Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 Jun 1960

Vol. 183 No. 5

Criminal Justice Bill, 1960—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I take a different line from that of most Deputies in connection with prison reform. It is not an opportune time to bring it in. As far as juvenile delinquency is concerned, it is no harm to reform there and make some effort to put these people on the straight road and so avoid making criminals of them. Deputy Dillon read an extract from an ex-prisoner's book—I think it was ex-Deputy Cowan's book — to the effect that flies were getting in the food. There could be some substance in that complaint. When I was in prison, one of our first complaints was that flies and insects of all kinds were getting in our food. When you got your porringer of porridge, you had to get a spoon and stir the porridge up to get five or six cockroaches out of it. I hope it is not so bad to-day. If it is, ex-Deputy Cowan is quite right in raising this matter. After all, food should be served in a proper manner.

When I was in prison in Scotland, we complained about all the hairs in the soup, if you could call it soup. We got no reply. It was only about three months afterwards, when we were released, that two of the attendants in the cook-house asked us if we remembered having made a complaint. We said we did. They said not only were there hairs in the soup but we ate a cat Somebody shot at a cat in a field and it got into the boiler and so we had cat soup.

I wish the Minister well. I hope that the improvements he is endeavouring to carry out will be of benefit to the country. I hope that when he does this, these people who are abnormal criminals over the years will have a change of heart. If we do make concessions to them, I hope they will show their appreciation by respecting the law. If they do not, we must rely upon strict justice. We should first speak for the victims of those criminals and not for the criminals themselves. When a young man embarks upon a life of crime, we should do what we can to get him to mend his ways, and the only way to do that is by sending him to a school where he will learn Christian doctrine and come out a good citizen.

These reformatories should be situated in country areas. They should have a large farm attached upon which these people can work. They will be working in the open air and will be enabled to make a return for the food they eat. I took a different line from that taken by the other Deputies in the firm conviction that the time is not yet ripe for prison reform. We have a huge wave of pillaging all over the country. Bicycles, motorcars and handbags are stolen. In fact, everything capable of being stolen is being taken. There are between 6,000 and 8,000 bicycles in the police barracks year after year with nobody to claim them. Thousands of crimes are committed which are not reported in the Press. That shows that there is a wave of crime the like of which we have never experienced before.

We must protect the decent people living honestly — people who try to pay good wages and who are the prey of louts and criminals. It is idle to speak of reform at a time when there was never such a wave of villainy in the country. That is why I took the line I did. I was not going to fall for ex-Deputy Cowan's book or the book of anybody else. I believe the book is all right but at the same time it is the book of a man who was convicted of a criminal offence. He had to stand his punishment. Carl Chessman tried to make money out of a book and ended by being executed. I do not want the Minister to be led by a book of that type. If a book of that type needs to be written, let somebody put up with the rigours of prison life and write a book about his experiences. I would stand by that but I would certainly not stand by the book of a man who is a "hook" himself. That is as far as I shall go. I wish the Minister well and I hope that what he is doing will bring about the desired results. If it does, everything will be all right.

I should like to support very much what Deputy Giles said. I feel with him that this is not the time for softening up unduly in our treatment of convicted criminals. Like him, I do not wish to be in any way bitter towards people who have fallen into crime, but I think there is a tendency, which has been shown in this House today, for some people to get unduly concerned about the well-being of prisoners in our prisons. Reference to a certain, book is of very slight value. When Deputy Norton called upon the Minister to inquire why three flies had fallen into the soup, that was taking an entirely ridiculous line altogether. Anyone who has ever eaten in an institution knows that occasionally such incidents may happen. They might happen in the Dáil Restaurant or they might even happen at home but trying to start a campaign by reason of such accusations seems to me to be far from helpful.

What we need is strict discipline and that is exercised in our prisons at the moment. We do not wish to be unduly soft but there has been a great step forward by reason of the introduction of a proper parole sysem. That is something I was always in favour of. I spoke very strongly on the Estimate of the Department of Justice last year and I pleaded with the Minister on that occasion—I thought, without any success—to introduce such a sysem but apparently he had it in his mind all along. That is the proper way in which we can make progress. Where a person has been convicted and has to be punished, he has got to be restrained in some way for some period but he will become an abnormal creature if he is cut off from the community for too long a period.

I feel that the introduction of a proper parole system will make it much easier for the governors of our prisons to exercise a discretion, subject to the Minister's approval, in replacing in society those who have been convicted of crime. It means that such people will be enabled to find their place in society more easily when the date of their final release comes around. It will undoubtedly help them in regaining their self-respect when they are allowed out on their honour and when they come back of their own free will to resume serving their sentence. Certainly the record in Northern Ireland where this scheme has been in operation for some time — and probably in Great Britain — has been singularly satisfactory and all, or practically all, of the prisoners allowed out on parole have reported back dead on time. Such a scheme can accomplish a great deal of good for the prisoner himself and I strongly support the proposal.

The whole question of penal reform is a very large one and I hope the Minister will regard this as a purely emergency enactment, if you like, to deal with some of the simpler matters which require attention. I hope that the Minister and his Department will not relax on the passing of this Bill but will press on with a more drastic revision of the whole system of penal reform, particularly with reference to juvenile offenders. There is a tremendous amount of work to be done in the analysis of the motives which animate those juvenile offenders and I hope that there will be much more specialised attention given in that regard. I think the dropping of the title "Borstal" is a good idea. In general there can be little or no criticism of the provisions relating to young people.

In his opening speech the Minister referred in particular to Section 9, subsection (2), which deals with the detention of persons only in an institution conducted in accordance with the religion of that person. I appreciate that very much and I appreciate the Minister's statement that he would gladly co-operate with any Church authorities in recognising institutions for detention purposes. The problem of the young Protestant juvenile delinquents is different not because the proportion of Protestant juvenile delinquents is less but because being such a small proportion of the total population, the incidence of delinquency is fairly low. How that matter can be dealt with is not at all clear to me and I am sure it is not at all clear to the Minister either. From the investigations I have been able to make through members of the societies connected with the Protestant Churches, I find that they have not a clear idea either. I hope therefore they will co-operate with the Minister in seeing that any young Protestant delinquent who is detained will be looked after in some suitable way and in some suitable institution.

In general I support this Bill without any reservation whatever but at the same time I should like to express the very sincere hope that the whole matter of penal reform will continue to receive great attention so that in the not too distant future we shall have much more comprehensive legislation which will enable those dealing with convicted criminals to do so in a more constructive way. I wish the prison authorities all the very best in working out the provisions of this Bill. I should not like anybody to feel that I was critical. When I spoke on the Estimate for the Department of Justice last year some people wrote to me and criticised me bitterly for what I said in reference to our prisons being unsuitable places for people to be confined. Some members of Visiting Committees in particular felt I was criticising them. I did not intend to criticise them for a moment.

I thoroughly agree with Deputy Giles in his plea that more prisoners should be given work outside. I agree absolutely with him that confinement in prisons like Mountjoy and Portlaoise must be a soul-destroying experience, no matter how well the prisoners are looked after. The mere fact of being confined in such buildings must have a dreadful effect not only on the prisoners but also the prison staff. Prisons essentially, by reason of their architecture, are depressing places. In subsequent legislation I should like to see provision made for prisons without bars, with farm activities and so on carried on in the open so that men would not be so completely cut off from the community they have offended. That can be done and we can take much greater steps than we are doing in this measure, but at least in this Bill we are moving in the right direction.

This debate has been bedevilled to some extent by the issuing of the pamphlet so liberally quoted by Deputy Dillon. I was given a copy of that pamphlet last evening. I did not get it from the author although it was autographed by him and I was given a message that the references to the Minister were not intended to be a reflection on me. Having looked through the document and having read some of the charges made in the document I can only assume that the only person he was referring to in the document was the Minister who was operating during the period about which he was writing.

The author of the document concerned, having made all these charges — which I want to say are in the main untrue — goes on to pay tribute to the Governor of the prison. As I suggested to Deputy Norton when he referred to that fact himself, the tribute to the Governor and to the Deputy Governor in fact cancelled out the charges he made in regard to the conduct of the prison. Naturally the prison is under the control of the Governor and the Deputy Governor, and if the conditions which are said in this document to exist did in fact exist, then neither the Governor nor the Deputy Governor would be fitted to hold his position.

As I say, I received a copy of this document reasonably late last evening, and having seen the statements contained in it, I immediately had it examined by my officials, and by the Governor of the prison. I want to say the statements contained in this document are, in the main, untrue. We all know that half truths are very difficult to disprove because of the fact that there is a slight element of truth in them. Prison is a rather unpleasant place to be in, and it is intended to be unpleasant. The people who are in prisons are generally people who have been convicted.

We know that the diet which the author of this booklet received in Mountjoy would not suit his epicurean tastes. That goes without saying, but I think anyone who has read this document will be rather surprised to find that he describes the food supply of the prison as:

...poor, inadequate, monotonous and incapable of maintaining human beings in health. A prisoner is never given such vital foods as butter, cheese, bacon, pork, roast, fried or grilled meat, sausages, black or white pudding, liver, kidney, heart, eggs, fish, brown bread, raw vegetables, salad, fresh fruit, peas, beans, scallions, beetroot, radishes, dried fruit, milk or milk foods (except the rice dinner diet on a Friday). The food a prisoner gets is limited to white bread, potatoes, cabbage, onions, tea, margarine, a morsel of beef or mutton, an infinitesimal portion of jam, the concoction called "broth"...

—and so on. The author must have been thinking of one of these big hotels which cater for tourists when he started to think in those terms.

I want now to try to deal as well as possible with some of the charges he has made. Deputy Norton was terribly concerned today — genuinely concerned — with the statement contained in this document that food was being contaminated by flies being mixed up in it, and the suggestion was that that was a normal thing to happen in prison. As I said, I immediately got my officials to get in touch with the Governor and he said there is no word of truth in the allegation about flies.

I quite realise that to deal properly with this document which contains 115 paragraphs, Deputies would need to have copies of it before them. In respect to the complaint contained in paragraph 4, which is a long statement dealing with admission, clothing, bedding and cell equipment, this is what the Governor has to say:

Short-term prisoners (seven days, etc.) are not issued with suits to measure but are dressed from a stock of worn clothes which are cleaned and disinfected before use and on which necessary repairs have been done. Shirts are not issued if torn, and if damaged by wear are in use only to the end of the week at most. Boot cleaning materials are issued to all wards and are available to the prisoners.

That is the Governor's reply to the long statement contained in paragraph 4.

With regard to paragraph 5, the Governor said that prisoners who do not provide their own soap receive a regular issue and that all prisoners may be issued with a toothbrush on request. All are allowed to shave as frequently as they desire and the average is about twice weekly. The suggestion contained in the booklet is that the prisoners are not allowed to shave more than twice a week. They can shave as often as they wish, and there is nothing to prevent them from shaving when they so desire.

With regard to paragraph 6 the Governor states that knives and forks are issued to all, and that there are buckets under the taps to take all spilled water. The author talks about the laundry and, as with every other portion of the establishment, he denounces it. The statement of the Governor is that the laundry is modern and properly equipped. Prisoners do not receive their own laundry but all are properly fitted.

Paragraph 10 of the Governor's Report states that almost 90 per cent. of the prisoners have previous convictions. Of the 170 convicted criminal prisoners on 27th June this year, only 20 were first offenders. They were employed as cooks, bakers, artisans and gardeners, and as far as possible, they did not associate with old offenders at work. Those with previous convictions are usually employed on tailoring or shoe-making, but if a "star man" wishes to learn one of these trades it can be taught only by allowing him to associate with those who are at work on them.

In former days before so many privileges such as evening recreation, radio, etc. were allowed the segregation was strict. Prisoners were locked in their cells when not at work or exercise. The prison authorities have no wish to return to the bad days of rigid segregation. They think that to have really strict segregation, it would be necessary to have different prisons.

With regard to paragraph 12, the Governor states that of 33 untried prisoners at Mountjoy on 27th June this year, only two were under 21 and their position will be remedied by the new Criminal Justice Act. The alternative to association at work and exercise would be separate or solitary confinement and the reintroduction of the rule of silence.

Paragraph 14 refers to the question of diet. The dietary is approved by the medical authorities and extras and variants are granted by the medical officer as found necessary. There is no evidence to support the statements in paragraph 15; on the contrary, prisoners usually gain weight and improve in health. With regard to paragraph 16, the 7.30 p.m. supper was put on about 20 years ago and prisoners now receive four meals per day.

The Irish Stew was denounced as mush and an awful thing to offer to anyone. The Governor's statement says that Irish Stew on Mondays and Wednesdays is the most popular dinner of the week and is always favourably commented on by the Visiting Committee. It is not made as suggested. The meat is inspected immediately on delivery and if not up to standard is returned and replaced. The suggestion was that the meat was flung into a pot as it came in, that it was never inspected, that it could be any type of meat and that it could be unsound.

Some references were made to the manner in which the beef is cooked. It was suggested it was cooked the day before it was served. The beef is cooked fresh on the day of consumption and broth is made according to the scale laid down.

The Governor states, in regard to paragraph 25, that in any case of doubtful meat the medical officer is consulted before acceptance. In other words, it has got to pass the medical test before the authorities are allowed to accept it as a final delivery.

That must be a very infrequent occurrence.

The medical officer examines the meat. If he finds it is sound and not diseased or contaminated or anything like that he gives it his sanction, I suppose. Furthermore, in the course of this booklet, the writer says old broken enamel mugs were given to the prisoners out of which to take their meals although some of them were rusty and leaking. The answer to that charge is that enamel ware is taken out of use as soon as it begins to chip and that rusty or leaking utensils are never used.

In paragraph 28 it is stated that the kitchen is not up to date. The cooking plant in the kitchen is all new. The cooking is done by steam except some special diets which are done on the electric cooker. Permission for the installation of the latter was given by the Department and no conditions were ever laid down regarding its use. It is suggested in the booklet that the prison authorities are not allowed to use the electric cooker except on the special authority of the Department. That is not true. The Department has never forbidden any officer to attend courses, and so on. It was suggested that some of the prison officers were anxious to attend courses to gain some knowledge in respect of cookery and matters pertaining to the cooking of food. The Department has never forbidden any officer to attend these courses. Prisoners for all classes of works are selected by the Chief Officer according to their suitability, usually in consultation with the officer under whom they will work.

With regard to paragraph 31 of the booklet I may say that the workshops are situated in a large, well-ventilated, bright hall which is better than any similar accommodation in any prison outside this country which has been visited by the Governor. There are adequate toilet facilities. The usual prison trades are carried out there. The Governor has visited quite a number of foreign prisons. Naturally he always compares the accommodation of the prison for which he is responsible with that in any prison he may visit. I have just stated his view in regard to the criticism in respect of the main hall.

In reply to the charge contained in paragraph 34, all prisoners selected for work in bakery, kitchen or food stores must first be approved by the medical officer before commencing work. There was some suggestion that people with diseases or something of that kind were allowed to handle food, and so on.

Insane remand prisoners even when charged with murder are invariably certified insane by the prison medical officer and another doctor if they are considered dangerous to themselves or to others. An Order of the district justice is not necessary for this.

In paragraph 38 there was the suggestion that some prisoners were mixing with other prisoners and should not be allowed to do so. The Governor says that prisoners with homosexual tendencies are kept under observation but the alleged practice of locking toilets is unknown. Slops were collected in the old hospital by the cleaners but food was distributed by the prison cook.

Hospital patients are entitled to baths at least as often as other prisoners in the main prison and no complaint was ever received from Captain Cowan or anyone else about the bathing facilities.

The position in regard to paragraph 40 is that mutton is provided for dinner on all days except Sunday. The manner of cooking is not laid down but it is boiled, roasted or stewed.

No hospital patient is ever employed at any work but a suitable prisoner — not a patient — is detailed as cook under the supervision of the senior hospital officer. Like the cooks, and so on, in the prison he is first examined and approved by the medical officer. Nothing is known of the other matters mentioned and no such complaint was made by Captain Cowan during his imprisonment, most of which was spent in the hospital.

The reply to paragraph 42 is that prisoners serving reasonably long sentences are provided with dentures free of charge when necessary. The visiting dentist is a highly-qualified man and his efficiency has never been questioned.

Discussions are at present in progress between the Governor and the Chief Librarian for the City of Dublin for the setting-up of a library service in the prison.

With regard to paragraph 61, I may say that on release every prisoner whose home is not in the City is given a rail or a bus ticket to his home town.

These replies deal in the main with the statements contained in that booklet. I have here two reports of members of the Visiting Committee. Their visits took place during the time the author of this booklet was a prisoner in Mountjoy. The first report I propose to quote was made by a member of the Visiting Committee who is also an eminent medical doctor in the City. He says:

I visited the male section of the prison on the 25th instant. I interviewed several prisoners in the workshops and received no complaints. I also visited the kitchen and was impressed by the cleanliness and the hygienic conditions under which meals were prepared. As the evening meal was about to be served I examined the food and considered it sufficient and of good quality. Cafeteria arrangements for serving the meals worked with clockwork precision and ensured a hot meal for each prisoner. I was agreeably pleased to notice the cleanliness of the prison. The walls and floors were scrupulously clean and this reflects great credit on the Governor and his staff.

Another report dated 2nd September 1958 from a member of the Visiting Committee is even more pointed. She says:

To-day I visited all parts of the male prison and found same clean and tidy as usual. I interviewed prisoners and they had no complaints. I saw one, Cowan, in his cell, ill. He said he was progressing satisfactorily and was satisfied with his treatment. I saw the evening meal in course of preparation and it was of the usual high standard.

It is true to say that during the period of the incarceration of the author of this booklet, no complaints were forthcoming from him to the Governor and we must assume that when he decided to write this book, he came to the conclusion that there would be no use in writing a book in praise of the prison and that the only book that would be of any value commercially would be one that would make the type of criticism he has made here, the type which he probably regards as the sensational kind that would make for good publicity from the point of view of sales.

We have heard a lot of talk about the juvenile delinquent and the fact is that juvenile delinquents, like any other persons who are sent to prison, are sent there only after they have been tried, after the evidence against them has been carefully examined and they have been found guilty. What I find in regard to this type of prisoner is that there is an abnormal number of cases in which the Probation of Offenders Act is applied not once, twice or three times but, perhaps, a half-dozen times. I do not think it was ever the intention that such a degree of consideration should be given. If a person offends only once, he should be given an opportunity to reform but when he fails to reform on being given another chance and then continues in his criminal career I cannot see that we should shed any tears in this House about the treatment he receives.

I want to assure the House that so far as the treatment meted out to these juvenile delinquents as they are called, is concerned, they are under the strictest supervision of the authorities in the prison, including a full-time chaplain who looks after their interests and does everything possible to ensure that they will reform in the course of time. The medical officer attached to the prison is also a psychiatrist; he examines these prisoners from that point of view so that some of the views and fears expressed here this evening are not justified.

Most of Deputy Declan Costello's speech dealt with this question of subnormal children. That has nothing to do with this Bill. Subnormal children are for another Department to deal with.

This Bill is not intended to be a general reform of the criminal law — that matter would require a considerable amount of time before a Bill could be brought in. This Bill was brought about in the main by reason of my own experience as Minister for Justice. I was not very long in the Department when I had an application from one of the prisoners for a period of parole to visit his mother who was dying. I was assured that the mother was expressing a very strong desire to see her son and naturally I felt very sentimental about it and I was leaning very strongly towards granting the parole. My officials assured me that I had no power to do so. Nevertheless, I took the risk and granted parole and the man honoured it and came back in due course.

Very shortly afterwards, a similar case arose and again I took the risk of granting parole. If these individuals to whom I had given parole were not prepared to come back, there was no law to ensure that they could be taken back; when they were released on parole, they were, in effect, being released from imprisonment. I decided that if that was the position, it would be desirable that we should bring in a Bill that would enable me or any other Minister for Justice to grant parole in circumstances such as I was confronted with. This Bill is the result of that experience.

The officials naturally took advantage of the fact that the Bill was being introduced to bring in the other matters with which the Bill deals, the granting of parole to criminal lunatics and arranging for criminal lunatics to be housed in a mental institution convenient to their homes. At present there are only three places in which there are prisons and the situation as it exists is that a criminal lunatic can only be taken into the mental institutions in the immediate locality of the appropriate prison which is sometimes very far from the person's relatives and friends. Under this Bill, we are making arrangements to enable us to have them placed in institutions reasonably convenient to relatives and friends and the costs and expenses which these unfortunate people have to bear will be greatly reduced.

Deputy Norton was very anxious that a prisoner, especially in Portlaoise prison, which is a long term prison, should be taught something in the nature of a craft. That is done as far as it is possible to do it but it is not always possible because very many persons who find themselves in these institutions are not of the type to whom a craft of the kind the Deputy had in mind could be taught. Some are persons who have only a clerical knowledge and they would not be fitted to take up the type of work that the Deputy had in mind.

The position in respect to juvenile delinquents will be changed as a result of the passing of this Bill. At the present time the courts on conviction have no option but to sentence a boy to imprisonment. We get over that when he has been in Mountjoy for a few hours by transferring him to St. Patrick's Institution. So that the question of association with hardened criminals does not, in fact, arise at all. One of the things that we are very careful about, whether they are first offenders or boys who have offended on a number of occasions, is to keep them away from the professional type of criminal.

It occurred to me when Deputy Dillon was talking — he seemed to me to be half believing the statements contained in the document that has been quoted here to-day — that one of the best methods by which I could disabuse Deputy Dillon's mind and the minds of other Deputies is to invite Deputy Dillon to visit Mountjoy. He can pick the day he likes so that there will be no question of arrangements being made for his reception. If he is prepared to go there and to see for himself, I shall, in due course, make the arrangements which will permit him to do so. If necessary, I shall include the leaders of the other groups in the House, including a Deputy from the Independent group who could be nominated by that group. The best answer I could give to the statements contained in the document is to allow the selected members of this House I have referred to to enter the prison and to see for themselves the conditions which exist there. If they do that, they will come away feeling that the conditions are not anything like those described in this document.

Will you let them out again?

That is a doubtful matter, I suggest.

We shall let them out on parole at any rate. The prison hospital was situated in a separate building. That was the arrangement down through the years. It was, I suppose, deemed right that the hospital should be separate from the prison proper. In view of the very small number of patients who are in the hospital in recent times we have created in one of the wings of the prison which is unoccupied a very much more comfortable and modern type of hospital bay and in future patients who require treatment will receive it in that wing of the prison and under very much better conditions than before.

As I said in the beginning, the statements contained in the booklet that has been quoted are a gross reflection on the Governor, on the Deputy Governor and on the staff of the prison. If the conditions were such as have been suggested in this booklet, then certainly these people would not be discharging the duty imposed upon them. I do not believe for a moment, from my own personal experience, having visited the prison on a number of occasions, that there is an atom of truth in the statemeats contained in this book. I believe it is done purely for the sake of personal publicity. As I have said before, to write a book in praise of the prison would be of no use to the individual who wrote the book. It had to be a book of that type of sensational criticism rather than anything else.

Question put and agreed to.

I should be glad if Final Stages of the Bill could be considered tomorrow. It is a simple Bill.

I was not here for the full discussion. I do not know whether or not there were any points made.

It is a very simple Bill. I do not want to put the Deputy in the position of having to make a decision he does not like to make.

Order it for tomorrow and if there is any objection on the part of the Whips, it need not be taken. Will that do?

Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 30th June, 1960.
Top
Share