asked the Minister for Justice if he will restore conditions in Portlaoise Prison to those which prevailed before December, 1974, in respect of visits, food parcels, letters and so on.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Portlaoise Prison Conditions.
17.
In my reply to a parliamentary question on 16th January, I indicated that already by then there had been a restoration of the position as regards letters and that it was expected that general visits would be restored probably in about a week. In fact visits have been restored in accordance with that forecast, namely since Friday, 24th January. A public statement to that effect was issued at the time.
The Deputy appears to misunderstand the position about food parcels, as food parcels were not being permitted before December. They were prohibited—except for a few special occasions, that is to say Christmas, Easter and Hallowe'en—in the aftermath of the August break-out in the course of which explosives were used. It is not proposed to restore them. In this connection, I would like, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, and for the information of Deputies, to circulate with this reply a copy of a Government statement of Friday 24th January, relating to this and other matters regarding Portlaoise Prison.
Following is the statement:
PORTLAOISE PRISON.
1. A group of prisoners in Portlaoise Prison are now on hunger strike, some for just over three weeks and others for over a week. One of the prisoners is reported by the Medical Officer to be weak and another very weak.
2. According to the information supplied by the prisoners to the Prison Authorities, this hunger strike is designed to secure the restoration of food parcels, the exclusion from the Prison of certain prisoners, an alteration in search procedures in a way that would make searches practically useless, and a number of other objectives including some which would adversely affect prison security.
3. The Government are concerned at the possibility that this hunger strike may be further prolonged in the hope that such concessions will be granted. Consequently, in the interests of the prisoners themselves, the Government wish now to reiterate, publicly and unequivocally, their policy in this matter. No concessions can or will be made either in relation to food parcels or in relation to the fundamental question of the right of the Executive to decide what prisoners are to be housed in particular prisons. Neither can any concession be made on any other issue that involves security in the Prison. The Government wish to recall that as recently as August last, there was a mass break-out from the Prison involving the use of explosives that had been smuggled into the Prison and in fact it was that break-out that directly led to the abolition of food parcels. Against that background, there can be no question of any diminution of security measures.
4. In so far as the hunger strike may be claimed to include in its objectives matters such as educational facilities, craft-work, etc., there is no issue of principle as far as the Government are concerned, though materials supplied for craft-work, etc., were used in the making of imitation prison uniforms and facilitated the August break-out. Provided the prisoners are willing to co-operate in their use, it is the intention to provide better educational facilities and to provide such craft materials as can reasonably be provided without endangering security.
5. It is not the Government's intention to issue any further statements as to their determination to maintain the position as now stated This statement is issued so as to remove any possible doubt as to the Government's position and in this way to reduce the risk of a loss of life occurring owing to a miscalculation or misunderstanding either by the prisoners themselves or by persons outside who may be able to influence them.
I tabled this question three weeks ago but because of the procedure of the House it is not being taken until today. At the time I put down the question prisoners were sleeping three on the floor of each cell and they had had no change of clothing since before Christmas. In view of what the Minister has said and having regard to the statements that have come from the prison, I am not denying there is doubt as to the situation.
Has the Deputy a question?
In view of the statements that have been made would the Minister consider allowing a group of public representatives to investigate the situation?
That is a separate matter.
Can the Minister say why he has turned down the applications of lawyers and others from EEC countries who would wish to investigate the situation and why a prominent citizen, a member of the Council of State, was refused admission to Portlaoise at the time that all these complaints were coming out?
The Deputy ought to have put down questions along those lines.
The Deputy raises a number of points. If I might mention this matter of the member of the Council of State, the particular member visited the prison about a fortnight ago on a visit to a prisoner. With regard to the general question he raises that there is a doubt, there is a doubt in the minds of those who are not prepared to accept the word of a Government Minister over the word of the Provisional IRA.
May I ask the Minister whether all the restrictions mentioned in the question were imposed for the purpose of security and, if so, and I presume that is so, how is it and is there an explanation for the recent alleged find of explosives in the prison in Portlaoise since the parcels which seemed to have been the offenders in the past were no longer being received or allowed to be received?
The recent finds—and they were not alleged as the Deputy implies, they were actual—highlight the need for a continuing and even higher degree of security in this particular prison. The restrictions other than those relating to parcels, the temporary restriction on visits and mail, were a consequence of the disorder in the prison following the riot on 29th December when for some weeks following that riot, prison staff were fully engaged in restoring conditions in the prison. For that reason visits and mail were restricted.
Does the Minister believe that prisoners have no rights?
I do not believe that prisoners have no rights and I never said so.
You said it on television. I heard you.
Question No. 18. The Deputy is raising extraneous matter.
I said, in the context that they were after seizing 27 prison officers, terrorising them and wrecking public property to the extent of £14,000 and I must say I am disappointed that in this House I do not find support——
Would the Minister ask the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to show us the film? Can we have a repeat of the film in which he said that prisoners have no rights?
Please, Deputy. The Deputy must know that this is not in order on the question he put down. A final supplementary from Deputy Blaney.
May I ask the Minister whether in the situation as it is believed to be by those who do not hold the same view, nor, indeed, have available to them the same information as to conditions in Portlaoise, and, as the Minister's reply implies and, indeed states, that they believe the Provisional IRA rather than Government spokesmen, he will back up what Deputy Loughnane has asked, that is, if he wishes to convince all concerned and not leave any doubt, will he not agree to a visitation by public representatives and if his story is so, it would only strengthen his statement here rather than weaken it? If he has nothing to be afraid of——
Brevity, please.
Why will he not do that?
First of all, there is nothing in the prison that demands or needs an inquiry. Secondly, the only people who have any doubt about that are Provisional IRA and their fellow travellers and I regret to say there appears to be two of them in this House at the moment.
Question No. 18.
The Minister——
The Deputy is on record as indicating his support for that organisation.
It is not that long since the Minister himself was not too far off——
We cannot have a debate on this matter. The Chair is calling Question No. 18.
The Minister does not want the truth about conditions in Portlaoise which are not——
Order. Deputy Blaney must not disrupt Question Time in this fashion.
I have no intention of disrupting questions——
The Deputy is doing so.
——except to ask the Minister——
The matter is ended Deputy. I have called the next question. The Minister is in the process of replying and the Deputy continues to interrupt.
Is the Minister aware——
Deputy Blaney, I cannot permit this. Question No. 18.
There was more damage done by the——
Deputy Blaney.
(Interruptions.)
——than there was by the prisoners.
That is a slander on the guards and the prison officers of this country.
The Minister knows this is true.