Vol. 382 No. 7
asked the Minister for Justice the reason a prison officer was suspended from duty arising from the disturbances surrounding the release of Patrick McVeigh from Portlaoise Prison on 18 May 1988; if he considers the circumstances of the release to be satisfactory; if he considers the degree of liaison between the Garda, prison officers and the Army on duty at Portlaoise to be satisfactory; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
33.
asked the Minister for Justice the circumstances which brought about the suspension of a prison officer at Portlaoise Prison, County Laois, resulting from the release of Patrick McVeigh on 18 May 1988; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
34.
asked the Minister for Justice if there are regulations in existence relating to the division of responsibility between the Army and prison staff at Portlaoise Prison, County Laois; if these have been communicated to the prison staff; if they contain reference to a situation where the Army personnel on duty open fire; at whose request this is done; the action prison staff should take if this occurs; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to answer Question No. 8 and Priority Questions Nos. 33 and 34 together.
Arising from an incident in Portlaoise Prison on 18 May 1988, which occurred when a prisoner was being discharged, an investigation is at present being conducted by my Department. This investigation is concerned with allegations which were made in relation to duty performance at the time of the incident in question and it will of necessity have to go into considerable detail in relation to what occurred.
In the light of the information available in the immediate wake of the incident concerned, it was decided that the suspension of an assistant chief officer was warranted, pending further investigation. It was decided last week, in the light of further information obtained in the course of the investigation, that that suspension should be lifted. Accordingly the officer in question resumed duty with effect from 18 June. This resumption is without prejudice to any action that may be required on the basis of the findings of the investigation which is continuing.
As the investigation is still in progress it would not be appropriate for me at this stage to comment further on events which took place at the prison that morning. The House will appreciate that, in view of my statutory role as Minister for Justice in relation to prison disciplinary matters, I cannot, with propriety, make any comment which might carry with it the danger of prejudging matters upon which I could be called to adjudicate in the context of disciplinary proceedings. There is, of course, the further point that in the interests of security there are severe constraints on what I could properly disclose in relation to security arrangements at the prison.
I can assure the House, however, that appropriate arrangements exist to ensure proper liaison between all the security services at the prison. Prison staff receive instructions both by way of formal governor's orders and through "on-the-spot" instructions from supervisory staff. I think the House will accept that it would not be in the interests of security to reveal in any detail the instructions under which any of the security services at the prison operate.
I am very happy to hear that the Minister has cleared the return to duty of the officer in question. I was not happy he was ever suspended. Can the Minister confirm that there is some form of discussion or review of liaison between the three agents of security at the prison to ensure that there is no misunderstanding as to their respective duties?
I note the Deputy's comments on the lifting of the suspension. Regarding his point about a review of liaison between the security forces, this is a very important matter and I can assure the House that appropriate arrangements exist to ensure that there is proper liaison between all the security services at the prison.
There was an element of breakdown of liaison on that occasion.
The Deputy recognises that there is an investigation going on.
I accept what the Minister says about an investigation and I am also glad to hear the suspension has been lifted. It will aid understanding in this matter. Can the Minister confirm that there are standing orders or regulations in existence as between the different services operating in Portlaoise Prison, that is, as between the Army and the prison service, and that these regulations have been communicated to the prison staff?
I am advised that appropriate arrangements exist with regard to liaison between the different groups. I am satisfied that there is liaison between the Governor and the prison management and the officers. Obviously something went wrong in this case and the matter is being investigated with a view to preventing such an incident happening again. We must not forget that there is a great responsibility on us because it is a high security prison where we cannot afford mistakes.
Does the Minister not agree that this incident happened on 18 May, about six weeks ago, and that it would be reasonable to expect the investigation to have been completed by now, especially in view of its importance? A prison officer lost his job for a period of one month and any such investigation should not take more than six weeks. Is it normal to inform a prison officer escorting a prisoner to the gates for release that he is about to be rearrested? Does the onus on the prison officer cease when he gets to the main gate or is he responsible for escorting the prisoner to the footpath? At Portlaoise there is a main gate and then another gate beside the public thoroughfare.
There are three gates.
The Deputy claims that six weeks should be adequate for the completion of an investigation. Unfortunately in this case that period is not sufficient, despite the fact that the people dealing with this incident have been asked to conduct with all urgency a full and extensive inquiry, having regard to what is involved. It is not just that a person was suspended for a number of weeks but the fact that there was a breakdown in communications in our high security prison, a much more important matter. The urgency of the investigation is recognised by those who are conducting it and they have been keeping in close touch with me. It is my intention to see to it that it will proceed as quickly as possible. We must get the full facts. It is not always easy, but we are making every effort. I cannot comment on the specific details of what went wrong on that morning but I am sure the matter will be the subject of further debate in this House and I will be as informative as I can.
Who exactly is conducting this investigation?
The investigation is being conducted by the prisons section of the Department of Justice who are directly responsible to me.
Where does the prison officer's responsibility cease?
Mine is a Priority Question and I am being done out of time after 3.30 p.m. I would respectfully ask permission to put a second supplementary question.
The Deputy might console herself with the thought that she seems to have got maximum information.
I wish to ask a supplementary arising out of the Minister's reply. The Minister mentioned that there is liaison between the different services in Portlaoise Prison. I am concerned whether that liaison includes knowledge of regulations that may or may not be in existence. If these regulations are in existence presumably both services will have knowledge of them and that will aid the liaison. Could the Minister confirm whether or not there are regulations in existence?
There is a security co-ordinating committee at Portlaoise comprising senior members of the prison staff, the Garda and the army which meet regularly to ensure appropriate liaison between the security services which operate at the prison, that is, the security between the different services. The Governor has responsibility for the direction and control of his staff, the Army chief has responsibility for his staff and the Garda chief has responsibility for his people. With regard to specific information on instructions given to the staff, it would not be in the interests of security to reveal the instructions under which the security services at the prison operate.
I do not want to know the particular instructions.
Is the Minister aware that in a statement issued by the Prison Officers' Association it is stated that the prison officer who was suspended was not informed when he was escorting a prisoner out to the gate to be released that the prisoner was about to be rearrested when he reached that point? Would the Minister not agree that in view of the very sensitive nature of this matter it would be only reasonable, no matter what liaison goes on, for a prison officer who is asked to escort a prisoner who is about to be rearrested to be informed of this, especially in a case like this where a crowd had gathered outside? It is only reasonable that this House should get that information. There are serious questions here. There was a crowd gathered outside from early morning and the prison officer who was asked to escort this prisoner out to the main gate to be released was not informed that this person was going to be rearrested. That is how this whole thing came about.
The discharge of Mr. McVeigh, the prisoner in question, did not proceed smoothly. It is not in dispute that rather than being escorted through the normal outer gate he was allowed sufficient freedom to run into a no-go area at the prison, and any unauthorised person going into that area is automatically assumed to be a threat to the prison and is treated as such. What happened and what went wrong is the subject matter of investigation, and as soon as the investigation, which we regard as extremely urgent, is concluded we will see what went wrong and we will see where we have to go from there.
I have a brief supplementary.
We have spent too much time on this. I am moving on to Question No. 9 in the name of Deputy Seán Barrett.
In respect of this, you have allowed secondaries and second secondaries to other Deputies——
Deputy, please permit me to proceed. We have dealt with 11 questions which is rather ridiculous, bearing in mind that there are so many Deputies who have other questions.
On a point of order, I am sorry to interrupt the business of the House, but in view of the fact that it is unlikely that we will now reach Question No. 21, I would like to raise it on the Adjournment.
The Ceann Comhairle's office will communicate with the Deputy.
