asked the Minister for Justice if he will state specifically why he did not grant permission to me to visit Mr. James J. Flood in Mountjoy Prison, in view of his statements of 28th February and 1st March.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Visiting of Imprisoned Farmer.
24.
In reply to questions on 28th February and 1st March, I informed the House that visits to prisons are governed by Rule 119 of the Rules for the Government of Prisons, 1947 and that visits to and communication with prisoners by their relatives, friends and legal advisers are provided for in Rule 59 and in Appendix No. 2 of the General Prison Regulations, 1953.
The Rules and Regulations, which are on sale through the Stationery Office, provide for special visits or letters at the discretion of the Minister for Justice.
Members of the Dáil, as such, have no entitlement to visit or communicate with prisoners but it has been the practice, in recent years particularly, for the Minister to encourage Deputies to visit the prisons in order that they may see for themselves the conditions under which sentences are served and the measures of penal reform that have been introduced since the enactment of the Criminal Justice Act, 1960.
It has been the practice, too, for the Minister to authorise special visits to any well-conducted prisoner by a Deputy when he is satisfied that the interests of the prisoner would be served and the general discipline of the prison or the administration of justice would not suffer.
In the case of James Flood, the position was that on 15th May Deputy Sweetman made an application in writing for a visit to him—without giving any reason for a special visit. By that date, the prisoner had already had three visits, including a special visit, from relatives and friends to whom, on each occasion, he made false statements that he was on hunger strike, which were given a good deal of publicity subsequently, thereby causing public concern.
I was satisfied that the prisoner's conduct was not deserving of any further special visits and on 11th May I gave a general directive to that effect.
Will the Minister say why he did not put any of those qualifications in the undertaking he gave to this House on 1st March last?
My undertaking to the House on that occasion was——
Column 2143.
My undertaking was that I would use my discretion in regard to any application by the Deputy.
No. The Minister stated quite differently.
I am quoting here from a similar reply given by me to a similar type of question on 28th February, 1967, as reported at column 1971 of the Official Report, Volume 226, No. 12:
I will permit the Deputy, on application to me, to visit any prison in the State, subject to my discretion. It may not be issued to any Deputy who seeks to go there for mischievous purposes. I will use my discretion in regard to such a Deputy.
Indeed, the questions on that occasion arose by reason of the fact that I had refused admission to Deputy Esmonde and Deputy O'Donnell, on the basis that I thought their applications on that occasion were mischievous. I did grant applications to other Deputies which shows that my attitude was, as the attitude of any Minister for Justice would be, to look at each application separately and to decide, on its merits, whether or not a visit was warranted.
That is nothing like what the Minister said on 1st March or 28th February last. Is the Minister not further aware, and is the Taoiseach not aware, that this whole trouble arose because the then Minister for Agriculture would not come out of his office to meet the farmers who had come to Dublin to see him——
Deputies
Oh, oh.
I shall say what I want to say and Deputies on the Fianna Fáil benches will not prevent me. That was in strong contrast——
Is the Deputy in order?
Deputies
Chair, Chair.
It will be——
——to the action of the Canadian Minister for Agriculture who yesterday cut short his visit to Europe to go back to Ottawa to see the farmers who are coming to see him tomorrow in Ottawa. If the then Minister for Agriculture here had behaved in as responsible a way as the Canadian Minister for Agriculture has behaved, none of that would have happened.
Deputies
Chair.
Does the Minister deny that he indicated to me verbally that if I went to Mountjoy prison, I could visit two prisoners there but that when I went there he had not sent any word on my behalf and I could not see them?
I have been more than tolerant with Deputy Donegan in regard to this matter, and he knows it, than with——
The Minister told me that I could visit two prisoners but when I went to Mountjoy Prison I was not allowed to see them. Is that true or false?
No Deputy saw so many prisoners on so many occasions as Deputy Donegan to the extent that it was becoming——
That is not answering the question.
True or false?
Deputies
Order.
The Minister's word is worthless.
The Minister went back on his word. It is not permissive, under the rules of order, for me adequately to describe this terminological inexactitude which any person of normal mental ability would know, thinking bona fide, to be untrue.
He lynched the farmers.