asked the Minister for Justice if his attention has been drawn to a series of articles (details supplied) concerning the treatment of female prisoners in Mountjoy Jail; if he is aware of the unease caused by these statements in the public mind; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions Oral Answers. - Mountjoy Female Prisoners.
38.
I am glad of the opportunity presented by this question to put on the record some facts in relation to the publication of these newspaper articles about Mountjoy Female Prison.
On 30th December the writer of the articles informed the Government Information Bureau that, in an interview with her, a number of ex-prisoners had made allegations about conditions in Mountjoy. She stated that, to give the officials a chance to reply, she wanted permission to have an appointment with the matron of the prison, permission to visit the prison and an appointment with the chairman of the visiting committee. She was informed that a visiting committee is an independent body and that any application to interview a representative of the body could be made direct. As regards the other requests, she was informed that I was responsible for dealing with complaints and that, if they were to be dealt with, I would, of course, need, as a first step, to know what they were. In a reply from the writer received by the Bureau on 5th January she submitted seven questions. She was reminded of what she had already said and of the fact that the allegations had not yet been conveyed. It was also mentioned that a great deal of the other information in which she appeared to be interested could be obtained in various published documents, which were specified.
A further letter and enclosure—a five-page document containing a list of 13 detailed questions—were received in my Department late on the evening of Friday, 14th January. The fact that this material would take time to deal with was recognised by the writer herself, as she asked for an estimate of how long it would take. A week later, on Friday morning, 21st January, a further seven queries of a statistical character were received. That afternoon three further queries were received, the answers to which would also involve a good deal of work. At that point also it was stated on behalf of the newspaper that the publication of the articles that were planned would begin on the following Monday and a reply was sought before then.
A reply was issued that evening. It pointed out that the writer's letter and enclosure had been received in the Department shortly before the office was due to close on Friday, 14th January and that several, if not most, of the 13 items listed in the five-page document obviously could be dealt with only after checking with the Governor who in turn obviously would have to check with the prison staff; that each of these officers had his or her ordinary work to do and could not set that work aside; that, likewise, the staff in the Department headquarters had their commitments and priority had to be given to those matters that need to be dealt with urgently—including prison administration work; that a week had been quite inadequate to enable a reply to be prepared, quite apart from the fact that on that very day a further ten questions had been submitted. It was further pointed out in the reply that when allegations are made that would, if established, involve a clear breach by prison staff of any important rule— for instance, an allegation that the prisoner was kicked, punched and had her hair pulled—the normal way, and the only satisfactory way, in which to have the matter investigated was to supply particulars that would enable alleged incidents to be checked; that no such details had been supplied; and that it had been taken for granted, when the writer said that she wished to give an opportunity for reply to the allegations, that she would supply enough details to enable them to be checked out.
My Department's reply went on to say that, since apparently a reasonable opportunity was not to be given to reply more effectively, all that could be said was that allegations of beating, et cetera, were flatly denied by the prison staff; that no such allegations had been made to the Governor or to the Visiting Committee or individual members thereof; and that any suggestion that prisoners were afraid to complain was disproved by the fact that complaints of one kind or another were freely made.
The reply then dealt with one specific complaint that alleged that a portion of cabbage served to a prisoner contained 86 insects. It said that the original complaint related to very small objects which the prisoner claimed she had seen move, that is to say, live insects. Nobody in the prison service could suggest how such alleged insects could survive cooking or suggest why no other prisoner found similar ones. Since the complaint was not made until some hours after the meal was over, they found it even more difficult to get to the bottom of the incident.
The reply to the newspaper concluded by saying that, if it was intended to publicise allegations of this kind, on the word of people who in many cases are wholly opposed to anybody who to them represents authority, allegations which in the nature of things can never be wholly disproved, I wished to be taken as entering a strong protest. I think it regrettable, to say the least, that allegations should be published without any indication whatsoever of the substance of the communications that had passed between the newspaper and my Department. I am aware that, subsequent to the publication of the articles, the author of them has, in letters to the same newspaper, made references in general terms to the fact that she had been in touch with the Department. She did not give details, however, and what she said was inaccurate, as a comparison between the factual account I have given and what she has said will show.
It is quite clear that these allegations were published without providing any genuine opportunity beforehand either to deny or to comment on them and that what purported to be an offer of an opportunity to comment was made in such a way as to imply that it was for the newspaper rather than for me to nominate who should speak for me. I am not prepared to go along with that. Neither am I prepared to accept that, in relation to unchecked allegations from questionable sources, it is sufficient for a newspaper to be willing to provide space for a reply after the publication has already taken place and that it would be appropriate or in the public interest for me to reply in that fashion.
I will, however, say for the information of this House that the allegations, like all allegations, will be— and, in fact, are already being—investigated in so far as it is possible to do so on the basis of the published material. While I would not prejudge the result of the investigation of any particular allegation, I am quite satisfied that, taking the allegations as a whole, they present a gross distortion of the position in the female prison. They amount, of course, to a serious reflection on the prison staff, and not just on the system, and have been so interpreted by the staff who have expressed to me personally their strong resentment, a resentment which is all the more understandable when the number of staff is so small that allegations of this kind hurt each one personally. I, therefore, am glad to take this opportunity to say publicly that I am in no doubt that the staff of this prison are not as they are depicted in these articles but, on the contrary, that they deserve the praise that has been given to them from many disinterested quarters.
It is, of course, true that the prison itself is old and unsatisfactory. One of my first official acts as Minister for Justice was to decide that steps should be taken to acquire a suitable site for a new prison. Three sites have, each in turn, since been considered for acquisition but for a variety of reasons, none of them proved suitable on full consideration. However, as I indicated recently, I now have good reason to believe that a suitable site will be available in the very near future.
I should add that several months ago special measures were taken to re-equip the kitchens in all our prisons and also in Saint Patrick's Institution and in Shanganagh Castle. A new kitchen has, in fact, since been provided for the women prisoners and is now in operation. Apart from facilitating the better preparation and serving of food, it will have the important benefit of providing facilities for teaching basic cooking skills to the many prisoners who had not themselves the opportunity to acquire them.