asked the Minister for Justice if the committee of inquiry into the Littlejohn escape from Mountjoy Prison, Dublin on 11th March, 1974, has reported to him.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Mountjoy Prison Escape.
15.
As I have already announced, I have received a report of the investigation and I am considering it.
Since I made that statement, an interview with Littlejohn has been published by the BBC—and rebroadcast by RTE—and I have publicly confirmed that his account of the route of his escape up to the time he disappeared from the view of the prison officers appears to be substantially accurate.
The report which I have received is a detailed one reflecting the complexity of the problems posed in a prison where it is necessary to try to harmonise two conflicting requirements, namely security and a human regime.
At this point, three broad conclusions may be stated:
First, no shadow of evidence has been found to suggest that there was any collusion between any member of the prison staff and either of the escaping prisoners, or any kind of plot involving outsiders.
Second, there was a combination of unfortunate failures on the part of a number of prison staff—a small number, but not just one. These failures were of a nature that must result in disciplinary action, the precise extent of which I have not yet determined. In fairness, I have to take account of a number of factors, including the pressures to which prison staff have been subjected in the last year in determining the disciplinary action but it will be significant. In accordance with established practice and taking account of the fact that the officers concerned will not be able to state their case in public, I do not envisage making any more detailed or specific statement about disciplinary action.
The third point I wish to make is that it appears from the investigation that the escape was entirely attributable in fact to the failures I have just mentioned and not to any physical deficiencies in the prison or to any deficiencies in the organisation. Nevertheless, these aspects of the matter are being looked at thoroughly.
I am grateful to the Minister for his statement.
Would the Minister agree that the circumstances he has outlined in his reply in any decent democracy would have required the Minister to resign——
No. 16, please.
I would violently disagree with the Deputy. He knows it is a ridiculous statement. It is a ridiculous suggestion.
It would never happen.
The Deputy is ridiculous. He is trying to make political capital out of it.
It is a disgrace and despicable.
Deputy Molloy. I have called the Deputy on a number of occasions. He is being grossly disorderly.
The Minister has been grossly negligent. He is passing the buck.
There is no question of a reflection on integrity. There was an inquiry.
You are a beautiful party.
There is no doubt——
Deputy Molloy is deliberately causing disorder in the House. If he persists I will have to ask him to leave.
The Deputy asked me a question and the least he could have done was to have thanked me for the reply.
He is a Pontius Pilate——
That is an appendage that should not have been used. The Deputy must withdraw the remark "Pontius Pilate". It is unparliamentary and should not be used in respect of any Minister in this House.
He wants to be thrown out.
How do you come to the conclusion that the words "Pontius Pilate" are unparliamentary?
If a Deputy appends that to a Minister in this House it is unparliamentary and must be withdrawn.
It is a political charge being made and stood over by me.
The Deputy must withdraw it or leave the House.
I will not withdraw it. I will leave the House.
You failed when you were a little boy to draw it. You are still a little boy.
Question No. 15.
On a point of order, is it in order for a Deputy who has been ordered by you to leave the House to be still in the House?
I ordered Deputy Molloy to leave the House and I presumed he had left the House.
Because of subsequent allegations made by the Minister which were personal, I will not leave the House.
What would be my remarks to the Deputy, may I ask?
He has a barrister in front of him, now.
I heard them.
What were they?
I asked the Deputy to leave the House. Is he refusing to do so?
Yes, for the reason that the Minister uttered certain remarks which I deem to be of a personal nature.
I heard no such remarks.
He is the one who should be ordered to leave the House.
If the Deputy refuses to leave the House I will be forced to name him.
I will not leave the House.
I have no alternative but to name Deputy Molloy.
You must get somebody else to name him.