them back time after time to the jails. That is apparently due to circumstances, and, perhaps, due to a lack of proper training, and because these people are regarded as belonging to the outcast section of the community. Unless these people are given an opportunity of getting back their self-respect and their physical condition there is a danger that they will continue on like that all their life time.

The great majority of prisoners are between the ages of 30 and 50, according to the prison report, and the larger number is between the age of 30 and 40. It is not so much a question of a large number of young prisoners, but they just belong to that class of persons. It is noticeable in the last report, produced in 1928, that the decrease in the prison population is ascribed to the various Acts of Parliament which substituted fines for imprisonment and to the fact that, later on, the prisoners were given time to pay these fines. The report ascribes the decrease in the number of prisoners to that. If that be so, it is obvious that where a fine is considered a proper punishment, then, apparently, the crime cannot be of a very serious nature. Of course, the danger is that when persons like that got into the company of other criminals they become worse instead of better. In this experiment that is being carried out in Delaware, apparently, they are able to leave the prisoners working on the farm and garden with only fences around them, and yet the prisoners do not attempt to escape. The atmosphere there, being one of moral regeneration, has apparently affected them in that way. The system in Ireland includes giving the prisoners work and working on certain farms. The Minister will tell us how that system is progressing. Work is really the greatest regenerator for people like that. I think a certain amount of payment is made to these prisoners. I do not know on what basis that payment is. Some payment is made. The sum should be allowed to accumulate so as to give them an opportunity, when they come out of jail, of having something to help them back into proper civil life. If their work is of a productive nature such a payment would be justified.

Then, again, the kind of work which they should be given should be work at which they could continue when they leave the jail. Very often indeed what happens is when they leave the jail that they are thrown back upon their economic misery and their economic condition, and that brings them back to their old surroundings. If the authorities in this country would keep an eye on them after the prisoners have been released, with the object of placing them outside the influences in which they lived when they committed the offences, and if the released prisoners had an opportunity of carrying on the same kind of work outside as they had been taught to do inside there would perhaps be an opportunity of getting rid altogether of a large number of the prisoners.

A comparison between the present system in Ireland and the systems in England and America is fairly remarkable. The system in Ireland is very severe indeed. In England, long-term prisoners are allowed to play outdoor games, to attend classes and lectures and to hear concerts, whereas in Maryboro' Jail they have only one concert at Christmas and they are allowed only an hour's exercise daily, and that exercise consists of walking round an asphalt ring in the prison yard. While at these exercises each man must maintain exactly ten paces distance between himself and his neighbours. The prisoners are closely watched by the warders, so that any attempt at carrying on conversation may be frustrated. I notice the Minister is shaking his head over that. I do not want to misrepresent the system as it is, but I would welcome a statement by the Minister correcting what I have said. As this matter, however, has been brought to my notice, I think the best course is to mention it here so that it may be brought to the knowledge of the Minister. For even the slightest misdemeanour three days on bread and water are given to the prisoner. The prison workshops are situated in the same building as the cells and they are covered in and very poorly ventilated and these prisoners have to work in them. The prisoner spends 23 out of 24 hours each day indoor.

There is a library where prisoners with good conduct marks are allowed to read. If, however, they ask for a book they usually do not get the book they ask for, but another one on the same subject. The instruction given is of the most elementary nature and does not go beyond the three Rs. The food in Mountjoy is somewhat inferior to that in Maryborough. The cell accommodation provided in Mountjoy is better than that in Maryborough, but both fall short of the conditions in even English jails. The Bridewell, about which we so often hear on different occasions, is designed to house prisoners overnight, but it does not provide adequate accommodation for exercise or the provision of food. Many of the cells are damp, with no heating arrangements, and in place of beds there are merely planks. Two blankets are given to every prisoner who has to spend a night there, and the only food provided is dry bread and cocoa. I hope that the Minister will look into these matters and make inquiries as to how these experiments are progressing in other countries with a view to seeing whether some of these prison reforms could not be carried out.

Apparently the cost for feeding a prisoner per year is £12, an extraordinarily small amount. That was the figure mentioned at the Public Accounts Committee. I think that it is contendable that the prisoners are underfed and that it would be very difficult to get good work out of them under those conditions. If good work is to be got out of anybody he must get sufficient food to feed his brain and maintain his strength. There is another matter which I would like to mention in the dry air of more or less abstract principle, and that is the question of distinction between prisoners who are in prison for political offences and those who are there for ordinary offences. I think I am not saying anything unfair when I say that the Minister always refuses to make any distinction between one kind of prisoner and another. He is not at all in the tradition, even of English law, in the matter. If he looks at the authorities he will find that very far back in English law, authorities realised the necessity of making distinction between political prisoners and ordinary prisoners.

For instance, the late Dr. Sigerson, who was a man of great distinction and learning, and who on this subject gathered a considerable amount of information, pointed out that the Prisons Act of 1914 did not completely wipe away all the terms of Cross's Act of 1877. He was supported in this contention by Mr. Timothy Healy, beyond whose authority I suppose the Minister dare not go. He contended that there were certain distinctions made for political prisoners. This was based upon the theory and practice of the Constitution in England. The distinction goes back very far indeed. In fact the Minister might be regarded as revolutionary, from the point of view of lawyers, when he refuses to make distinction between political and ordinary prisoners. It was founded upon the seditious action of the Barons at Runnymede who secured the Magna Charta. "Hence"—I am quoting Dr. Sigerson—"Blackstone can distinguish offences which are mala in se, essentially evil, and those which are ‘mala prohibita' (forbidden offences), merely, ‘without any admixture of moral guilt, annexing a penalty to non-compliance.' Bentham likewise maintains the same principle and points out that sedition may occur ‘in any discourse otherwise than agreeable' to the authorities ‘intimating that the system pursued, or the conduct of those who act under it, might, if different from what it is, be better than what it is.' Hence every act he says which tends to substitute for a mischievous form of government one less mischievous is ‘in their distempered imagination' elevated to a rank towering above all offences.'"

Is this Government of the Dáil and Oireachtas a mischievous form of government?

I wish the Minister would try to deal with this matter on its merits. First of all I am citing Bentham, as quoted by Dr. Sigerson. It is perfectly obvious that if he has anything to say against what I cite it is against Bentham and not against me.

You do not adopt it?

The Minister is trying to be as mischievous as possible, and has a pocketful of red herrings to draw across the track. I want to establish the principle merely that there is a distinction between political prisoners and other prisoners. I will go so far as this with the Minister, that there are conceivably different points of view about this Government, as about any other Government. It is to provide for these particular points of view that authorities like Bentham pointed out that certain persons who have convictions about certain things and who are honourable men should be treated differently from those who actually commit crime. Lord Palmerston, in 1858, did not go nearly as far as the present Minister, but, though he tended towards his view, he was thrown out of office by public opinion led by men like Gladstone. It was pointed out that it was always the proud boast of England that such distinction between prisoners was always made. That was at a time when assassination was being committed. It was a serious time, and the incident out of which the controversy arose was by no means trivial. The Minister will probably recall the famous case of Cobbett, who attacked the Government fiercely because a sentence of flogging was imposed on a soldier at a time that the Napoleonic menace was most serious. Cobbett was sentenced to two years' imprisonment for attacks on the Government during that crisis, yet he was treated as a special class of prisoner and was allowed to carry on his ordinary avocation from prison. I need hardly remind the Minister of the treatment of Leigh Hunt.

I think if the Deputy reminded us of the treatment of prisoners in the last twelve months it would be much better.

I am trying to establish a principle which is not in practice in this or any other year, and which would, in my opinion, create an atmosphere of peace in this country to which we are all looking forward. If an Leas-Cheann Comhairle thinks that I have pressed the matter far enough I will not go further with it.

It is not a question of pressing the matter, but I think that the Deputy is getting too far away from the Estimate.

I will conclude on the matter with the faint hope that the Minister may change his point of view under the steadying influence of a great authority like Bentham. Deputy Derrig made a very illuminating speech on the Borstal institution on this Vote on another occasion. I would draw the Minister's attention to it, and I would like to know whether any improvement had been made in the Clonmel institution within the past few years. I understand that the conditions there were very unsatisfactory at that time. I hope the Minister will in the course of the year show that he has not merely the outlook of one carrying out an official position, a position involving a certain amount of severity, but also that he will have full consideration for the human element which he is handling, that he will see that conditions are improved, and that he will make a distinction between political prisoners and ordinary criminal prisoners.

There are a few points which I would like to raise on this Vote. We have been told from time to time that first offenders are segregated from recidivists. I have been informed that that is not the case, and I would like an assurance from the Minister that they are so segregated. I would also like to be informed whether solitary confinement has been done away with or nearly so, because, while loss of liberty is real imprisonment, the punishment can be made much more severe by solitary confinement or the silent system. For certain types, of course, solitary confinement is not so bad, but for others it is really hellish torture. There have been in that respect reforms in England since some of us had personal experience of the prisons there, an experience which we would like to forget, and have largely forgotten. The viewpoint is also taken that the work provided for prisoners should be as far as possible outdoor work. Men out of employment for a long time and underfed are absolutely unfit to work even when they get employment. They are then called unemployable.

It is said that there is a peculiar pallor of weakness about long-term prisoners when liberated. Outdoor work would keep up a prisoner's strength and would fit him to take his place in the world when liberated. The same indeed would be true of prisoners serving short sentences. We do not want, of course, to have concerts and wireless entertainments every day for these prisoners. We do not want offenders against the social order to be pampered but I think they should certainly be kept more in touch with the outside world so as not to be dehumanised.

Regarding political prisoners I may possibly raise a storm in introducing the matter here but it should, I think, be introduced. We do not stand for assassination. The Minister says that the activities of certain individuals whom he refuses to call political prisoners may lead to assassination. I do not believe it in the great majority of cases. To look at it in another way, does the Minister think that these harsh methods of dealing with Irishmen, knowing the temperament of an Irishman, are likely to lead to reform or to any change in their outlook? Does he think he will reform Irishmen who have held certain views all their lives by adopting harsh methods? Whatever we may think of the activities of those whom he refuses to call political prisoners we must recognise that they are honourable and sincere in their views. I maintain that the present method of treating them is not for a moment going to bring about the reform which the Minister desires. I know that the Minister may indulge in a tirade in that matter. I hope he will not because that is not the spirit in which I raise it. Many of those are imprisoned owing to the historical circumstances of the last ten or fifteen years or the last four or five years, owing to the teaching of many of us on both sides of the House which they have kept up, if we look at it in that light. I put it to the Minister that this harsh treatment of them is not advisable, not only for humanitarian reasons but to achieve the purpose which he has in view, to prevent anything such as assassination or any activities likely to lead to it. Without on my part wishing to do violence to the opinions of anybody who is not satisfied with the present position in Ireland, with partition or the fact that Ireland is not a Republic, I suggest that different methods in the treatment of such prisoners are likely to have the effect desired by the Minister and by everyone in the House.

This question of prison reform is a burning question in every country except Ireland. Apparently the Irish people consider the old savage form of prison régime the proper one, that to reform a man you have got to put him behind iron bars, treat him savagely and make life so intolerable that he will take care not to get in there again. This is largely a question of psychology. The treatment that may be of great benefit in one case may be of no use in another, and may even succeed in making a man of very mild criminal instincts a habitual criminal. In other countries, this is a matter for experts, and the prisoners are very carefully examined. They are not all put into one class. You may take one man of rather coarse fibre and submit him to a form of prison treatment which he will accept very callously, and it will not have the slightest effect on him, while it may cause the most exquisite torture to another man of fine sensibilities. By subjecting him to the same form of treatment you may cause him terrible torture, but it will entirely fail to achieve the result that is expected of it. Instead of reforming him and making him a better citizen in future, it may have the effect of embittering him against society, and of making a man who has committed a very slight offence a very dangerous criminal. The question has never been seriously dealt with in Ireland as far as I know. Apparently the only people who take any interest in the matter are those agitating on behalf of political prisoners. No one ever looks at it from the humanitarian standpoint at all. Apart from our views on the ill-treatment of political prisoners, I think the treatment of prisoners generally should be taken in hand.

I think if any proof were needed of the results of solid, beneficent, impartial and, I might say, humane government, we have it in this Estimate. It deals with prisons in general, the criminal lunatic asylum and Borstal institutions, and shows, when compared with last year, a reduction of nearly one-sixth. That is a proof of sound government.

Deputy Little said that possibly the diminution in the cost of the upkeep of the prisons was a forerunner of the cutting down of the Civic Guard. As one who lives in a city I think what we want is additional Civic Guards in the cities. When all the fever of politics dies down there may be a reduction in the Gárda Síochána, but from my knowledge of things I do not think that time has arrived, nor is it likely to arrive for some time.

As to the manner in which prisoners are treated in American prisons, I am afraid the system there has completely broken down. I happen to be interested in prisons to a slight degree, and I have not seen the savage treatment to which Deputy Goulding referred. As far as I know all the officials in any prison I am acquainted with are very humane towards the prisoners. Possibly there may be some rules and regulations that could bear some pruning, but I am satisfied from my knowledge of the working of the Irish prison service in general that the lot of prisoners is made as comfortable as could be, under the circumstances. I do not know much about the experiments in Delaware, U.S.A.. I saw an article in which I think it was stated that if such a system could be introduced into Saorstát Eireann it would be a very good thing.

I have thought somewhat about the habitual sinners in minor cases that go into prison time after time. If they could be segregated, or if some special institution could be provided for them while under detention, it would be a very excellent idea. It is a great tribute to the Government and to the Minister for Justice in particular when we find that the expense this year as compared with last year is cut down practically by one-sixth.

I desire to say a few words, mainly about the treatment meted out to political prisoners. On several occasions the Minister for Justice told us that no prisoners were given solitary confinement. We know for a fact that during the past year many prisoners have been kept in solitary confinement. To treat political prisoners who have been guilty of no crime in that way is to put a premium on crime. I had some experience a short time ago, and I know for a fact that to treat political prisoners who have been guilty of no crime as ordinary prisoners is only putting a premium on crime. That has been the policy of the Government ever since they took over the prisons; they have been carrying on the old system as though there was no such thing as political prisoners, or that they are not entitled to any treatment except that given to ordinary criminals.

Deputy Fahy referred to the fact that first offenders are not associated with old offenders. I can tell him they were a couple of years ago, when many first offenders were put to work in the same place as old offenders. Certainly that was not to the advantage of the first offenders.

In Mountjoy prison—of which I have a good knowledge—no provision is made for outdoor work. The prisoners spend the summer in an old musty workshop, filthy with dust. They are allowed one hour daily in the open air, and are only in association, such as it is, for four and a half hours out of the twenty-four. They are locked up in the cells from 4 o'clock in the evening until 7 o'clock next morning. No provision is made so that they can work in the open air. There is an old shed along a wall, into which horses would not be put, where the prisoners chop timber, and in the winter they spend the day there perishing with cold. I suggest that some provision should be made so that prisoners could work in the open air and be properly sheltered.

I would like to remind the Minister of the promise he gave the House some months ago, to consider the setting up of a visiting committee on which he would be prepared to accept persons whom this Party would recommend. I would like to recall that promise and to ask if the Minister is yet in a position to state whether he is going to give effect to it or not, and if not if he will definitely state his reasons.

With regard to the treatment of political prisoners, the Minister has said, and probably will repeat it in reply to Deputy Allen, that they are not given solitary confinement, that they submit themselves to solitary confinement without cause, that their cell doors are open, and that they are at liberty to walk out at exercise time. Quite recently, when the matter was under discussion, the Minister said that these prisoners remained in their cells during exercise hours at their own option and that their cell doors were open. Their whole fight has been against association with criminals. These young men are in prison for the same reasons as those for which many of us were in prison some years ago. I do not know if the Minister understood or yet understands the sentiments which induced honest young Irishmen to submit themselves to prison torture and all the rest of it for the sake of their ideals. These men are still imbued with these ideals, and while their methods may differ from those which most of us now believe to be the most practicable, nevertheless they are honest and sincere in their contention that they are political prisoners. Why cannot the Minister find some method of allowing them to exercise by themselves, without having to associate with criminals? I do not think that any of them have ever been charged with anything except political offences, and, as has been pointed out, this treatment will not succeed in the purpose which, presumably, the Department aims at—to make these men change their methods. It will not and cannot succeed. It is over again the old fight to try to break down their spirit, but the more torture that is inflicted on them in this fashion the stronger they will become in their determination to stick it out and the more will people become convinced of the injustice of this treatment.

If the Minister is sincere in his desire to bring about a state of affairs which will abolish the idea of physical force in the fight for complete independence and to open an avenue to all who desire complete freedom to travel along without recourse to physical force methods, he will admit their honesty and will differentiate between their treatment and the treatment of the ordinary criminal. Then there would be some hope of getting these young men to change their methods. But we have reason to believe that the Minister and his Department desire that the present state of affairs should continue, that there should be, on the part of a section of the people, no hope but through the gospel of physical force, and that the Minister believes that the best weapon which his Party can have is the existence of an apparent desire for another upheaval and to keep the people in fear that this upheaval will come about if there is a change of Government. That is not honest. He must know that these people only desire fair treatment. They desire to receive different treatment from the ordinary criminal. That has been fought for by political prisoners in this and in other countries all along, and it had to be conceded by the British. Why does the Minister fail to bow to the same claim for justice? I hope that he will, even at this late stage, admit that his policy does not aim at the creation of a better spirit in the country. I want him not so much to admit that in word as in deed, to change the methods and the policy of his Department in the treatment of these young men. I can assure him that that would serve the purpose which we all desire, the creation of a spirit of peace and harmony, a belief in the efficacy of political weapons and the abandonment of the method of civil war and physical force. There is no desire for the perpetuation of the gospel of hatred and strife amongst the people. Unless he believes that his Party can remain in power only so long as that apparent danger exists. I believe that he will face up to the facts and adopt the suggestion which has been put forward.

There is one thing I can assure Deputy Cooney about, and that is that I have faced up, am facing up, and will continue to face up to the real facts of the present situation. This debate has divided itself into two parts, the question of prison administration and the question of the so-called political prisoners in Mountjoy and Portlaoighise. I will deal with the latter part first. We heard to-day certain statements about human psychology and about reforming men by studying their psychology. I wish that I was sufficiently a psychologist to be able to bring a certain amount of consistency into the minds of members of the Party opposite. We heard gentlemen, in the most unctuous fashion, declaring that they are most anxious for peace, for order, for the observance of the law by everybody, and then we had immediately after either the same gentlemen or other members of their Party sounding loud paens of praise of the people who wished to upset law and order, and who wished again to have recourse to methods of physical violence, in praise of the people who have got the guns and the bombs. That shows an inconsistency which I am not sufficiently a student of psychology to understand, in the Party opposite. It is an attitude of mind which I cannot reconcile with ideas of ordinary political honesty.

We are told that these men were guilty of no moral crime. Is shooting at a Guard with intent not a moral crime? One of the most famous political prisoners that we hear most talk about shot at a Guard with intent to do him injury and got ten years' penal servitude for it That is not a moral offence, according to Deputies opposite. Another man was found guilty of wilful murder, not of a Guard but just of an ordinary civilian, a person who had nothing to do with politics at all. He was found guilty of murder, but that is not a moral offence!

I think that the Minister is putting us in a wrong light altogether. We have never claimed that anybody who committed murder was a political prisoner.

But these are the political prisoners. We heard more about Hogan in this House than we heard about any other political prisoner.

We were not discussing individual cases at all; we were trying to establish the principle of the distinction between political prisoners and ordinary prisoners.

Then who are the political prisoners? Are Hogan and Healy regarded by your Party as political prisoners?

Certainly.

Certainly they are, so far as I am concerned.

One of them has been found guilty of murder and the other of shooting with intent. Yet they are not guilty of any moral crime!

I think the Minister, in fairness, since this will probably get publicity in the Press, should give his reason for stating that Hogan was guilty of wilful murder and Con Healy of attempted murder.

The findings of two juries, and I do not think I could give a better one. We have been told of persons being treated savagely. No one has been treated savagely in our prisons; our prison officials do not treat persons savagely. Reference was made to persons in solitary confinement. There is no sentence of solitary confinement. It is open to the two or three persons in Mountjoy who are not taking exercise to go out and take exercise. What is more, it is urged on them to do so. That fact has been brought before this House again and again, and, to say the least of it, it is disingenuous for any Deputy to suggest that these people are being kept in solitary confinement, or sentenced to solitary confinement, and are not free to take complete exercise.

On conditions.

On condition that they obey the prison regulations. Deputy Allen informed us that he was in prison, and gave us interesting recollections. As far as I can gather, he is putting up for these young men in Mountjoy a standard which, as far as I know, he did not put up for himself. As a good Republican, sentenced for what he called a political crime, he considered he could morally go out and exercise with the other prisoners, but for Sweeney and the others in Mountjoy he sets up a completely different standard. He likes to see vicarious heroism.

On the general question, Deputy Little proceeded to quote various learned authorities about the treatment of what he called political prisoners and gave examples. He talked about Cobbett, and I think he went back even earlier—Leigh Hunt was earlier, I think. I am informing him, as I have informed him and the rest of the House again and again, that in this country any person found guilty of sedition is put into the first division and gets all the privileges of a first-division prisoner. That is precisely what Cobbett was, and what those other persons referred to were. They would be treated as first-class misdemeanants. The expression of views or the criticising of such institutions as there may be in the State as vigorously as you like is one thing, but sedition is punished and the person punished is kept in the first division, where he gets all the ameliorations of prison life given to persons in the first division, and they are very broad indeed.

Did the Minister say that criticising institutions existing in this country is sedition?

It may amount to sedition.

It would be well if the Minister defined that, because it would save some of us a lot of trouble.

Surely the Deputy would like to go to prison?

Indeed he would not; he had too much of it both from your Government and the other.

Persons who are found guilty of sedition, and that is what Cobbett was found guilty of, are treated as first-class misdemeanants. Persons who are found guilty of ordinary criminal offences, such as the possession of arms, or the use of arms, are not going to receive anything but ordinary prison treatment. Let that be taken as clear and definite.

Will the Minister answer the question I put to him with reference to the committee?

With regard to the committee, I dealt with that fully on the motion for the adjournment some time ago and I am not changing the views to which I then gave expression.

You have no change of heart in the matter. The Minister is not going to carry out his original promise?

The Deputy appeals to my heart.

Oh, no! I could not let that pass without contradiction.

As I say, the Deputy has made an appeal to my heart, but in this particular matter I prefer to use my mind.

Will the Minister say how he defines criticism of existing institutions as sedition?

It cannot be defined on this Estimate.

It is very important.

It may be, but it is not in order.

It is very much in order if he wants to save further imprisonment.

Some of us are guilty of it every day.

Deputy Little, in opening his ordinary criticism, dealt with the question of a decrease in the Guards. It does not follow at all from the lowering of the prison population that the number of Guards can be reduced. It is owing to the fact largely—I do not say entirely—that we have an efficient Civic Guard force that property and persons are safeguarded and that the number of crimes committed is falling. Abolish your efficient police force and I am afraid you will see a very large recurrence of crime. I do not say it is entirely due to it, because I am aware that it is also due to other circumstances. We have passed through a very bad time indeed; people's minds were very much disturbed and it was quite natural that as a result of these very troubled times there should be a considerable increase of crime. That is naturally to be expected. It happened after the Great War. In all the countries that were engaged in it, there was an outburst, as it were, of crime. We passed through our own bad time, and it is only natural there should have been a considerable increase in crime after that. The country now, however, is settling down, and I think that a certain amount of the falling off in crime, if I might put it that way, is due to the settling down of conditions in the country, but it is also due, to no small extent, to the efficiency and vigilance of the Guards.

Deputy Little spoke about habitual criminals and how they could be regenerated. There are certain habitual criminals for whom nothing really can be done. They go on committing the same class of crime again and again. There are others for whom more possibly could be done, such as short-term prisoners who seem to have a mania for breaking glass or something of that kind. But if you are going to regenerate any prisoner it can only be over a very long time. Deputies opposite may recollect that at one time there was an attempt made to have what was called preventive detention, and certain parts of prisons were set aside for persons who were kept in preventive detention. That was tried for a considerable time at Portlaoighise, and was not found to be a success, and had to be abandoned. Another statement made by Deputy Little, or perhaps by Deputy Fahy, was that something more should be done to get prisoners positions when they came out of prison. I do not really see how the State could take upon itself to get employment for exprisoners. It is done by very good societies—the Prisoners' Aid Societies—and I know, of my own knowledge, they are doing very useful work indeed.

I am quite aware that these societies are doing excellent work. What I meant was rather preparing the prisoners by giving them work in jail with a view to their being able to continue that work outside afterwards.

It is only a limited class of work that is done inside the prisons. Some prisoners are put into the tailoring shops, some do a certain amount of baking. The prison bread is baked in Mountjoy, and there is other work of that kind which they are taught, but a good deal of the work we must of necessity carry on is the making of mail bags, and this is probably the biggest class of work the prisoners carry out, and is work which on economy lines must be carried out. One thing Deputy Fahy said with which I am in complete agreement. It was mentioned, I think; by somebody else, also, and that is the point about open-air work for prisoners. As far as possible, I would like to see prisoners taking their exercise in the open air and as far as possible working—at least the better-conducted ones amongst them—at farm labour. For that reason some years ago we made a real effort in that direction.

As a matter of fact, in the first Estimate I introduced I had a sum of money put in in order that we might purchase some land in the neighbourhood of Portlaoighise so that we could keep more men at out-of-door work. Unfortunately, the negotiations for the purchase of the land were not a success. In other words, the owners, knowing that we were the purchasers, asked a prohibitive price. But it is a matter that I myself was very anxious about, and which I would really like to see carried out at a fair cost to the State. I should like to see, if possible, every well-conducted prisoner working on the land. I put my views before the Dáil on that a couple of years ago, and I shall not repeat them again. Any Deputy interested in the work will, no doubt, look up the old reports.

Deputy Allen rather amused me by what he said about chopping timber in the yard of Mountjoy. He stated: "You are in a shed where you are asked to chop timber, and at the same time you are perishing with the cold." Frankly, if I found myself perishing with the cold, and if I were given the job of chopping timber I would not be perishing with the cold very long. I am afraid if Deputy Allen was chopping timber and at the same time was perishing with the cold he was not putting in what I would call a strenuous bit of work.

I wish that the Minister had seen the place where the prisoners chopped timber.

I have seen it; I have been all round Mountjoy.

Once in your lifetime.

I am not as familiar with Mountjoy as the Deputy is, but I understand there may be a good time coming according to the statements made opposite. Then, again, it was stated here that the cost of food was very low, and it was assumed from that that the prisoners must be underfed. They are not underfed. The prisoners' diet in our prisons will compare favourably with the scale of dietary anywhere else. It is gone into very carefully by the prison authorities. In a certain respect, and in a very big respect, this year there was an alteration made for the better feeding of prisoners. I am not sure of the figure, but I think £13 was quoted as the cost per prisoner per year. But it must be borne in mind that this is the mere cost of the food. That figure does not include any overhead charges, cost of cooking or anything like that; it is the mere cost of the food itself. Take an item like bread: you buy the flour and there your expense stops. The work is done by the prisoners, so that the cost of the bread would be very much less than if you bought bread outside in the shops. I am sure Deputies will understand that. The cost of baking and everything like that is not included, and, therefore, it would be unfair to conclude that because the figure is kept as low as it can be kept, that the prisoners are not properly fed.

Deputy Little went at great length through some document on somebody's authority—he did not tell us who it was—contrasting the conditions in Portlaoighise and Mountjoy prisons with the conditions in certain English prisons. I cannot say, naturally, that I know the conditions in these English prisons. I understand they vary considerably between themselves. But from what I have myself seen of Portlaoighise and Mountjoy, and what I have heard from persons who have been in English prisons, the conditions are very much more favourable in Portlaoighise and Mountjoy. As far as Deputy Little's other point, that prisoners in Portlaoighise and Mountjoy are not allowed to talk, that is not correct. They are allowed, in fact, to talk at their work. They may talk in what I call a subdued voice; they are not allowed to shout or sing, but they can carry on a conversation with their neighbour, provided they do so in a reasonably subdued tone of voice. They are not kept in complete silence when at work.

It is when they are actually taking exercise that they are obliged to keep silence. If they speak then the warder comes down on them.

At work they are certainly allowed to talk. The Deputy spoke also of Delaware prison. I saw a report in the newspapers of a lecture given on the conditions in that prison, and, frankly from what I saw, I do not think that the principle there could be applied in this country at all. For instance, if you were to turn out prisoners in Mountjoy and send them to walk down the streets, and tell them to be back at 5 o'clock, I am afraid you might discover some of the prisoners had not returned at that time.

That is the reductio ad absurdum.

And if you sent people unguarded and unattended to do work in the town of Portlaoighise I do not know that the people who live in that town would be altogether pleased.

That was not suggested.

In fact, I think there would be immediately a storm of protest. If these prisoners were to have access to the neighbouring towns I do not think it would do at all. What we must do in this country is just to consider our own problems, and our own prisoners, and to see what is the best thing that can be done for the preservation of the peace of the country and the reform of the criminals.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 43.

  • Aird, William P.
  • Alton, Ernest, Henry.
  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Bourke, Séamus A.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Carey, Edmund.
  • Cole, John James.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Conlon, Martin.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Craig, Sir James.
  • Daly, John.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • De Loughrey, Peter.
  • Doherty, Eugene.
  • Dolan, James N.
  • Doyle, Edward.
  • Doyle, Peadar Seán.
  • Duggan, Edmund John.
  • Dwyer, James.
  • Egan, Barry M.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Gorey, Denis J.
  • Haslett, Alexander.
  • Hassett, John J.
  • Heffernan, Michael R.
  • Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
  • Hennessy, Thomas.
  • Hennigan, John.
  • Henry, Mark.
  • Holohan, Richard.
  • Jordan, Michael.
  • Kelly, Patrick Michael.
  • Keogh, Myles.
  • Law, Hugh Alexander.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
  • McDonogh, Martin.
  • MacEóin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Nally, Martin Michael.
  • Nolan, John Thomas.
  • O'Connell, Richard.
  • O'Connor, Bartholomew.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
  • O'Reilly, John J.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Reynolds, Patrick.
  • Rice, Vincent.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • Tierney, Michael.
  • White, Vincent Joseph.
  • Wolfe, George.
  • Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Níl

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Buckley, Daniel.
  • Carney, Frank.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Cassidy, Archie J.
  • Clancy, Patrick.
  • Clery, Michael.
  • Colbert, James.
  • Cooney, Eamon.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • Fahy, Frank.
  • Flinn, Hugo.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • Kent, William R.
  • Kerlin, Frank.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Mullins, Thomas.
  • O'Kelly, Seán T.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Reilly, Thomas.
  • Powell, Thomas P.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sexton, Martin.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
  • Tubridy, John.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies Allen and Killilea.
Motion declared carried.
Progree reported; the Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 2 p.m. to Wednesday, May 28th, 1930, at 3 p.m.
Top
Share