Ba mhaith liom ar dtús, a Cheann Comhairle, mo bhuíochas a ghlacadh leatsa as ucht cead a thabhairt dom an cheist seo a ardú. In deference to the Minister of State I will continue the remainder of my remarks in English. While it is nice to see my colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Deputy Nuala Fennell here, it is sad that the Minister for Justice — who professes such a deep interest in the national language and culture, is not here himself.
The main purpose of my raising this matter on the Adjournment this evening is to explain to the Minister, through the Minister of State, why I feel the Minister should use the discretionary powers he has to release this prisoner. I propose to deal with that matter in the following ways: first, to develop the reason he is in prison, the cost to the State involved, the prison conditions within which he is residing at present and to talk about the prisoner himself.
If we talk about the reason for his imprisonment, it is purely on a point of principle. While none of us can condone the breaking of the law in this country under any circumstances, this Government have certainly brought the laws in regard to broadcasting into disrepute by presiding over a sad situation in relation to illegal broadcasting for a very long time now.
Mr. Ó Baoill, one might say, got a number of opportunities of paying the fine which was imposed on him at a court in my constituency in 1984. The reason for his continuing not to pay the fine was that he was mistakenly led to believe, from The Irish Times of 25 February 1985 that the present Minister for Communications was going to introduce major reforms in the area of television broadcasting, in particular, in relation to the culture and the language. That was a statement made by the Minister for Communications in which he said that some of the influences which now threaten our cultural identity were of more dubious value. He went on to talk about the influences being popularised by the mass media, a kind of a bland, undifferentiated mid-Atlantic mass culture, as he called it. Mr. Ó Baoill did not pay his fine because he believed that the pledge by the Minister for Communications, which included the words “we must be on our guard to ensure that the improvements which I have outlined are used to heighten and improve our cultural inheritance rather than swamp it”, would be carried out; hence his reason for not paying the fine.
All of us in this House have agreed for many years that there is a point of principle in relation to the proportion of Irish language programmes on our national media. Section 17 of the Broadcasting Act of 1960 outlines the statutory duties of RTE regarding the Irish language and I quote:
In performing its functions, the Authority shall bear constantly in mind the national aims of restoring the Irish language and preserving and developing the national culture and shall endeavour to promote the attainment of those aims.
I would suggest that it might be more appropriate to take the national television station to the courts rather than an individual who is trying to bring up his children through the medium of Irish in the heartland of the Gaeltacht.
I said I would outline the cost to the State of this man's imprisonment. Today a taxi was hired, with taxpayers' money to go from Galway city to this prisoner's home in Connemara to take himself and a local garda all the way to Dublin, to Mountjoy, to deposit the prisoner there. The taxi then returned — at a further cost to the State — to Galway city and delivered the garda to his home in Connemara. The charge to the State for such a service is approximately 50p per mile. They stopped for a meal and I presume that was paid for with taxpayer's money. I am sure all this cost much more than the fine imposed and would pay for many television licences. I wonder if that cost to the State is warranted.
There seems to be some confusion about the prison sentence. When I spoke to the prisoner this evening in Mountjoy he said that his recollection was that he had been fined or sentenced to one month in jail, whereas the warrant states two months in jail. Perhaps the Minister would confirm the actual term of imprisonment imposed.
The prisoner is the personnel director of Údarás na Gaeltachta a semi-State body. He is a very hardworking person, a good husband, a loyal father who worked abroad for many years and came back here because he thought it was the best country in which to raise his family. The prisoner worked abroad for a number of years and then worked in this city, but he then decided that this city did not bring him back to his cultural roots. He felt he should uproot his family once again and take them to the heartland of the Gaeltacht.
He has lived and worked there for many years and now the Irish language is the first official language of his home. He is one of the success stories in the Gaeltacht. We have heard for many years of people coming into the Gaeltacht from other areas. They do not speak Irish and they anglicize the Gaeltacht. Here is a success story — a man who did not have Irish, who worked abroad and came home to work. In his capacity as personnel manager for Údarás na Gaeltachta he has been writing for many years to RTE on behalf of the organisation since his first letter on 24 July 1981 asking for an increase in the percentage of Irish programmes on that medium. He had to write on three occasions before he finally got a reply from that body.
In relation to the conditions in Mountjoy, I am not sure when the Minister for Justice last visited Mountjoy, but my information is that it was on 19 May 1983. Conditions cannot have improved in that period, especially having regard to the level of crime at the moment. Certainly the conditions did not impress me today. To put a person who is not a criminal, who has not been involved in hard core crime, into Mountjoy prison is a tragedy. The man was two hours in prison when I visited him today. During that time his watch had been conficated and he had been kept in an underground waiting room with a number of other prisoners. He had had no contact with anybody during that time. A genuine hardworking man standing on a point of principle should not in any circumstances be treated like a hardened criminal.
I am sure the Minister of State will agree with me there. The Minister has the discretionary power and he has used it in the past. As Minister for Justice we have all found him approachable and that is the main reason that I put the prisoner's point of view tonight. It is important when our prisons are bursting at the seams, when hard core criminals involved in extreme violence can be released from prison within days of their sentence beginning, that somebody of the calibre of this man should not be in Mountjoy jail. I ask the Minister of State to pass on my comments to the Minister tonight or tomorrow morning and hopefully the Minister will make a decision in the prisoner's favour by tomorrow.
