asked the Minister for Justice if he will make a statement in connection with the imprisonment and reported hunger-strike of James J. Flood of Clonfert, Maynooth, County Kildare.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Imprisonment of Kildare Farmer.
20.
James Flood, aged 54 years, was committed on 9th May to Mountjoy Prison on foot of warrants in default of payment of two fines of £10 each and in default of entering into recognisances to keep the peace in the sum of £25.
A sum of £1 in respect of the fines was paid to the Governor on his behalf on 11th May. Since his committal he has given no indication that he is prepared to sign the recognisances.
On the question of hunger-strike I wish to record the fact that the Deputy was informed both orally and in writing on 15th May—the day I received notice of this Question—that James Flood was not on hunger strike and that official statements, denying N.F.A. publicity in that regard, had already been published in the daily papers. Far from being on hunger-strike, James Flood has been consuming—in addition to substantial quantities of milk—bovril, beef extract, tea, egg-flips and cheese.
The Prison Medical Officer is satisfied that there has been no deterioration in James Flood's medical condition since committal; as a precautionery measure, which is usual when prisoners are committed with a history of ill-health, the Medical Officer sent him to an outside hospital for examination and, as a result, he is fully satisfied that the prisoner is fit to serve his sentence.
I might add that, if this man or any other member of the NFA in prison were to go on hunger-strike, the entire responsibility would rest on certain leaders of the NFA who have been openly claiming the right to tell their members whether they are or are not to comply with orders of the courts and have been misleading them into engaging in anti-social behaviour by active and passive resistance to the law of the land.
Will the Minister explain why I was refused permission to see Mr. Flood?
The position in that regard is that the normal conditions regarding visits are being adhered to. This prisoner was granted a special visit by his son. He had already received visits from his daughter and his wife, and, in accordance with the normal procedure, no further visits were allowed. I might add that Deputy Boylan also sought permission for a special visit but was refused.
He sought permission for a special visit for someone else. Will the Minister say why the practice that has been in operation since the State was founded that a Deputy would always be allowed to visit a prison has been refused in any case?
No such practice has been in operation. The normal procedure in regard to visits to prisoners is being adhered to.
I suspect that the Minister for Justice is not here because he knows that he said it was the normal practice. It is not, I know, permissible at Question Time to quote but, in fact, the Minister for Justice used the exact words that I used a moment ago, on 28th February, when he said:
"I might mention that it has been the practice of every Minister for Justice in every Government since the foundation of the State to extend to every Deputy the courtesy of visiting prisons on application to the Minister for Justice."
Will the Taoiseach now say why, when I applied in writing to the Minister, in fulfilment of his statement on 28th February, the courtesy accorded to every Deputy in this House since the State was founded was not accorded on this occasion?
I was not aware of the Deputy's application until now.
Will the Taoiseach take steps, therefore, to ensure that his Minister for Justice honours the undertaking he gave to this House, an undertaking, may I say, that was also repeated on 1st March?
I only interfere with Minister if they seem to transgress their responsibility. I do not think he has done so in this case.
Then, do I understand the Taoiseach to say that he is prepared to allow his Minister for Justice to be proved a person of no word, as can be proved from the replies to these questions, and is he satisfied that a Minister of State should refuse to honour an undertaking that has been given to Dáil Éireann that elected him?
Deputy Farrelly rose.
This question has been extended very much.
I would also like to state that I have been refused permission by the Minister for Justice to visit a friend in Portlaoise.
This is Question Time.
I do not agree with the sentiments of the Taoiseach.
The Deputy will please allow me. This is Question Time.
I want to repeat that the normal procedure with regard to visits to prisoners is being fully and comprehensively adhered to on this occasion.
The Minister for Justice has broken his word and, let me say, not for the first time. We are used to it in this House, unfortunately. It is a tragedy that a Minister should so do.
The Minister in his reply said that the man was in the doctor's opinion, fit to serve his sentence. Would the Minister say what sentence is required to be served by Mr. Flood and people in his position who have failed to sign recognisances?
The position is quite simple. There is absolutely no need whatever for this man to be in prison. All he has to do——
That is not the question.
I will answer the question in my own way. All this man has to do is to ignore the unwise advice which has been tendered to him and obey the jurisdiction of the court and sign the recognisances which the court asked him to enter into. The moment he does that, he will be released.
But if he does not do that, would the Minister say how long this man and people like him will be required to serve before being released?
That is extending the ambit of the question.
That is entirely a matter for the court. It is the court which has ordered that this man shall sign a recognisance. If he refuses to sign that recognisance, as this man has so unwisely done, then the Minister and the Garda have no option but to keep him in prison until such time as he signs the recognisance or until such time as the court directs otherwise.
Which may be 12 months or two years?