Deputy MacEntee has given notice to raise the subject matter of Question No. 25 on the Order Paper of to-day and, associated with that question, he desires to raise the subject matter of Question No. 32 on the Order Paper of the 2nd May.
Adjournment Debate. - Conveyance of Portlaoise Prisoner.
On the 2nd May, I asked the Minister for Justice "whether a prisoner who was sentenced to three years' penal servitude for participation in the theft of a considerable sum of money from the mails at Amiens Street Post Office was released by him recently from Portlaoise Convict Prison after serving only ten months of his sentence; and, if so, whether he will state the grounds of his release." It was no pleasure to me to put down that question. I put it down because, on the information that had been given to me, I felt it was my public duty to do so. The question as it appeared on the Order Paper was not the question as I had drafted it because, in the question as I drafted it, I mentioned the name of the Minister concerned and the statement that had been made to me as to the use which had been made of a car which had been allotted to that Minister. My purpose in putting down the question was to elicit from the Minister for Justice what, I hoped, would be a denial of the allegations which had been made regarding the Tánaiste.
On a point of order, the Ceann Comhairle ruled that part of the question out of order. If the Deputy is going to pursue that, I think the Chair will have to take notice of what he is doing.
I am not going to allow a matter which was ruled out of order in connection with the question on 2nd May to be introduced in this debate.
I said I had hoped that that would have elicited a denial from the Minister for Justice. If it did not it was my duty to call attention to the fact that a member of the Government was either lacking in a sense of responsibility of his public duty or had been guilty of an indiscretion. Let me read what appears in the Official Report. The Minister's reply was as follows:—
"The answer is yes. A petition was made to me to exercise the prerogative of mercy and after full consideration of the case I remitted the balance of the sentence. The prisoner was a first offender, 21 years of age, was married and had one child. I am glad to say that, as a result of the exercise of clemency, he is now in good employment and his employers, I am informed, think highly of him."
Be that as it may, I have no quarrel with the Minister for Justice if, having listened to representations from anyone, whether he was a colleague in the Cabinet or not, he felt that justice might be tempered with mercy, and that it would be in the public interest to release the prisoner. That was a matter for the Minister's own discretion. May I say, before I come to read further from the Official Report a supplementary question which I put to the Minister for Justice, that the Ceann Comhairle was in the Chair. Deputy Cowan, after the Minister had replied to my question, interjected:—"The quality of mercy is not strained." I replied to that:—
"There is more than that in it. Mercy cannot be used as a cloak for other things. Would the Minister state if it is a fact that after his release the individual in question was conveyed from Maryborough to his destination in a car allocated by the Minister for Justice to the Tánaiste for the conveyance of the latter and members of his family? Was this done with the consent and knowledge of the Minister for Justice?"
I am glad to say that the Minister for Justice found it possible to reply to that supplementary question in the following terms:—
"The reply to that question is ‘no.' The prisoner was conveyed in a police car, not a car attached to any Minister. The Deputy has some information which he should check over before he uses it."
The only information I had was, as I have said at the beginning, that this man was released as a result of representations made by the Tánaiste and was conveyed from the prison to his destination in the Tánaiste's car. I understand from the Minister for Justice, at any rate so far as the latter allegation is concerned, it is not correct and I unreservedly accept his statement because I thought it rather extraordinary that a State car—even though the Minister referred to it as a police car, it is a State car—should be placed at the disposal of a released prisoner. I asked then:—
"Is it customary for prisoners to be conveyed from Maryborough prison to their destination in a State car?"
The Minister's reply was:—
"So I believe. I have done so myself in my time including some friends of the Deputy's."
May I say that that remark referred to what happened when I was General Officer commanding the Western Command, in which capacity I did use a State car to convey prisoners to their homes. If I misled the Deputy in any way in regard to that matter, I also withdraw that part of that particular statement.
That eases my mind considerably because I am sorry to say that the Minister did mislead me seriously. I must say I got a surprise when I got the Minister's reply and in consequence I put down the question which appears on the Order Paper to-day:—
"To ask the Minister for Justice if he will state the number of persons who were released from Portlaoise Prison in each of the years 1947, 1948 and 1949 and, in respect of each year, the number of such persons for whom transport to their destination was provided by means of a police car."
The Minister was good enough to give me the information. It appears on the records of the House and I am content to let it stay there. I then went on to ask the Minister another question relating to this matter. It is that question the subject matter of which I gave notice that I intended to raise in this debate. It is:—
"To ask the Minister for Justice if he will state, with regard to the person to whom Question No. 32 on the Order Paper for the 2nd instant related, the registered number of the police car in which he was conveyed from Portlaoise Prison; the name of the driver of the car in question; the depot or barracks to which it was attached on the relevant dates; the officer or member of the Garda Síochána who directed that the car should be despatched to the prison for the conveyance of the person in question, and the authority on which such officer or member acted."
The Minister was good enough to tell me that the person was conveyed in Car No. Z.D. 6966 attached to the Garda Divisional Headquarters at Portlaoise. He told me that the conveyance was arranged under his authority but I regret to say that he did not inform me who was the particular officer or member of the Garda Síochána who directed that the car should be despatched to the prison for the conveyance of the prisoner to his destination. I think that was a very serious thing. I do not think that the moneys voted by this House are intended to be used for the purposes for which this car was used. That is a serious matter, but there is even a more serious aspect and it is one which really moved me to put down the question and raise the matter on the Adjournment. The State should not only be just but it should be merciful. When a person is convicted of a serious offence and is released, no matter on whose representations he is released, I think a certain amount of discretion and restraint should be used in dealing with him. It would be a very regrettable thing from the point of view of the administration of justice in this country and the observance of the law, if a person convicted of a serious offence, on his release, is to be treated as this prisoner was treated. I do not know the man. I have no acquaintance with him. But I do know this, that it has been the subject of very unfavourable comment in the town of Portlaoise and in that particular area.
I know that the Minister is bighearted. I know that he is a kindly man in his dealings with ordinary people. I feel that perhaps someone slipped up and that he may be perhaps taking the blame for an indiscretion of some officer. If it is the Minister himself who is responsible, I merely wish to press this on him, that he should not give me or anyone like me or any other person an opportunity to raise a matter of this sort again. The Minister can be as clement as he wishes but, even in exercising clemency, there is a certain restraint attaching to his position which he ought to observe. I trust that, having raised this matter, it will be borne in mind and that neither I nor any other person will ever again be able to say that a Minister, in natural kindness of heart, forgot what he owed to his position and to the State.
Deputy MacEntee has been very restrained in regard to this matter to-night. It is, I think, the experience of persons who have been imprisoned that, on release, they are supplied with transport, either by means of rail voucher or otherwise. My only reason for intervening in this particular question is that within the past few days a question arose in connection with a prisoner——
This particular person? We cannot deal with anything but what is in this question. We cannot deal with anything outside it.
The use of a State car to take a prisoner.
The Deputy will not proceed on that line, unless he is dealing with this particular instance.
I understand that the matter that was raised by Deputy MacEntee——
Had reference to a particular instance and Deputy Cowan is not proceeding to deal with that.
I understood that the question at issue here is the question of the use of a State car——
It is not.
——to remove a prisoner.
Deputy Cowan will give way to the Chair. There is a particular instance referred to in two questions. The use of a State car in reference to prisoners in general does not arise. It arises in this particular instance and in this particular instance only.
Do I take it that your ruling is that there may be a discussion on the use of a State car for this particular prisoner but that there cannot be any reference to the use of a State car for any other prisoner?
On this occasion.
The Deputy can raise it on Estimates.
No other——
I will answer no more questions. Deputy Cowan will resume his seat. I rule that the Deputy must deal with this particular instance only. If the Deputy is not prepared to do that——
I am prepared to do that but I wanted to clarify the position of the Minister's reply.
Deputy Cowan is not dealing with this particular instance.
I am, Sir.
Then proceed to deal with it, and this particular instance only.
I understood, as I say, that a matter of principle is involved in the use of this particular vehicle.
Deputy Cowan will please resume his seat.
Very well, if the Leas-Cheann Comhairle so directs.
Deputy MacEntee addressed the questions which he quoted to the Minister for Justice. He addressed the first question on 2nd May, 1950, and he has quoted the exact words and, I am glad to say, he quoted the exact reply. I thought, when he put down that question, that he was challenging the right of the Minister for Justice to exercise the prerogative of mercy. Apparently, that is withdrawn so that I have not to follow that. But, in case there might be any mistake about it, the power that I exercised was under the Statutory Rules and Orders of 1937—No. 234. That is the power that I exercised in releasing that prisoner. Therefore, I have nothing to add, I presume, in regard to the grounds on which I released the prisoner and that is finished once and for all.
That is quite true.
Apparently, the Deputy got information that a Minister's car or a car which he said was ordinarily attached to a Minister was used. I said "No." I again have to repeat that word definitely—"No." That car had nothing to do with that prisoner. The Deputy addressed the second question to me to-day. Again he has quoted it and there is no use in my wearying the House with it. I gave him the number of the car that conveyed the prisoner from Portlaoise to Dublin and, while not on the defence at all, I want to say that, in the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, there was only one person to whom I could give this boy and that was the person who made the petition. That person was his father. Under Article 25, I directed that a police car should take the prisoner into the custody of the person who made the petition on his behalf.
Deputy MacEntee said to-day that he hoped that the Public Accounts Committee would take notice of my conduct. Again, in a rather loose way, perhaps, I said that I hoped that the Public Accounts Committee would take notice of several other things. Again, I do not want to become acrimonious, but I do not think that this is a good day's work for anybody. This boy is now in suitable employment; he is aged 21; he is married and has a family and, as I said on May 2nd, he is a first offender and his employers think highly of him. What does the Deputy want to do? Does he want his employers to dismiss him?
That is ridiculous. The question is immaterial.
I did not interrupt the Deputy except on points of order. I am not going to follow the Deputy's line at all. I have done my duty as I am entitled to do as Minister for Justice. I hope I will always discharge it as well as I have done on this occasion and if I do I will have nothing to answer for to the House, to the country or to my God.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.55 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, May 10th, 1950.