Prisons Bill, 1977: Second Stage.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Cooney)

I move:

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The sole purpose of this short Bill is to extend for a further period the provisions of section 2 of the Prisons Act, 1972, which provides for the transfer of prisoners from the civil prisons to military custody. When I sought the first extension of the Prisons Act, 1972, three years ago, I stated that the main reason for seeking it was to permit the continued separation from the civil prison system of prisoners who promoted or actively engaged in seriously disruptive activities. It is still necessary to separate a small number of prisoners from the civil prison system if relative peace and calm is to be maintained in the civil prisons and so enable rehabilitative work to proceed without hindrance.

Three years ago I stated that this problem could be solved by building a special high security prison unit capable of housing up to 30 high risk prisoners. Preliminary planning work had started on this unit and it was intended to build it in the Portlaoise prison complex. For security reasons it has been found impossible to commence the work. Portlaoise prison has since then accommodated the main groups of subversive prisoners and they have amply demonstrated in the intervening period that they will use every means, including violence and intimidation of security personnel, to undermine security at the prison and escape if possible.

In August, 1974, the prisoners used explosives recklessly to breach the perimeter security, and 19 of their number escaped. In December, 1974, they took hostage a number of prison officers and proceeded to wreck fixtures and fittings in the prison. In March, 1975, explosives were again used by the prisoners to blow their way out of the recreation hall and yard. This escape attempt was co-ordinated with an attack on the prison from outside during which a heavily armoured truck was used to attempt to smash a way through to the prison. During the firing which occurred a prisoner lost his life. In July, 1976, an attempt was made to burn down the prison by setting fire to bedding and cell furniture. There have been numerous other incidents in the prison, with persistent defiance of the prison authorities, culminating in a hunger strike. In this situation it was quite impossible to contemplate starting major construction work in the prison with all the hazards this would entail for the security of the prison. Apart from the presence of building material, equipment and machinery, and the movement in and out of building material, there was the very real danger of workmen being intimidated.

As a matter of fact, the site for the special unit has had to be given over temporarily to accommodate military personnel stationed in the prison. The House will agree, I am sure, that if the security situation requires the continuous presence of substantial number of soldiers, reasonable accommodation must be provided for them. The only available suitable site for that purpose was the one proposed for the special unit. There is no other suitable location in the civil prison system for this special unit. None of the existing buildings would suit.

Mountjoy prison remains the largest prison. It accommodates about 400 prisoners and is the main committal prison. Mountjoy is an old prison and requires extensive reconstruction and development to meet present day needs. The work of reconstruction has been proceeding steadily. A new plant house has been built outside the prison walls and this is intended to serve the power needs of the whole North Circular Road complex. Fully modern staff quarters have been built just outside the prison wall and these will be opened in a short time. Space for development is at a premium in the grounds and there is no possibility of providing a site there for a high security unit. Allocating a section or wing of the existing prison for this purpose would not be an acceptable solution.

The new training unit, which is of course completely separate from Mountjoy Prison, both physically and administratively, is now in operation and some specialist industrial training for prisoners has commenced. The rate of activity will increase gradually and by the end of this year I expect that it will be fully operational. It has accommodation for 96 prisoners in what I would describe as a very open setting inside the perimeter walls.

Limerick prison is the committal prison for the south-west. It accommodates some 100 male prisoners and, in a separate section, some ten female prisoners. It is also a very old building which will require extensive reconstruction and renovation to meet present day needs. There is little space available in it for new development, but what there is available is needed for ordinary rehabilitative facilities for prisoners. An old administration block in now being renovated to provide educational class-rooms and there are plans to build a prefabricated structure on another site for workshops. A small site has been acquired at the rear of the prison for further development of work training/educational facilities.

The reconstruction of Cork prison is proceeding. It has not been possible, because of the pressure on prison accommodation generally, to vacate the prison and so allow the reconstruction work to proceed without hindrance. Some 40 prisoners are accommodated there at present and it may be up to two years yet before the work is fully completed. There is no space available for the high security unit.

Arbour Hill prison has been completely modernised and accommodates some 60 long-term prisoners. Further development work is proceeding. The staff quarters adjoining the prison are near completion and work will commence shortly on a new building which will augment the work/training and educational facilities for prisoners. Already a number of well-equipped workshops are in operation in the prison, including ones for printing, joinery and braille. The braille unit is a particularly noteworthy development, the idea being to produce educational material for the unsighted, material which would not otherwise be available to them.

I mentioned three years ago that I intended to allocate Arbour Hill prison to remand prisoners but after re-examining the matter I decided that it should be allocated instead to long-term prisoners who need a good standard of accommodation and good facilities to make their stay in prison tolerable. Although there has to be a measure of security at Arbour Hill, it cannot for a number of reasons, including its location and layout, be regarded as a high security prison.

Portlaoise prison is allocated entirely to prisoners who have been charged with or convicted of subversive type offences. The population at present is fairly steady at about 150. As I have said already, there is no scope there for major development work for security reasons. The remaining place of detention for male adult prisoners is Shelton Abbey, County Wicklow. It accommodates 15 to 20 prisoners and this figure can be increased to some 40 as soon as work and educational facilities can be developed.

Female prisoners are accommodated in both Mountjoy and Limerick prisons. While it is likely that Limerick prison will have to continue to be used to accommodate female prisoners either charged with or convicted of subversive-type offences, because it is the only place where a reasonable degree of security can be provided for them, I am more than anxious to see the new prison proposed on the site at Kilbarrack started. The diversion of scarce resources to other areas, not least in providing the necessary degree of security at Portlaoise prison, has meant the postponment of this project. The planning work is, however, proceeding and I hope it will be possible to start the building work fairly soon.

There are three places of detention for male juveniles, that is, St. Patrick's Institution, which is a closed place of detention, and the two open centres at Shanganagh Castle and Loughhan House. St. Patrick's Institution accommodates some 175 boys between the ages of 16 and 21. It has a very good educational unit and recreational facilities are reasonably good. Some work is about to commence to improve work facilities but I confess that I will not be satisfied with the provision for closed custody for juveniles until St. Patrick's can be replaced altogether with two entirely new places—one in Dublin and one in Cork. When that happens, it will be possible to use St. Patrick's to take some prisoners from Mountjoy prison to ease the pressure of accommodation there and also to enable the reconstruction work there to proceed. In the long term the space at St. Patrick's is needed to provide extra rehabilitative facilities for prisoners in the North Circular Road complex. There is no space available there for a high security unit. The layout and location of the site is not, in any event, suitable for that purpose.

The two open centres are operating very satisfactorily, providing excellent accommodation and work/educational facilities for the 60 or so boys accommodated there. With further development both these places will continue to play a key role in the rehabilitative programme for juvenile offenders.

I should mention at this point that I have authorised the creation of a number of additional welfare officer posts for the purpose of enabling a substantial proportion of juveniles serving sentences in St. Patrick's to be released into the community under intensive supervision. The scheme will commence as soon as the necessary staff have been recruited. I look forward to the results of this unique departure in the rehabilitative field.

The improvements in rehabilitative facilities for prisoners are, as I said at the beginning, proceeding rapidly. They cannot be continued unless there is reasonable peace and calm in the prisons. Those small number of prisoners who are disruptive cannot be allowed to stand in the way of improvements for all prisoners and they must continue to be separated out of the ordinary prisoners. The long-term solution to the problem is to build a highly secure prison unit for them but at the moment this is not possible. There is no alternative, therefore, but to continue to hold them in military custody in the military detention barracks, Curragh Training Camp. The average number so accomodated in the past three years has been around 30 and this is the number for which the accommodation continues to be needed. I am asking that the provision for military custody should continue for another three years in the hope that it will be possible in that time to find a long-term alternative to it.

A further reason for maintaining military custody has emerged in the last year or so, and this is the need to transfer subversive type prisoners who need hospital treatment to the General Military Hospital, Curragh Camp. Subversive type prisoners like those accommodated in Portlaoise prison are prepared, as I said before, to use every possible means to effect their escape, and their supporters and sympathisers are likewise prepared to take any steps to rescue them. Of necessity, ordinary hospitals are places where it is very difficult to ensure safe custody. The General Military Hospital has obvious advantages from this point of view and there is no alternative to continuing to use it for prisoners who require hospitalisation but who, at the same time, present serious security risks.

As I have said before, military custody for civilian prisoners is not something which I like and if there were a reasonable alternative I would gladly accept it. I should hasten to add, that my misgivings relate to the principle involved and nothing else. I know the military authorities do everything in their power to have conditions for the prisoners as humane as possible and as close as possible to those available in the ordinary prisons.

At this point I would like to pay a special tribute to the Defence Forces and especially those in the Military Police Corps, who have done so remarkably well in coping with this difficult problem both in the detention barracks and the General Military Hospital. I recognise that this work represents a great burden on them and it is to the credit of the Defence Forces that they have done it so well.

To sum up, the Bill merely seeks to extend for a further limited period the temporary Prisons Act introduced by my predecessor. The constraints which inspired the original Act are unfortunately still with us and I am sure all sides share my regret that this should be so. I am sure too that all sides will join with me in expressing the hope that circumstances will so improve during the currency of this Bill that a further renewal in three years' time will be unnecessary.

Mr. G. Collins

My party are not opposing this Bill. I find it amusing that there is a three line Government Whip on the members of the Coalition today—which is unusual for a Thursday. This was quite unnecessary. There appears to be a bit of a flap on among the Coalition. Perhaps they feel the old law and order flag must be waved and the drum kicked today because tomorrow is the gathering day of the Fine Gael jamboree which is to take place in the Mansion House at the weekend. Good luck to them.

Perhaps there was another reason for the three line Government Whip. It could be because, as Opposition spokesman for Justice, I was refused permission to visit the empty high security prison in the Curragh. I cannot understand why I was refused permission and I will have something to say about this later. I wanted to see the prison so that I would be better informed on the situation before this debate started.

I note with regret that there was no mention by the Minister—and I am open to correction on this—of the very high security prison built in the Curragh which so far has not been used. The Minister gave a good run down on prisons generally throughout the country. I will go through them in detail later. Is there reason why no mention was made of a high security prison? I shall have much more to say about it later but I noted that there is little or no reference to the principle involved in this Bill of having civilian prisoners under military custody. I had a question on the Order Paper for this week to the Minister for Justice in regard to this empty prison in the Curragh but the Minister thought best to hand the question over to his colleague, the Minister for Defence. Perhaps during Question Time this afternoon I may be able to get the information I seek. If we are to have a proper and meaningful discussion, to which each can contribute as best he can on an important matter such as this, information should be given regarding the situation.

My question, unfortunately, will not be reached today and one asks, with the political situation being as it is, if it will ever be reached. It is No. 62 on the Order Paper seeking information as to when construction commenced on the new high security prison at the Curragh, County Kildare; when the work was completed; the cost of the project and when it will be used and whether it will be under civilian control—that is a very important question.

I might refer briefly to yesterday's Irish Press where a spokesman for the Department of Defence explained or tried to give reasons why my request to visit the empty prison at the Curragh was refused. He said that the Fianna Fáil Deputy's request came in connection with the Prisons Bill extension which comes before the Dáil this week. This Bill, the source goes on to say, is merely the extension of a temporary measure first introduced by the Fianna Fáil Government. We have had this temporary measure for five years and now it is hoped to extend it for a further three years and it is still described as “a temporary measure”. The Bill, the source said, was first introduced by Fianna Fáil and sought permission to permit civilian prisoners to be held in military custody. The rules permitting this are exactly the same as in the original Bill for detention in barracks. Under the circumstances it was not felt that the request to visit would serve any useful purpose or add in any significant way to the knowledge of the situation at present in the possession of the Opposition, said the Minister's statement.

I incorrectly attributed this to a spokesman for the Department; I must correct that and say it was a Minister's statement. Unfortunately, I shall not have the opportunity, nor does the parliamentary system allow me, to question the Minister for Defence on the matter but of course the information I am seeking in my question goes right to the bone of the whole situation. If we have a new high security prison ready for business in the Curragh Military Camp at the cost of the taxpayers, why are we not using it? If we were using it and if it were under civilian control; and if we were returning to that principle now that we have suitable accommodation for high risk prisoners, this establishment could be operated under civilian control and there would be no need for the Minister to come here today, practically five years to the day since the Bill was first introduced, seeking an extension of the powers.

The Minister could have been more forthcoming in his introductory remarks and have given more information if he wants the debate to be meaningful, but if he just wants to get this extension to the 1972 Act rubber-stamped he is going the right way about it. There is little or no information in his brief but, to be fair to him, his brief today, 19th May, 1977, is far more informative than was his brief on 23rd May, 1974, when he last sought in the House similar powers of extension of the 1972 Bill.

The Minister is not "coming clean", not giving the necessary information if the debate is to be of value. He knows that this prison is completed; it is an expensive high security prison in the Curragh Camp. He knows it is ready for business. He may say it is not finished but what is an unfinished building? Perhaps it is one from which one chair is missing or one where a light fitting is not properly fixed. For all practical purposes, this building, seen by people over 12 months ago, was described by them as a building ready for occupation. Perhaps the Minister is withholding deliberately this information because he still has not made up or has not been able to make up his mind on whether this prison should be under civilian or military authority.

The grapevine has it that the military want nothing to do with this job and this is a view that is fairly common. This type of talk or rumour should be cleared up. The Minister and the Government should say whose responsibility it will be to run this prison. The military can rightly argue along the lines that members of the Fine Gael Front Bench argued when in Opposition that the military are not trained for this type of work, are not happy with it. Certainly, because of their loyalty, they are prepared to undertake it when called upon. Certainly, the loyalty of our armed forces was never in question and is not in question now. They have always done what they were asked to do. It appears they are now being forced to undertake the particular job of looking after this prison when they feel that this is within the scope of the civilian authority and they would far prefer to see it done that way.

Maybe this is the reason. Maybe it has not been sorted out between the Department of Justice and the Department of Defence but, whatever the reason, my belief is that this prison is ready for occupation but the Government and the Ministers concerned, the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Defence, have not been able to come to an agreement between themselves about who should run the prison.

At this stage I should like to pay a special tribute to the members of the prison staff throughout the country for the service they are giving. I should like to thank them very sincerely for their loyalty and devotion to duty in exceptionally difficult circumstances. It is fair to say that as a nation we owe a deep debt of gratitude to them. We must ensure that their integrity is protected at all times, particularly from attacks by those who would try to discredit them for subversive reasons. With this kind of protection for the prison staff in mind, after the recent hunger strike in Portlaoise I asked the Government through the Taoiseach to provide some method of inquiry into the many allegations made against them during the hunger strike. I believed then, and I still believe, that the best method of protecting our prison staff is to expose these dangerous allegations for what they are and let the general public see them for what they are. They can only do this when they have the full facts before them. It was regrettable after the hunger strike that my request was not granted. I believe it was just another foolish Government decision.

At this stage I should like to pay tribute to the members of the Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces for the part they play in keeping our prisons in operation. Our whole system would collapse overnight but for the loyalty and dedication of these people. I would remind the Government and the Minister of this fact and point out that many members of the Garda Síochána and the prison staff are not at all happy with the way their efforts are being appreciated, as is obvious from the lack of protection by the Government.

It has been said frequently in this House in recent times that the morale of members of the forces, particularly the Garda Síochána, possibly is at one of its lowest states since our nation was established. This is not just my opinion. It is the view of the Garda Síochána themselves and this is possibly a direct result of the mishandling of the situation by the Government and the shortsighted foolish economies being forced on the Garda Síochána. Again, I wish to emphasise that this is the view of the force and any Member of this House who wants to find out what they are thinking can do so by talking to them and by reading their monthly magazine, the Garda Review, which has been strong in its condemnation of the Government and the Minister for a considerable time. It is a sad reflection that these loyal, dedicated people, the members of the Garda Síochána, only this week at a meeting in the centre of Dublin came to a decision that they were being forced to go “sick” for a day because they cannot strike in order to voice their complaints in such a way that they will be heeded by the Minister and the Government.

Many of the prison officers to whom I have spoken have assured me quite categorically that they would by far prefer an opportunity to clear their good name than have, and I quote, "untrue allegations" bandied about at frequent intervals by subversives and their fellow-travellers. The prison officers I have met strongly reject and resent the attitude of the Minister for Justice, the Taoiseach and the Government in the way the Taoiseach in particular and the Minister for Justice immediately label anyone who speaks about civil rights or Government responsibilities to prisoners as a subversive or an associate of subversives. I asked for an inquiry into the situation in Portlaoise after the hunger strike was over. No Minister for Justice and no Taoiseach in a Labour/ Fine Gael Government would dare label me a subversive. Bishop Daly of Derry city asked for an inquiry after the hunger strike had finished and certainly no Minister for Justice and no Taoiseach would dare question the integrity of that fine man.

I believe, and many share this view, that the kernel of the problem is clearly to be seen in that neither the Garda Síochána nor the prison staff are satisfied that the credibility of the Minister for Justice is such as to ensure that his denials are believed by the general public or are accepted by them. I am satisfied that the Garda Siochana and the prison staff are satisfied that their own credibility is much higher with the general public than is the credibility of the Minister, the Taoiseach or the Government. I accept the viewpoint of the gardai and the prison staff in this matter.

The fact that we are discussing the Prisons Bill, 1977, is further proof, if that is needed, that the credibility of the Minister for Justice and the Government is open to question. We have a Government Minister coming before the Dáil seeking renewal of a Bill which they in opposition venomously opposed for party political reasons when it was first introduced in 1972 by the then Minister, Deputy O'Malley. The Official Report clearly shows the depths to which the then Opposition descended in abusing Deputy O'Malley personally. He had to introduce the Bill after the wrecking of Mountjoy prison by the prison inmates on the night of Thursday, 18th May, 1972.

As a result of the wrecking of Mountjoy prison it was necessary to seek permission of the Oireachtas to hold civilian prisoners in military custody. If those prisoners could not have been detained in the Curragh they would have to be allowed go free because the situation then was that there was no guarantee whatever that they could be held securely. Despite this, almost half of the Labour Party, who now hold the Fine Gael Party in Government, irrespective of the consequences, voted against the particular Bill. We find that a number of those who voted against that Bill in a very short time were singled out for political favours by the Taoiseach, Deputy Cosgrave, who says that he puts the nation first. If he does he certainly did not put it first the day he was handing out the political favours because he had to number among those who were honoured those who, despite the consequences, voted against the 1972 Bill when it came before the House. I refer to one Member of the Labour Party whom he made Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Keating, and Deputy Cluskey, who is Parliamentary Secretary to the Tánaiste, the deputy Prime Minister of the country. I am precluded from mentioning you, so I will leave that out.

It is very easy to see, when one reads the contributions of those who spoke on the Bill, the motivating forces behind each speaker. One could say that it might perhaps have been out of deep conviction for the principle involved. Surely, it should have been deep conviction when one remembers the consequences of their actions. I hope that today we will see how deeply their convictions really are. There were Members in 1972 of the then Opposition who grudgingly supported the Bill but absented themselves from the vote. I refer in particular to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, Dr. Cruise-O'Brien, who is on record as saying, if it matters to anybody at this stage, at column 118 of the Official Report for the 23rd May, 1972:

Secondly, the case for the time limit is extremely strong. I hope the Minister will tell us he accepts the principle of the time limit, that he does not ask us to give him a kind of blank cheque for an indefinite period to keep in force regulations which most of us here would regard as regrettable or undesirable.

A few questions must now be asked, five years later, of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. What of his concern for a time limit now? Does he know of the extension of three further years being sought of regulations which he described as "regrettable and undesirable" I am sure the same Minister would have no difficulty in side-stepping his recorded remarks of the 23rd May, 1972, if he were present during the course of the debate.

The Minister for Justice, Deputy Cooney, at column 85 of the Official Report for the 23rd May, 1972, on behalf of the Fine Gael Party, said he was prepared to assist the Government.

. . . only on a strict time limit basis, on the understanding that this Bill will only last for so long as it takes Mountjoy to be restored . . .

We must note that carefully, because that will come up time and time again. He said that they would support the Bill only until such time as Mountjoy was restored "and be fully capable of receiving its full complement of prisoners". This was the attitude of the Fine Gael Party at that time. I cannot say the Opposition because at that particular time Deputy Cooney was the Opposition's spokesman on Justice for the Fine Gael Party and could not speak on behalf of the Labour Party. I very much doubt if he can speak on behalf of them now in Government.

Mr. Cooney

The Deputy has been hoping that for a long time.

Mr. L. Belton

Hope springs eternal.

Mr. G. Collins

With all fairness to the Minister, his party were so long waiting for it, they have got it and they will keep it for as long as they can, but it will be up for decision very shortly. I know that the Minister's interjection was in good humour. I want to say to him that, whatever the decision of the people is. I will be the first man to honour it, respect it and work within the system. I hope that I will be unlike the members of the Minister's party who during the course of this debate in 1972 proudly boasted that they had to be interned by the Government of the day for their activities. I would never do that.

During the course of the debate the Fine Gael spokesman at the time, Deputy Cooney, went on record and said that to him the idea of military custody was something that causes apprehension to people living in a democracy and was something that should be kept at arms length. Did the Minister mean what he said then? Was he really worried about the principle at that time? If so, what is his concern for this principle now? He only kept his principle under control because of the time limit that was put into the Bill by my colleague, Deputy O'Malley, that the Bill would be in operation for only two years and until such time as Mountjoy prison was able to take its full complement of prisoners. Mountjoy prison is more than ready to take its full complement of prisoners. How that principle was paraded that night. We had to listen to about 20 speakers from the Fine Gael and Labour Parties talking about principle. How easy it is to forget principle when one has to resume responsibility. How easy it is to be politically reckless in Opposition for political advantage, to talk of principle but to forget about it now and wish the words that were said were never said. At column 87 of the Official Report of the 23rd May, 1972, Deputy Cooney is quoted as saying:

We on this side of the House are not in favour of any move in the direction of military custody per se. I want further to emphasise that our support is conditional on the Government writing into this Bill a time limit for its operation.

I probably will be accused by the Minister when he replies to this debate, of being selective in my quotations. I am not. There is no need for one to be selective in this regard because one could speak on this Bill for ten hours if one were to use all the material that was provided for us by members of Fine Gael and Labour during the course of that memorable debate. At this very early stage of this debate I want to make it clear that any accusation that may be made later to the effect that I have been selective in my use of quotations will not wear with me. If I am wrong or if in any way I am doing the Minister an injustice in anything I say, he has officials beside him, who, no doubt, will be very quick to check out what I say and to bring it to the attention of the Minister.

At the time to which I am referring the Minister went further and said that his party were not to be taken in any way as endorsing the idea of military custody, of regarding it as being something good in relation to civil prisoners or as being something that should be part of our normal law from then on. There was no qualification then in the attitude of the then Fine Gael spokesman on Justice. He was definite in his view. Indeed, I compliment him in that he was the one who set the tone of the debate that followed so far as his party were concerned. His line of, presumably, deep conviction and deep commitment to the principle involved was taken up at a later stage by Deputy Clinton, now Minister for Agriculture, who said that the emergency legislation should not have been necessary. This was at a time when Mountjoy prison had been absolutely wrecked. As reported at column 99 of the Official Report for 23rd May, 1972, Deputy Clinton said:

. . . I am sure that every Deputy would like to rest assured that this situation would arise only in crisis circumstances and that it would exist only for the shortest possible time that would be necessary to meet such a situation.

He was pressing for a time limit, a condition that had been propounded by his spokesman on Justice. The Minister for Agriculture went on to say that these duties are not the duties of the Army and that we would not wish to be seen to have a situation here that could be compared with the situation, say, in Greece. Unfortunately, we are not likely to hear the Minister for Agriculture today. We should like to hear now about his deep conviction and his commitment to principle. Where does he stand now with regard to military custody for civilian prisoners?

However, he must be excused and his contribution of that time written off as an effort at political tight-rope walking or, to use a phrase that I might borrow from the learned Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach, Deputy Clinton must be regarded as being guilty of political trick-o'-the-loopery. The Minister for Agriculture, too, was very glad to find in the Act the provision whereby normal visiting was catered for and he expressed the hope that this provision would be honoured scrupulously. What a little sick joke that is today. In the so-called interest of democracy and per the present Minister for Defence I was refused permission to visit an empty prison. It is regrettable that the high principles of the Minister for Agriculture with regard to visiting prisons and with regard to how these institutions should be run, do not rub off in some way on his colleague the new Minister for Defence.

During the course of his contribution to the 1972 debate Deputy Clinton, with profound dismay, could not understand how it would take as long as 12 months to repair Mountjoy prison. He remarked to the then Minister for Justice, Deputy O'Malley, that it was nonsense to suggest such a long term for repair work and he proceeded to tell Parliament how quickly the prison could be repaired. One might be forgiven for saying now that the Minister for Agriculture has apparently been unheeded by the Minister for Justice in that regard.

Again, during the course of that debate, Deputy Cooney's firm and clear lead on the question of a time restriction on the legislation was taken up by another Deputy who, also, is a Minister in the present Government. I refer to the Minister for Education who, at column 126 of the Official Report for 23rd May that year said:

We are supporting the Bill until Mountjoy is ready.

I cannot be accused of selectivity in regard to that quotation because, to the best of my knowledge, it was the only utterance to emanate from Deputy Barry during the course of the entire debate. Later on one finds that the present Minister for Foreign Affairs said that it would not take 12 months to repair Mountjoy if the Government were serious about it and, still later, as he beat his very large political white breast; he protested at the introduction of what he termed repressive legislation. I think I am being very fair when I say that this Minister, as is usual for him, tried to walk on both sides of the fence in his contribution but failed. Nevertheless, he followed the party line as set down by the man who is now Minister for Justice.

It is somewhat ironic that the Minister for Foreign Affairs scoffed and jeered at the idea of it possibly taking longer than 12 months to repair the prison. From his assumption in this regard—he has been proved wrong —he tried to read every motive possible, devious and otherwise, into the contributions of the then Minister for Justice. I regard myself as having the right to say that Deputy FitzGerald's contribution then can be seen clearly for what it was—an exercise in political humbug and insincerity.

Let us turn now to the final Minister in the Fine Gael part of the Coalition to whom I wish to refer. He is the newest Minister and the one who, with the exception, perhaps, of the Minister for Fisheries, is the greatest embarrassment to the Government. I refer to the Minister for Defence who, at column 336 of the Official Report for 24th May, 1972 said:

I have a very serious objection to prisoners of any kind being under the supervision of the military authorities.

I have already expressed that view today. It would be a considerable easement if the general public could be reassured on this point. Every Member of this House advocates the maintenance of law and order and, if laws are broken, we all agree that there must be a place of detention for law-breakers. My argument is that that place of detention should be under civil authority and under civil supervision, not the military authority and military supervision. If the Minister will ensure that prisoners are supervised and catered for by the civil prison personnel that will go a long way towards alleviating public unease.

He went on to say:

There is a feeling that this is the thin end of the wedge to the opening of internment camps. It is not the responsibility of the military to be in charge of prisoners. The Minister should really take another look at this.

That was an interesting contribution from the then Deputy Flanagan who now finds that he is the person in charge of the operation which he publicly said should not happen, an operation which he detested. We have that Minister forgetting his principle. Perhaps the seal of office had something to do with that, but certainly principle is forgotten now.

Before I finish commenting on the Fine Gael contributions at that time I want to say quite categorically that Deputy Cooney's efforts clearly show that in terms of principle he too was in opposition to the measure. I suppose, as with the others I have mentioned, that the principles involved then for Ministers Cooney, Clinton, Barry, FitzGerald and Flanagan are probably now best forgotten and pushed quietly aside. I would like to describe their attitude in two words and leave it at that; political chicanery, or I might say political humbug.

I now turn to the pearls of wisdom thrown by the Tánaiste, Deputy Corish, and some members of his Labour Party. On 23rd May, 1972, Deputy Corish spoke as one wrestling with his so-called political conscience, and I quote him as reported in Volume 261, column 90 of the Official Report:

If there is a specific situation because of a specific activity no one could take exception to the introduction here of specific measures to deal with that situation, say in the form of a temporary provisions Bill. But this is not a temporary provision Bill.

How right he is. It is not a temporary provisions Bill, and he is second in command of this Labour/Fine Gael Government. He went on to say:

It will now go on our Statute Book as a permanent Act and much more dangerous, in the form of a generalised Bill which can be invoked at any time it is deemed necessary to invoke it by any Government now or in the future. The Bill can be invoked without any reference whatsoever to the rioting in Mountjoy and the destruction there on the night of 18-19 May, 1972.

Remember that it was the riotings on the nights I have just mentioned and the destruction of the prison which gave rise to the Bill and made it vital that that Bill be introduced and enacted then. Deputy Corish went on to say farther down in the same column:

One of the issues—and it is serious as far as the individual members of my Party are concerned——

That was spelling it out.

——is the taking of people out of civil custody and transferring them to military custody.

Deputy Corish was much more correct in his prediction than many would have believed. He is quite a forceful character when he wants to be and he wanted to be on this day for political reasons in his own party. At column 91 of the same volume he said that he would support the Bill only if it was a temporary one and he went so far as to promise an amendment to that effect. Amendments were accepted by Deputy O'Malley. A time restriction was incorporated in the Bill, but today, five years later, I ask Deputy Corish if he feels now as he did when he was in Opposition?

How does he feel with regard to his contribution at that time? His objections were against the method by which civil law is transferred to military control. He even went so far as to say that military custody had an ominous ring. He said there was a suggestion of martial law and that in his opinion military custody could only provoke trouble and that he did not want to see trouble provoked. That I accept. He said that if people could be transferred to military custody at the will of the Minister, to say the least of it, quite a number of people would be upset. I am sure he was upset. I would like to know if he was upset today because the measure which he wanted to see as a temporary measure has not turned out to be a temporary measure. It is now five years old and with the Minister's help it will be an eight-year old before we next get a chance to talk about it.

How would Deputy Corish react if he were here today to participate in this debate? In fairness to him, he had difficulties at that time, extreme party political internal differences during the course of that debate. Nevertheless, the leader of a party has certain responsibilities and obligations and I believe that during that debate he could and should have given leadership to his party members, those members who refused to follow him in his line of reasoning or those who on the following day refused to go through the voting lobbies. Deputy Corish, now Tánaiste, on that night realising and knowing that he had lost effective control over his party, during the course of his contribution to this debate set about doing his political Pontius Pilate act. Once again he washed his hands of his followers' actions. Of course he had an excuse. Why not? The excuse then was that they did not have enough time to study what was in the Bill.

I wonder whether they had enough time to study it in 1974. I am sure they did not because the present Minister saw to it that they were not given time. The Bill was circulated in the morning and taken that same day. Did Deputy Corish's followers for the Bill of 1977 have enough time to go through it to see what was in it and whether it was any different from the Bill which they rejected and a number of them voted against in 1972? Their efforts at that time were insincere efforts and must be described as efforts at political sidestepping and humbug. Such obvious weakness on the part of a leader is something we could certainly do without. Of course there were problems about asserting leadership and trying to keep the rebel mavericks in line to support the Bill. Let it be borne in mind the consequences if that Bill had not gone through at that time. If prisoners could not have been kept in the Curragh, there was no other place they could have been kept. Nevertheless, members of the Labour Party refused to follow their leader and voted against the Bill irrespective of the consequences. They now have been favourably rewarded by the man who "puts the nation first", some of them with ministerial portfolios, some of them with Parliamentary Secretaryships, and others I am forbidden to mention because the office they hold is supposed to be above discussion.

I would like to think that not only would the highly irresponsible and reckless action of these people be brought up and shown to them but that it be borne in mind that these are the type of people who now form the Government. They would want us to forget that when it came to— forgive me for once again using the phrase—putting the nation first, they did not put the nation first but were well rewarded for their attitude. I wish to quote what Deputy Cluskey, now Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare, said at column 102, Volume 261, of the Official Report of 23rd May, 1972, and I am not being selective, because this is the kernal of his contribution at this time:

This is possibly one of the most difficult decisions any Member of a democratic assembly has been asked to make for quite some time . . . the transfer from civil to military authority is a responsibility that lies very heavily upon us . . .

Those are Deputy Cluskey's efforts at publicly wrestling with his conscience. The end result was that democracy was booted up the transom that day by Deputy Cluskey and by those who went through the lobbies with him voting against the Bill. He was truly helped on that occasion by his colleague, Deputy Thornley and while I will not attempt to create the same theatrical atmosphere put into it, I quote what he said at column 137 of the same volume of the Official Report:

To me, this measure is repugnant in every respect, except in the retention of trial by jury, and that in turn is modified by a continuous remand in the case of some of these men. In every respect this measure is a cynical one which takes advantage of a temporary and slight difficulty in one particular prison to bring in here Draconian legislation.

It will be noted that Deputy Thornley described the wrecking of Mountjoy prison as a temporary and slight difficulty and no more than that. He accused us of using this so-called temporary and slight difficulty for the purposes of introducing Draconian legislation, he having been assured at that time that we could not have put those highly dangerous and subversive prisoners anywhere but into custody in the Curragh. Although Deputy Thornley, a man who helps to keep the Taoiseach in his office, described our efforts as Draconian but in 1974, when this Bill was being extended Deputy Thornley was not here nor was Deputy Corish of the Labour Party.

The only person to offer during the course of that debate in May, 1974, a bare week before the existing legislation ran out, was the Minister for Justice himself, Deputy Cooney. The men of conscience had disappeared. So much for Deputy Thornley and where he and his fellow-travellers were in 1974. I suppose they are in the same place in 1977. However, if there were a vote—and I have already said we are not opposing this Bill—I have no doubt whatever but that they would go through the "Tá" lobby, and the political neck is so great that they would not be ruffled. The party renegades at the time, the men who were not prepared to accept the leadership of the Tánaiste, Deputy Brendan Corish, on this vital question—the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Keating, Deputy John O'Connell, Deputy Liam Kavanagh, Dr. John O'Donovan, who is no longer a member, Deputy Dan Spring, who I regret is not here, and the Ceann Comhairle, Deputy Seán Treacy— marched through that lobby and voted "No" irrespective of the consequences.

In May, 1974, as I have already said, a matter of days before the expiration of the time limit for the provisions in the 1972 Bill, the Minister for Justice, Deputy Cooney, then with indecent haste and a certain amount of political sleight of hand and stealth, came before the Oireachtas with the Prisons Bill, 1974, a Bill which sought to extend the provisions of the previous Act for a further period of time, this time for three years, not two as was given to him by Deputy Desmond O'Malley. These were the people who wanted a time limit on it. These are the people who were afraid, these were the people who said, through Deputy Oliver Flanagan, that it was the back door to internment and shouted and ranted and raved and disrupted this House until they got a two-year restriction in the original Bill from Deputy O'Malley, but now the Minister came before us to get an extension under the Prisons Act, 1972, the relevant section of which makes provision for the transfer of prisoners from civil to military custody and for related matters. At column 1848, Volume 260, of the Official Report for 15th May, 1974, the Minister for Justice, Deputy Cooney, said, and I ask you to watch for the first sidestep from his original position in 1972, and I am not quoting him out of context:

We on this side of the House were reluctant to agree to the enactment of the 1972 Act,

Whom was he talking about? He was not reluctant to talk on behalf of the seven or eight Labour Members who set about torpedoing the Bill; he was not talking on behalf of his present Government colleagues because Deputy Keating had voted against the Bill and so had Deputy Cluskey. Of course, it was a fair effort by the Minister to talk on behalf of all those who now make up the Coalition. The Minister's statement begs the question of why Fine Gael at the time were reluctant to agree. Are they not on record as saying they believed it to be the back door to internment? Did they not at that stage say that there was no need for this further example of so-called repressive legislation? That was Deputy Garret FitzGerald. Did we not have Fine Gael Members of the House saying how they had been treated while in prison, and in so doing were they not admitting their own disregard for the institutions of this State?

We must appreciate, therefore, that Fine Gael and Labour Deputies played politics in a most reckless fashion in 1972 by their approach to the debate on that Bill. I will give credit where it is due. The record clearly shows that the most responsible member of Fine Gael during the course of that debate was the then Deputy T.F. O'Higgins, now the Chief Justice. At column 1848 of the Dáil Official Report for 21st May, 1974, Deputy Cooney is reported:

In March, 1972 the prisons simply could not hold the prison population at the time——

There was an admission in 1974 of the existence in 1972 of something which they vehemently and venomously denied in 1972. He then continued:

——and the only course open was to transfer some of them to military custody.

In 1974 the Minister admitted that the only course open was to transfer some of the prisoners to military custody in 1972. He went on:

Those transferred were persons requiring a high degree of security or who promoted or actively engaged in seriously disruptive activities.

There the Minister was admitting what was venomously and viciously denied in 1972 by members of the parties making up the present Government. What a big change of heart between 1972 and 1974. How realistic, responsible an understanding they became in that short period. If the prisoners in Mountjoy in 1972 could not have been kept in the Curragh, as was intended by Labour Deputies in 1972, were they to be set free? Present Government Ministers like Deputies Clinton, FitzGerald, Flanagan, Barry and others scoffed and jeered and ridiculed Deputy O'Malley in 1972 when he said that Mountjoy could not be properly repaired within 12 months. The present Minister for Justice said on 21st May, 1974, as reported at column 1848:

The damage to Mountjoy Prison caused in the riot of May, 1972 was made good for the most part.

Even in May, 1974 Deputy Cooney still could not say that the damage had been made good in all parts, because he continued:

The repair work restored the prison substantially to its pre-riot condition.

That was another qualification. So much for the professional know-alls in 1972, the self-styled architects and clerks of works, Clinton, Fitzgerald and others, who abused Deputy O'Malley no end for saying the work could not be carried out within 12 months. To save face in 1974 Deputy Cooney had to eat humble pie, but he was dishonest or less than honest when he told the House:

However, a new factor emerged in the overall situation which makes it necessary to continue the present arrangement. This is the emergence of well-organised disruption within our prisons and the consequent need for the careful segration or grouping of prisoners. The problems involved in maintaining secure custody for the full range of our prison population has been conpounded since 1972 by the increased number of subversives in our prisons.

In 1974 the Minister came here and tried to tell us that a new situation had begun to emerge and that disruptive elements were beginning to be felt in our prisons. That is not true. I believe the Minister was trying deliberately to mislead the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should not use such terminology.

Mr. G. Collins

If he was not trying to mislead the House then, he proved without doubt that he did not have the foggiest notion of the situation in 1972 within our prisons because if he had he would have known that disruptive elements within prisons did not emerge in 1974, they were in 1972 and before that time. If the Minister had been responsible in his role as Justice spokesman for Fine Gael, instead of playing politics with our national security efforts he would have expressed understanding of the position in 1972. In 1972 he had been definite in his views that the Curragh detention barracks could have been taken over by the prison administration and operated as a civilian prison but in 1974 he made a further admission to the effect that he was wrong once again.

I should like to quote a statement made by the Minister on 21st May. 1974, as reported at column 1849 of the Official Report.

I was of the opinion in 1972 that the Curragh Detention Barracks could be taken over by the prison administration and operated as a civilian prison. I am satisfied now that it could not. Apart from the basic objection to having a civilian controlled enclave in the heart of a military complex, there are not adequate staff resources in the prison service to run the Curragh Military Detention Barracks and at the same time meet current and prospective commitments in the civil prisons.

What has the Minister done since? He has built a new high security prison within the Curragh Barracks. What has he not done? He has not recruited the civilian manpower needed by the prison authorities to man this prison. We are now left with the situation of an expensive high security prison with nobody to run it because the Minister deliberately did nothing about it for reasons best known to himself. This is the empty high security prison that I, as spokesman for my party, was refused permission to see this week. I sought permission to do so so that I might be in a better position to talk more knowledgably on the important principle which they resurrected in 1972 of civilian administration in the prison or military administration in the prison.

At a later stage in the course of that debate on 21st May, 1974, the Minister said:

I should say, of course, that I would much prefer to be in a position to have facilities to house these prisoners in civil custody but the simple fact is that, as of now, there is still no suitable high security unit to keep these prisoners.

Let us go a little further on to where he had a monumental announcement to make, the carrot for fear a carrot might be necessary for the Labour Party mavericks who refused to vote with him when he opposed the Bill in 1972. Had it come to a vote in 1974 and had my party not been as responsible as they were at that time, had they for political reasons forced a vote, who knows what way the mavericks might have gone. Certainly, only one of them could have been assured of because he was Ceann Comhairle and he could not vote. The Minister went on to say:

I have decided, in fact, that it is necessary to build a special unit to house prisoners of the type now in military custody. This will be a high security unit capable of housing up to 30 high risk prisoners and will be located in the Portlaoise prison complex.

That was more than a firm decision because the Minister went on to tell us that preliminary work had started; the operation was in progress. Three years later the Minister told us he had another change of heart; he made another mistake. He has now stopped; he is not going ahead with the project because he discovered he would not be able to go ahead with it.

Surely, if the Minister had his ground work done before he came here three years ago and if he had listened to his advisers who would have known the position then, he would have been aware that his talk and promise of building a high security unit for 30 prisoners within the Portlaoise compound was nothing other than a carrot to hold out to Labour Party mavericks or renegades who were needed to go through the lobbies in the afternoon in the event of a vote being called. In 1974 the Minister held out further carrots to Labour Party Members he was not sure would support him if a vote was called when he stated:

. . . it will, however, take up to three years to complete this project and while it may be possible to dispense with military custody for civilians before then . . .

However, instead of dispensing with the military custody within the three years we now have him back looking for a further three year extension. Where was the Labour Party when the Minister looked for that extension three years ago? Where were the people with the consciences? Where were the people with the fears in the Fine Gael Party? Where were the people with the deep commitment and the unlimited high principle they kicked around this Parliament in a most disruptive fashion? Where were the Labour Party mavericks? I got no answer to those questions earlier and I am not likely to get one today. I suppose their principles were bought with State cars and other high trappings of office.

If principles were involved in 1972 when a desperate situation existed— the Minister has since admitted that a desperate situation did exist in that year which made it necessary for the former Minister, Deputy O'Malley, to bring in legislation—for those who were wrestling with their consciences, where was the desperate situation that existed in 1974? As the present Minister for Education, Deputy Peter Barry, pointed out, he was supporting the Bill until Mountjoy was ready. The Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Clinton said the same thing. Deputy Fitzgerald had the same thing to say as had every other speaker from the Fine Gael Party. Mountjoy was repaired by 1974 and there was space for the prisoners but the Minister by coming back here and saying he could not hold them securely is another important aspect of the whole thing. In spite of the desperate situation that existed in 1972 under Deputy O'Malley, in spite of the fact that the prison was wrecked that night no prisoners escaped. Shortly afterwards it was open season, one could go in and out with a helicopter, one could do what one liked there. They got out in droves. While it was never proved by the Government, on the occasion that the helicopter went in there to bring the prisoners out was there a Special Branch man there to help the prison authorities? If the type of security that the Government are known for is of the same level as that being given to the holding of our prisoners in custody is the same as the security being given to the ordinary people as they go about their business and try to protect their lives, their families and their property, then it is not a high security prison that is needed in Portlaoise or at the Curragh. Unless we have the manpower to run our prisons they will not be looked after as effectively as they should be.

This is important legislation. My party are as committed now as they were in the past, and will be in the future, to ensuring that legislation for holding subversives in custody will be enacted here. We will not force a situation here today that would embarrass the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Spring, Deputy Kavanagh, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, Deputy Cluskey, and half the Labour Party by making them swallow their principles—if principles they were—by pushing them through the lobbies. We will not play politics.

An Opposition party have responsibilities at all times. The recklessness for political purposes that was shown on the night of 23rd May in this House should never again be seen for any reason. The irresponsibility shown that night will not be shown by my party. As I said, we are not opposing this Bill but we are criticising the attitudes and the efforts of the Minister and the Government.

Mr. L. Belton

Deputy Collins spoke for 90 minutes and in all that time he did not offer one helpful suggestion. In his long diatribe he quoted practically every member of the parties constituting this Government. Not content with quoting members of this House, he also quoted the present Chief Justice. He took the unprecedented step of criticising the present Ceann Comhairle.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 19 May 1977

Prisons Bill, 1977: Second Stage.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 19 May 1977