Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 May 1977

Vol. 299 No. 11

Prisons Bill, 1977: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

I should like to refer to a few of the matters mentioned in the debate, namely, the question of the maintenance of law and order and the protection of the institutions of State. Fianna Fáil always ensured that the institutions of the State were fully protected as well as protecting the security of individuals. At the moment there is no law and order. The decline of law and order in the past three years has brought about the drastic situation we are now experiencing. It is the responsibility of the Government to protect our democratic institutions and to ensure the freedom of individuals. At the weekend we had a jackboot attack on democracy by the Taoiseach, who viciously attacked the basic and fundamental freedoms we treasure. The freedom of the press was threatened.

We are dealing with the Prisons Bill.

Who will fill the prison in the Curragh? Will it be the press correspondents whom the Taoiseach does not like? Will it be the pickets or the "thicks" to whom he referred? Does the Taoiseach want to deprive individuals who have a basic right to protest of that fundamental freedom that is necessary in a democracy? This has been the jackboot attack from the howling mob at the Fine Gael Ard Fheis last weekend. On the same day, by accident or design, we saw a newsreel in an RTE programme showing General O'Duffy addressing a Blueshirt rally at Clonmel. One wonders what was the connection between the attack on democracy by Fine Gael at their Ard Fheis and the attack on Fianna Fáil by General O'Duffy.

The Deputy should stay with the Bill.

The rights of individuals have been attacked viciously by the Taoiseach and by other members of Fine Gael. It is the duty of any Government to ensure that these fundamental rights are protected, particularly when it comes to a jackboot-elected Taoiseach——

The Deputy may not continue in this fashion——

The Deputy should be careful that the Taca men do not do to him what they did to Deputy Carter.

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would allow the Chair to continue. The Deputy will not be allowed to continue in this fashion. He will speak to the Bill; otherwise he must resume his seat.

I hope we still possess freedom of speech in this country but it appears that inside and outside this House people will be denied that basic freedom. I am speaking on the Bill. I want to know what the Government will do with the empty camp they have in the Curragh. Will protesters be put into that prison? Will trade union pickets or the pickets who operated peacefully outside the Ard Fheis last weekend be put into it? That question must be answered.

Freedom of speech is basic and fundamental and it is the duty of a Government to protect it. Will people be impounded into that prison because they do not fall in line with the wishes of the Taoiseach or of Fine Gael? If such people do not yield to Government pressure will they be put into that prison? I hope that those that protest against injustice of any kind will not be impounded. Can the Minister truthfully say that they will not be imprisoned in the detention camp in the Curragh? From the jackboot attack by the Taoiseach last Saturday and Sunday, I take it we are well on the way to having a serious situation in this State.

We know that so far as military custody is concerned not so long ago the Taoiseach and the Minister took into their hands the right to appoint senior Army officers. They have here and elsewhere a very important bearing on the question of military detention. This is a military camp where military detention will be a factor. Is this a follow-on to the appointment of senior Army officers? A situation now exists in the State where we have senior Army officers appointed on the say of the Taoiseach.

The Deputy will not be allowed to continue in this fashion by the Chair.

This is a military prison. The Bill seeks to have people maintained in military custody. We have a high security prison which has not yet any prisoners in it.

The Deputy must stay within the terms of the Bill.

Who will go into that prison? Will it be members of the Press or members of pickets? We are told about the blow-ins, the blow-outs and about the blow-ups.

The Deputy must keep within the terms of the Bill.

It is a very serious situation to have a suggestion made that pickets or the Press should be attacked by blow-ups. It is appalling that this came from a man like the Taoiseach.

The Deputy will leave that and keep to the Bill.

We want to know who will be impounded in the high security prison at the Curragh, which is in the middle of a camp where we will have Army officers promoted because they are friends of the Taoiseach in charge of the situation. This happened in other countries where the colonels took over. We see the jackboot mentality, the jackboot campaign. Let us go to the country and let the people decide at the earliest possible moment if they want the Taoiseach's type of law and order or if they want to maintain the basic and fundamental rights that are so dear to the people of the country.

Will the Deputy stick to the Bill now?

Thousands of Irishmen have given their lives for this over the years. We will not have that frittered away by the insane attack we had last Sunday. We want to know who will go into this camp.

Again, and for the last time, the Chair is telling the Deputy to stay with the Bill or else the Chair will have no option—the Chair does not desire it— but to ask the Deputy to resume his seat.

There are cities and towns in the country where there are no-go areas, where the police cannot go into them without being attacked. This is the type of law and order we have at the moment. The aged, the infirm and the young are vulnerable to attack by the boot-boys, the bully boys and the howling mobs. These howling mobs were told that they could attack blow-outs and blow-ins by blow-ups. I hope we get a clear indication now what they intend to do with the powers they seek. I know that people will not tolerate any jackboot activities or any move by any Taoiseach of any Government to take away the rights which were so dearly won. We have had no law and order in the country for the last few years. This has been pointed out in the House and outside it by various groups throughout the country. People have appealed again and again for protection against robbery with violence, armed robbery, rape and all the other hideous crimes but there is no response from the Government. They have allowed a situation to develop so that it is necessary to imprison people instead of correcting a situation at an early stage.

I am quite sure that if there were sufficient gardaí they would be able to control the situation and ensure that justice is done. The sooner this jackboot election campaign is over and the sooner we get back in office the quicker we can bring about a situation where normality is restored and basic rights are protected so that we will not have hysterical outbursts such as we heard last week-end. I ask again who will be impounded in this camp. Is it the pickets that were regarded as thicks? Is it people who have a right in any democracy to make peaceful protest? Will members of the Press be impounded? Will members of Fianna Fáil be impounded? There was a vicious attack on democracy. We are attending the wake of this Dáil. It is sad to think that at this stage we have this attack by the Taoiseach. No doubt his off the cuff statement shows exactly what he thinks. We must examine the Taoiseach's off the cuff statement because that was a true reflection of what he and the Government think. Vicious lies were poured out to the nation at that particuler gathering. The Taoiseach will have to answer why he deliberately lied to the nation.

The Deputy will withdraw that statement.

My situation is——

The Deputy will not argue with the Chair.

I will not withdraw what I know to be basically and fundamentally true.

If the Deputy will not withdraw that statement he will resume his seat.

All I can say is this——

The Deputy will not argue with the Chair.

If I resume my seat, I will be deprived of my basic and fundamental right of free speech in the House. The Chair has time and time again deprived me of an opportunity of expressing myself.

The Deputy will resume his seat.

We were told about the blow-outs and the blow-ups.

The Deputy will withdraw his statement or withdraw from the House.

One can understand the emotion and the passion expressed by Deputy Dowling in the light of the fascist diatribe we had from the Taoiseach last week-end. It was one of the most frighteningly illiberal speeches made by a political leader of this nation in recent years. One must be appalled at the general tenor of his speech, that if you are not with us you are against us and if you are against us God help you.

The Bill we are discussing is a monument to the hypocrisy of the Government. The principle of transferring civilian prisoners to military custody is not a good principle. However, when we saw it as our duty in 1972 to take such action we went ahead but we were denounced vehemently by those defenders of democracy.

For the record, it is interesting to note that a number of those who opposed us then are now enshrined in one Government job or another. These people were not heard in 1974 when the present Minister for Justice sought an extension of the original Act. Neither have they been heard since. Among those who voted against the measure in 1972 were Deputies Cluskey, O'Connell, O'Donovan, Sherwin, Thornley and Deputy Treacy who is now the Ceann Comhairle. Despite such opposition Deputy O'Malley who is a courageous man by any standards put that Bill through. He was subjected to the most personalised opposition possible, so much so that one would think he was acting out of spite rather than out of a sense of duty. He introduced a Bill which was the collective responsibility of the then Fianna Fáil Government. Opposition to him at the time was lead ably by the man who is now Minister for Justice and who considered it his duty to denounce the measure in defence of democracy. Since then the same man has extended the measure and now seeks a further extension of it. In fairness to him he has done his duty against, perhaps, his better judgement, but in accordance with the advice that he receives on matters of this nature.

It is interesting to recall, though, that in seeking an extension of the measure in 1974, the Minister was the only one from the other side to speak on the Bill. He was on his own. None of the people I have mentioned nor the Tánaiste no more than the present Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and the Minister for Industry and Commerce was to be heard in 1974. Their liberalism had lapsed. Their socialism was in suspension from the day they were appointed by the Taoiseach. Having regard to the performance of the Labour Party on that occasion in 1972 and relating it to their general behaviour since 1973 one can only assume that James Connolly turned in his grave many times since then. What must he think of what is being done in the name of socialism by certain members of the Parliamentary Labour Party?

In introducing the 1977 Bill the Minister's speech absorbs six columns of the Official Report. In 1974 his speech involved two columns of the Report but on 23rd May, 1972 he had a lot to say. It is worth quoting just a little of what he said then. At that time he was a great liberal, a defender of democracy, but his concern which was presented then as being real would appear to have been unreal. What he could not take in 1972, he has sought to extend twice since. As reported in Volume 272 column 85 of the Official Report for the 23rd of May of that year, the Minister said:

The idea of military custody is something that causes apprehension to people living in a democracy. It is something we should keep at arms length so far as possible; it is something that must be kept at arms length unless there is a situation of revolution and utter chaos. We are certainly not in that situation at the moment. It is reprehensible on the part of the Government to bring in this piece of legislation with this emotive power without indicating that it is entirely a temporary measure. I expect the Minister to give full and detailed reasons why the powers under the 1877 Act have not been used.

That was the man in opposition as against the man in power. There is a choice droplet, too, from the Tánaiste as reported at column 93 of the Official Report for the same day. It is as follows:

My objections are against the method by which the civil law is transferred to military control. "Military custody" has an ominous ring. There is a suggestion of martial law. In my opinion military custody could provoke trouble in the country, not that I want to see trouble provoked. If people can be transferred to military custody at the will of the Minister, to say the least of it quite a number of people will be upset. It has also been suggested that, even though the Curragh might be designated as a prison, supervision should lie in the hands of the Minister for Justice and his agents, whether or not they be governors of prisons. At least the supervision should be in the hands of the Minister for Justice so that it will appear that if people are deprived of civil liberties the civil law will apply to them.

We have not heard from the Tánaiste on this subject. Another great defender of democracy, a man who wears his concern on his sleeve, is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Welfare who, stated on 23rd May, 1972, at column 106 of the same volume:

Surely the Minister is not asking this assembly to pass a Bill which is a departure from normal democratic procedure and institutions on the basis that he cannot spare two senior prison officers? That is what it means. The Minister states that. The Minister said:

It was my hope, at the time of the transfer, to utilise the detention barracks as a civil prison but, owing to the severe demands on the existing prison staff at the present time and the inevitable delay in recruiting...

What does that mean? The Minister says "severe demands on the existing prison staff". What are the "severe demands" connected with two senior prison officers? What is the "demand" about one senior prison officer? There is none. I am telling the Minister and the House that unless I get a very satisfactory answer to these questions, I would not feel that I was doing my duty as a democratically-elected representative to this Parliament, and as a believer in democracy, in supporting this Bill. If I do not get satisfactory answers I will oppose this Bill at all stages.

The Parliamentary Secretary is cosily enshrined until this evening in the Department. We have not heard anything from him on this subject since 1972. On that occasion he was defending democracy but on this occasion he will support this Bill which includes one of the most vicious attacks on democracy, namely the use of the guillotine in circumstances which curtail free speech. That is what the Parliamentary Secretary is doing on this occasion. He is voting for a Bill which we vehemently opposed, not only by word but by act when he went through that division lobby in 1972. He is not only supporting something which he found unsupportable in 1972, he is also supporting the curtailing of free speech in this Dáil by the introduction of the guillotine, regardless of what is or is not said on this legislation.

These lapsed liberals, Deputy Cruise-O'Brien, Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, Deputy Corish, the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Social Welfare, Deputy Keating, Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Cluskey, and Deputy Tully, Minister for Local Government, are deafening us with their silence. They were not here in 1974 and they are not here in 1977 to express by their vehemence their abhorrence of a Bill which they bitterly opposed in 1972. It is a gross hypocrisy on the part of all of them. Now the Labour branch of the Fine Gael Party, by supporting a guillotine motion, are supporting the curtailment of the democratic right of the Opposition to speak freely in this House. It is a logical extension of what the Taoiseach said last weekend. It is a continuity of the statement of the Taoiseach that those who dissent, whether they be the nationally elected Opposition party or other liberals in our society who like to have a say on given subjects, are in danger. That is what the support of this Bill now by those people who spoke so desperately against it in 1972 implies. It is a logical extension to the Cosgrave ethic on fasoism in his dissertation on Saturday last. It was an appalling revelation of what we can expect from this Government if they are to be allowed continue in office for another three or four years.

We are speaking about the Prisons Bill, 1977, and we are concerned to indicate from the very beginning that we are being consistent in supporting the extension of time sought by the Bill. We are totally consistent in our support of what the Minister seeks. However, to listen to the Minister and his colleagues and to listen to the Taoiseach and his cronies and placemen, one would imagine that in all the circumstances they have cornered the market on law and security. Fianna Fáil have never been found wanting in that field and never will be. When we saw it our duty to safeguard the institutions of this country we did so against all comers and indeed against the very Minister who now seeks the introduction of this Prisons Bill. This continual, sickening prating about what they have done to safeguard and secure the institutions of this country makes one's stomach turn.

We are taking action in the German courts this week.

Over the years when we were in Government we saw it our duty to take that and any Government charged with ruling in a democratic society have an obligation to ensure that the rule of law prevails on a fair basis and to defend the rule of law against outside or inside attack. One would imagine that it is something peculiar to the Cosgrave Government to have taken this mantle of law and order, as if no other Government did their duty in the same circumstances. What this Government have failed to do—and this is pertinent to the Bill before us—is to secure the security of local communities. There is a very serious breakdown in law and order and in local security in the cities, suburbs and large towns, and there is no gainsaying that. The facts are available for everybody to study. I hope the people will judge this Government not only on their record of national law and order—which any Government must uphold when charged by the people to rule the country for a period of time—but also on their record in relation to break-ins, assaults and all the things that Deputy Dowling was concerned about in his contribution.

In the Taoiseach's constituency in 1970 there were 173 gardaí. Lo and behold, in 1977, seven years later there are 181 gardaí, an increase of eight gardaí in seven years. One cannot be loud enough in praise of the Garda Síochána and the Government who do not support the Garda Síochána, the law enforcement agency, are doing a disservice to the nation, and this Government are doing just that disservice in what is euphemistically described as the Taoiseach's own constituency. I asked a Parliamentary Question here on 18th May, 1977, in relation to the law and order and local security situation in the constituency of Dún Laoghaire and the Minister made some vague reference to the fact that there will be additional foot patrols on the streets and by-roads of the constituency. My information is different and I believe that the Minister misled the House in his reply to that question for short-term gain in the impending general election. The Garda deserve the support of this Dáil and must get it. The Minister pooh-poohs my suggestion that the real problem in relation to the breakdown of local security and law and order at local level is the lack of foot patrols. There is nothing as effective as the blue-uniformed presence of the Garda Síochána on the street.

I am sure the Deputy will come back to the Bill.

I would urge the Minister in the dying hours of this Dáil to help the Garda Síochána to help the community. One reads of the most appalling beatings-up of old people in their homes, the constant theft of bicycles from outside homes, the constant break-ins of homes in suburbia in the cities, in shops and so on. I do not want to be hysterical or to panic. The solution to the matter is in the hands of the Government-for-the-time-being. When we get back to office after the general election we will solve the problem.

The Deputy is now coming to the Bill again.

It is a matter I thought I might mention.

There is another matter to which the Attorney General referred, the attitude of Fianna Fáil in Opposition and in Government as against that of the present Government when in Opposition. One of the most extraordinary things is that the present Attorney General, who, of course, was appointed in the most despicable fashion by the Taoiseach, is acting at present in his former capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach and Chief Whip. I charge the Attorney General with bringing the office of Attorney General into disrepute. Either he is Attorney General or he is Chief Whip and Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence.

The Deputy should adhere to the Prisons Bill.

His behaviour at present shows contempt for the office of the Attorney General and that of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach. However, his attitude personifies the manner of his appointment. When one hears him prating about law and order one can only relate his present behaviour in the office of Attorney General to his own words and his contempt for the office.

One could cite many quotations from the debate on the Prisons Bill, 1972, and its introduction by the then Minister for Justice, Deputy O'Malley. However, one of the choicest on that occasion was the remarks of the present Minister for Posts and Telegraphs when he said in Volume 272, column 113, of the Official Report of 23rd May, 1972:

A number of reservations have been expressed from our benches and by other speakers about this legislation, the manner in which it has been introduced and how it stands at the moment. It was introduced in a mood which is rather dear to this Government, a mood of very belated but frantic haste. The Government are very slow to move but when they move everyone else must move instantly; it is a case of out of the way, minimum discussion, we must get it through, guillotine everything. I do not think that is the way to deal with a problem of this kind...

What a choice statement from the lapsed Liberal who will now support the Prisons Bill and the guillotine motion which will bring debate on the subject to an end. In retrospect it rings very hollow and one might listen to it again:

I do not think that is the way to deal with a problem of this kind; it is not the way to get people with you; it is overbearing and it is a wrong approach.

Then we have the statement:

The Government are very slow to move but when they move everyone else must move instantly; it is a case of out of the way, minimum discussion, we must get it through, guillotine everything.

He becomes the guillotine everything Minister in 1977. History has an odd way of repeating itself. When the general election is over the people will put the general hyocrisy of the present members of the Government into proper perspective. I would hope that history would repeat itself on this occasion by ensuring that the present Government meet the fate they deserve.

Let me make one final comment on the Prisons Bill again relating it to the Taoiseach's speech over the week-end. Not one member of the Parliamentary Labour Party has made an utterance on the type of speech the Taoiseach made which is an appaling commentary on how well they have been bought by the same man, bought, I mean by the trappings of office. Those great Liberals. Where are they now? Why did they not make some comment on the liberalism of the Taoiseach's speech at the week-end, this frightening speech that would appear to have this country surrounded by barbed wire?

We will run short of prisons—one for the Press, one for the Opposition——

They are selective in what they have said and in what they will do. It is a tragedy that the country is being run by people of that kind.

Perhaps I might be permitted to quote one further droplet from the former Liberal Minister for Posts and Telegraphs at column 119 of the same debate:

Nonetheless, after what has happened in the country and in Mount-joy Prison lately, the authorising of the transfer to military custody of certain categories of prisoners is a lesser evil. It is a lesser evil because we have a certain category of prisoner who appears, to some extent, to be outside the control of what might be called a normal prison system. This could have been foreseen. The Minister could have taken note of what happened at Crumlin Road jail and he could have set out about strenghening the ordinary prison system, which he does not appear to have done. The prison system broke down, there was a failure within the area of the Minister's responsibility.

The present Minister for Justice is extending the Bill introduced by the courageous Deputy O'Malley, as Minister for Justice, in 1972. Effectively, what the Minister is doing is extending the time and operation of a Fianna Fáil Government Bill.

Deputy Collins and others quoted at length statements made in 1972 and referred to the silence of some people in 1974 and 1977. It is extraordinary the way power corrupts absolutely——

The Deputy should know more about that than we.

——the way the Labour Party are now a mere branch of the Fine Gael Government, the Parliamentary Labour Party.

(Interruptions.)

I have never in any way tried to impute the performance of the Parliamentary Labour Party to the ordinary rank and file of the Labour Party.

Nobody can point a finger at them. All of those are honourable men.

Will Deputy Coughlan please permit Deputy Andrews to continue uninterrupted?

I never imputed the dishonour brought upon the Labour Movement by the Parliamentary Labour Party to the rank and file of that party. These are honourable people.

The same cannot be said about members of the Deputy's own front bench and, indeed, backbenchers. They are not honourable men. They were adjudged as adulterers and perjurers in the criminal court.

Will Deputy Coughlan please permit the Chair to intervene? Deputy Andrews must be allowed to continue without interruption.

Deputy Coughlan is giving a fine performance of what I have been speaking about, the Parliamentary behaviour of the Parliamentary Labour Party.

It being now 2.30 p.m. I am, in accordance with the Order made by the Dáil, putting the question: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time, that the Bill is hereby agreed to and is reported to the House, that the Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share