Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 14 May 1980

Vol. 94 No. 3

Prisons Bill, 1980: Second Stage.

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

Military custody, which was first introduced in 1972, is still required to isolate out of the civil prisons (a) persons requiring a high degree of security who cannot be accommodated in Portlaoise Prison or elsewhere in the civil prison system and (b) persons who promote or actively engage in seriously disruptive activity in the civil prisons. The need will continue until alternative accommodation, that is a new high security prison, is available for such persons within the civil prison system. I have obtained Government approval to proceed with the building of a new high security prison on the farm of Portlaoise Prison and work on the project started on the 28th April 1980. Expenditure this year will run to about £600,000 and in 1981 it will run to about £4 million. The first stage of development includes site preparation and drainage. It is a major undertaking which will take a number of years to complete. It is a very complex project and the time required for it bears no relation to other building projects. It requires attention to design, layout, fittings and finishes unparalleled in any other building project. It is being built on a site which, of itself, is very demanding. Preparatory work has been proceeding for the past couple of years. My intention is to ensure that it is completed in the shortest possible time. The project will receive maximum priority. If the project is not completed in three years, the the Oireachtas will have to review the situation in the light of progress on the new prison at the end of that time.

I think that, in principle, military custody is objectionable. But when I say that I mean no criticism of the fine job that the Defence Forces are doing in operating the Curragh. It is a place which has deficiencies. Improvements are, however, being made and I venture to say that conditions there, while not ideal, are as good as if not better than conditions in certain areas of the civil prison system. There are 28 prisoners in the Curragh at present and I am satisfied that they are enjoying as liberal a regime as can be allowed. There is absolutely no foundation for any suggestion that the regime is oppressive or that it is meant to be oppressive. The function of the Currage is to hold in safe custody a number of prisoners who cannot be held in safety elsewhere and that is all. The basic conditions in the Curragh are broadly the same as those in the civil prisons. The Rules for the Government of Prisons, 1947 have their parallel in the Prisons Act, 1972 (Military Custody) Regulations, 1972. Thus, for example, allegations of misconduct by prisoners must be dealt with by the governor of the Curragh in precisely the same way as they are dealt with by the governors of the civil prisons. Prisoners who have complaints can seek redress through the same channels as any other prisoners, including access to the courts. There are three prisoners in the Curragh who require a high degree of security which cannot be provided elsewhere in the civil prisons. For good management reasons they cannot be accommodated in Portlaoise Prison. The rest of the prisoners in the Curragh are known troublemakers and disrupters. They have demonstrated in the past a capacity and a willingness to foment disorder among other prisoners. Some of them have been involved in disturbances in the past while serving previous sentences. Their objective is to create so much trouble in the civil prisons as to make them unmanageable and to prevent other prisoners from availing of the facilities in them. It is vital, in the best interests of the management of the civil prisons and of other prisoners, that they should be separated from the general body of prisoners. The Curragh offers the only means of ensuring this separation until the new high security prison is built.

The need for the Curragh first arose following the riot in Mountjoy Prison in 1972. The diversion of Portlaoise Prison in November, 1973 to accommodate the main body of subversive prisoners was, however, the most significant factor in making the Curragh a continuing necessity. Portlaoise Prison was the only convict prison in the State and it used to accommodate most long-term prisoners. Since its diversion for subversives, the burden of looking after the more difficult long-term offenders has fallen on Mountjoy. There are roughly 150 prisoners in Mountjoy serving sentences of two years and more and that number is growing. If Mountjoy is to continue to hold that population in safety, it is vital that the small numbers of disrupters should be kept out of it. There were riots in Mountjoy in 1977 and again in 1979 and it was of tremendous assistance in restoring peace and order to be able to transfer the ring-leaders to the Curragh. There is no part of Mountjoy Prison which could be used to accommodate the Curragh prisoners without unacceptable risks to the maintenance of good order and safe custody there.

Arbour Hill also holds long-term prisoners. In general, however, the population there is relatively stable. The prison is not, because of its location and construction, a highly secure place. Reconstruction work is still proceeding there. It is not a feasible alternative to the Curragh. Other available places, such as Limerick and Cork prisons in particular, are not feasible alternatives either.

Let me repeat, then, that I regret the necessity for this measure. However, there is no reasonable alternative until the new high security prison is built in Portlaoise and work is proceeding on this new prison with all speed. I am satisfied that the extension of military custody for another three years is required in order to maintain a viable civil prison system and I, therefore, commend the Bill to the Seanad.

It is important to put on record that uniquely within the prison system it is possible for people to cause disruption and upset to a very serious degree, in fact more than in any other area. The atmosphere in a prison can contribute to tensions very quickly, very suddenly and can contribute to explosive situations. It is important to be aware that among the prisoners at any time in our jails there are always a limited few prepared to take advantage of that unusual and difficult atmosphere and to foment trouble within it. It has been said by some of these elements that the prisons are the Achilles heel of an ordered society. It is well to remember that prisons can be vulnerable to serious disruption to the point of the system breaking down. It does not require many moments reflection to consider what effect that situation would have on the entire fabric of democracy if the prison system entirely broke down. It was close to that stage in 1972 when the riot took place in Mountjoy Prison and there have been occasions since then when, having seen the effect of that riot, other prisoners attempted to repeat that exercise.

I am satisfied from what I know of this scene, having had the experience of being for more than four years in the office the Minister holds, that it is a difficult scene and that the threat to the prison system from a small number of disruptive prisoners is ever present and is real. It is not a threat dreamed up by successive Ministers for Justice, it is a real threat. It is important for Members of the Oireachtas to accept that it is a real threat. If it is not contained and that threat is exercised then the prison system could become unworkable. If that happens the consequences for our State and our democracy do not need to be spelt out.

Our prison buildings are old and we do not have a custom built place where the type of prisoner to whom I have been referring can be kept in isolation. It was necessary in 1972 to transfer these prisoners to the military prison in the Curragh and it has been necessary, unfortunately, and I share the Minister's regrets in this regard, to continue that type of special isolation. To have civilian prisoners kept in military control is something that all of us agree is inappropriate and we would all like to see it come to an end, but while it has to continue our views on the nature of the incarceration in the Curragh should be as balanced as possible.

We should pay heed to what the Minister has said, that the general rules covering the control of prisoners and the administration of the prisons, apply in the same way in the Curragh as they do to the rest of the prison system. There has been a tendency for propagandists who feel very strongly about the continuation of military custody to exaggerate what the regime in the Curragh consists of and there has been a tendency to exaggerate that beyond the realms of truth. I am satisfied that the regime in the Curragh and the rights of the prisoners there are as well protected as in any of our prisons and in fairness to those who have had the task of looking after and administering the Curragh that needs to be said.

I am satisfied that the need to isolate a certain small number of our prisoners is a genuine need of such importance that it had to be met.

The Minister is asking for a further extension of three years and the point has been made that this seems unduly long and would not a shorter time do. The reality of the situation requires that he be given the further three years because the present system cannot be changed until a new and separate prison has been built as a special unit to accommodate these prisoners. Having regard to the length of time it takes to plan and erect ordinary public buildings in this country, three years is, possibly, an optimistic estimate when one considers the specialist type of work that is involved in building a high security prison. This is a problem that I faced when in office, the problem of where to build this particular institution. It was the intention to erect it as a separate building within the Portlaoise complex, excluding the farm, but Members will recall that Portlaoise at one stage had to be given over exclusively to criminals of a particular type, members of the IRA and associated groups. Doing this brought with it immense problems of security and the fact that security was breached on a number of occasions, and Members will recall those incidents, highlighted the problem. They were overcome and a very secure regime was finally implemented.

It was, unfortunately, inconsistent with maintaining that high security regime to commence building operations within the perimeter of Portlaoise Prison. The disruption to daily routine and to security arrangements would be such that they would be seriously diminished. The threat from these prisoners was an ever present and real one. It was not possible to proceed with the plans for the building within the Portlaoise perimeter walls.

The farm that is attached to Portlaoise was examined as a possible site and there were security reasons why it was not suitable. It was felt that the close proximity of building operations to a high security prison would impinge on the security measures in operation. Regrettably the farm did not then present itself as an alternative site. It appears that there has been a reconsideration of the security aspects in relation to the farm because the Minister now finds it possible to use the farm as a site for this new unit. Members will be aware that in recent years the level and number of confrontations being offered to the State by prisoners in Portlaoise and their allies outside have, I am glad to say, considerably diminished. It appears—I say this in the hope that it will continue—that there is an easier security situation. I should like to think that those who might have been tempted to confront the State have learned from their failures in the past and have given up that type of exercise. The security position seems to have eased and I hope it will remain so and, as a result, the Minister can now use the farm for his building.

In that connection, I take issue with the Minister in regard to some things he said in the debate in the other House as to why a building was not provided during the term of Government of the National Coalition to cater for this need. The Minister said, in opening the debate, that there were security reasons; the security reasons that I have outlined and the advice that was available to me then indicated that for these security reasons the farm was not a suitable site. Unfortunately the Minister, later on in the heat of the debate, moved away from those valid reasons why it was not possible then to provide this site and attempted to make political points on the lines that he made at column 361 of the Official Report on 30 April when he said:

I do not know the full story of what happened within the Government at the time but the outcome was that moneys were not made available to the Minister for the building of that alternative detention centre. He was starved of money by the Government of which he was a member, and to that extent I was sorry for him.

At column 362 the Minister said in relation to his own position:

But the Government recognise the case which I put and they agreed eventually to give me moneys to get started. If my predecessor had been as lucky then as I have been now then the greater part of this problem would no longer be with us.

At column 854 of the Official Report of 6 May the Minister stated in relation to the prison system:

It was starved of capital by successive Governments for a long number of years and the Government the Deputy supported were the greatest offenders for the four-and-a-half years they were in office.

The Minister was addressing Deputy Bermingham. The House will agree those sentiments give the impression that money and money only was the main cause of the failure to provide the institution that the Minister now has under way though the Minister, in opening the debate, made the point that for security reasons the site now available to him was not then deemed appropriate.

With regard to the provision of money by successive Governments I should like to put some figures on record from successive Books of Estimates. For the year 1971-72 the then Government provided £170,000 for new buildings within the prison system; for 1972-73 £500,000; for 1973-74, the first year of the National Coalition Government, £2 million was provided, a substantial increase on the £500,000 provided the previous year; the next year in 1974, which was a nine months financial year—Deputies will recall the changes made to the calendar year of accounting—£1.2 million; for 1975, £1.4 million; for 1976, £1.5 million; for 1977, £1.3 million. Now we come to the Minister's time—in 1978 he provided £1.8 million; in 1979, £1.8 million and this year he has provided for £3 million. I ask the House to compare the provision in 1980 of £3 million with the provision of £2 million in 1973-74. To provide an equivalent sum this year would require expenditure of between £5 million and £6 million. I want to nail the inaccuracy—and I am charitable in terming it that—of the Minister in saying that the amount of money that was provided was inadequate and that the prison system was starved of money, particularly by the last Government. It is clear that having regard to the amount allotted in 1971-72, £170,000, any starvation of the prison system for money was caused by the Government at that time and of which the Minister was a member.

The Minister must surely be aware that during the term of office of the National Coalition Government substantial building works were taking place in all the prisons. Arbour Hill was re-modelled from being a totally disused semi-wrecked building into a modern building with high-class facilities for rehabilitation of long-term prisoners. He is aware that the reconstruction of Cork Prison was continued apace and that similar work was carried out in Limerick Prison. He must also be aware of the substantial infrastructural and preliminary building done in Mountjoy Prison where substantial infrastructural works, without which the remodelling of the basic prison buildings could not take place, were initiated and completed. He must also be aware that new quarters for the prison staff were completed so as to change the layout of the buildings within the prison with a view to reconstructing the main prison buildings eventually. All these works were carried out at a time when there were budgetary constraints.

The Minister knows, as he surely has had the experience that I have had, that when Ministers for Justice come before their colleagues at Estimates time they have only to present the security baby in their arms and they find their colleagues generous. That was my experience and I hope it has been the Minister's experience. The test is not what one can get from one's colleagues but rather the value that one can give to the public for it. I do not know if the public would be altogether happy that they are getting value for the heavy expenditure on security that the State has to incur when the level of extreme vandalism is considered and when numerous serious armed robberies continue to take place without any diminution.

I said earlier that some propaganda statements on this general area relating to the Curragh are inaccurate to put it mildly. I was sent a circular by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties. This replaced an earlier body that dealt in this area. In the circular it was stated that in May 1977 Mr. Cooney told Jerry Collins, then Opposition spokesperson on Justice, that a secretly constructed 400 cell unit at the Curragh had been erected as a place of military custody, and it quoted, apparently my words, "...in the event that a number of civilian prisoners to be transferred to military custody should at a future time exceed the capacity of the existing detention barracks". The document then stated that it was clear that the intention was to provide military custody for civilian prisoners on a permanent basis and that this was an anomalous development of the penal system in this State and a unique facet of western Europe penology.

I searched the Dáil Reports and I did not tell the Minister any such thing. All I could find was a written question from the Minister to the then Minister for Defence in May 1977 asking when construction commenced on the new high security prison at the Curragh; when the work was completed; the cost of the project; when it would be used and whether it would be under civilian control. The then Minister replied that the work was commenced in July 1974, finished in October 1976, cost £350,000 and that the premises would be used as a place of military custody in the event that the number of civilian prisoners to be transferred to military custody should at a future time exceed the capacity of the existing detention barracks.

In May 1977, the Minister went on to say that it had not been necessary up to then to use the premises for this purpose and that they were and would be under military control.

I do not know where the people who issued this document got the information that was put in it that a secretly constructed 400 cell unit had been erected. There is nothing in the record to indicate that and it has no substance in fact.

To put that particular building in focus, I would recall to Members that in 1974 the State was subjected to many and serious confrontations by terrorist groups. There was a high level of terrorism along the Border and the security situation was delicate and serious. It was necessary, by way of contingency, to ensure that if the confrontations increased, with consequent arrests and convictions, the State would have somewhere to imprison the convicts. Then, as now, the capacity of the prisons was on the verge of being fully taken up and it was clear that if there were large scale breaches of security laws with consequent convictions space to accommodate the convicted prisoners would become a matter of urgent importance.

To meet that contingency, a barracks in the Curragh Camp was vacated of military personnel and re-modelled to be used as a prison. It was not, however, re-modelled on the basis of individual cells but rather the prisoners were to be accommodated in dormitory type accommodation. That type of accommodation for that type of prisoner brought with it security risks and it was very much a second class security prison. The inherent weaknesses of the accommodation by reason of its being of a dormitory type were compensated for by having very high security around the perimeter of the building. To that extent it could have been classed as a high security building but in no other way. The purpose of remodelling that building at that time was to have it available as a standby on a contingency basis should the need arise. There were many incidences at that time and it was thought, regretfully, that the need might arise. I am glad to say, however, that the level of confrontation that was taking place was not pursued by the IRA and their allies because they learned their lesson such confrontations were not going to be successful and they were not pursued. Consequently this emergency contingency building never had to be used. I had to say that to put in context this misleading document that may have been circulated to other Members of the House.

The prison system has been the subject of much criticism from time to time and undoubtedly a prison system that has to operate in the physical environment of buildings that are more than a century old will have inadequacies. It will not be possible to provide all the facilities that we would like to provide to contribute towards the rehabilitation of prisoners, although research has shown that the key factor in the rehabilitation of a prisoner is his own wish to be rehabilitated. Nevertheless, within the inadequate physical environment, substantial steps were taken in the past to improve the lot of prisoners. I took what had the potential of being a significant step forward in the care of prisoners and that was the appointment of a director of education and a director of work. The former was an expert in the field of education. His task was to devise and implement as wide a range of educational facilities as possible, bearing in mind the difficulties of doing that in a prison system where the system contained people varying from the illiterate to the university graduate. I hope that the programme of education is being continued and expanded. I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that there is still a director of education and give an indication of the type of work that is being carried out under that heading.

I also appointed a director of work to devise practical training schemes for prisoners to qualify them for gainful employment on their release. The total benefit that could be brought in by that person was inhibited, to some extent, by the poor physical environment within which he had to work—the cramped conditions in the old prisons. In Arbour Hill, which has been rebuilt, an excellent work therapy regime has been introduced and much valuable and gainful work is being done by the prisoners there.

I should be glad if the Minister, when he is replying, would deal with that aspect and indicate to us how the director of work is operating, what plans he has at present and what schemes have been implemented. The Minister might also indicate the level of activity in the corrective training unit which is attached to Mountjoy. This is a most modern unit, purpose built, capable of providing skills in a wide selection of trades to a very high degree. I should be glad to know if there are any facts and figures to indicate how many prisoners have been successfully trained and how they have fared in employment afterwards.

The other area in which progress was made was in providing welfare or probation officers as they are more commonly known. Their job was to assist discharged prisoners, work with the courts and with groups of young people who had come in conflict with the law but had not reached the stage of being convicted. I had plans for the expansion of that service and they were on their way to being inplemented when the change of Government took place. Those plans envisaged a dramatic increase in the number of welfare officers so that, in many parts of the country, they would be on the ground and be available to the local community, either through the police or the social services committees, to get in touch with people in danger of coming into conflict with the law. I should like to know if those plans were implemented, if the extra welfare officers were employed and, if so, how successful is the experiment.

Part of the task of the welfare officers was to deal with prisoners on temporary release or parole. The giving of parole is, in effect, in the hands of the Minister, on advice given to him in relation to a particular prisoner. He has a wide variety of paroles available to him. There is total parole, that is the prisoner is released altogether coming towards the end of his sentence and does not have to report back. Obviously, it is an attraction for a prisoner to qualify himself for that. He can be released at weekends. He can be released during the day to jobs; and there are variations on these available to the Minister. I am quite certain that the Minister can assure us that the pattern of wide scale paroles which were common in my time have been continued.

The number of people on parole was reaching such a degree that I had come to the conclusion, without implementing it or fully satisfying myself on the mechanics of implementing it, that the time had come to set up a formal parole board. The responsibility and burden of dealing with individual prisoners' cases should be taken from a busy Minister and given to an independent parole board. That would have a number of adcuracy—an vantages in that, firstly, it would take a burden off a busy Minister. There is always the danger that a busy Minister would not have time to give the consideration to an application for parole that it might deserve. Secondly, it would remove any suggestion of the approach being other than totally independent and on the merits of a prisoner's case, uninfluenced by any particular view of that prisoner's characteristics that might come up through the system. It would probably inspire more confidence in the system and would be a good exercise, as far as the prison system is concerned, if it were removed from the day to day administration and given to an independent body. This would be an earnest to people who are interested in penology that there is an openness and willingness to introduce innovation. I would recommend to the Minister to consider seriously the setting up of a parole board to formalise the procedure which is already there and which is widely used. It is not known that it is there or widely used and used humanely and effectively. The existence of a parole board would be effective in curing that.

The women's prison is now proposed to be located on a new site. My predecessor had purchased a site in north Dublin adjacent to the bailiwick of the present Taoiseach. Plans for the erection of a women's prison on that site were well advanced. The lead time to building a prison is unusally long because of the detailed and specialised briefing of the architect that has to take place. This, in turn, reflects in the depth and details of working drawings that have to be prepared. Much of this necessary tedious lead time had been completed in relation to the new women's prison to be erected in the north of the city.

I received representations from people in that area, including Oireachtas Members, not to have the prison sited there. I agreed with my predecessor that the site was a good and suitable one. There was an element in the representations analagous to what one meets about itinerants—put them anywhere you like but not beside me. I rejected those representations. I cannot quote anything on the record but I have a firm idea that an election promise was made before the last election to the people who were protesting in that area that if there were a change of Government the site would be changed. Like some other unfortunate election promises——

The Chair feels that reference to the use of a women's prison does not arise on this Bill.

The promise was fulfilled and the prison was changed to Clondalkin, where the same difficulties now arise. I sympathise with the reasons that require continuation of this Bill. I am satisfied from my experience and, with respect, that experience entitles me to give a view on this matter that might perhaps carry more weight than views of persons who necessarily do not have that experience, perspective or insight, that regretfully, continuation of this Bill is necessary.

We accept the responsibility to provide the Government with the means required to enable the Minister to provide the sort of prison facilities that are found to be necessary in the present day. Nevertheless, one has regrets from a couple of points of view about this Bill. One is the fact that we have to continue a system operated by the Defence Forces for the purpose of detaining elements found guilty of criminal offences. In a prison system it is not a desirable practice. The Defence Forces are for the protection of the people against outside aggression and not for civil and criminal purposes. The second reason is the continuing need to provide high security accommodation. Everybody with a sense of idealism, of course, would hope that prison systems could evolve through methods of rehabilitation, education and so on, which in time could bring an end to the need for detention, but realism convinces all of us not only is this not very likely in the immediate future but indeed we are going in the opposite direction.

The Government have the responsibility through the Department of Justice and the Garda and the courts to protect society. People need to be satisfied that they will be protected from wrong acts of a criminal nature. It is regrettable indeed that our experience, as has been set out by the Minister, convinces one that there is need for high security detention. It is evident from destructive prison riots that there are elements who quite literally set out to destroy and tear down structures of this kind for the sake of destroying. There is no doubt that there is an increasing level of violence and vandalism. There is not much prospect that that is going to change. It is a reflection on us as a society and as a community, and too much pious talk about it will not do us any good. The thing we should guard ourselves against is an acceptance that there are certain elements who are incurable and that we should simply lock them away and forget about them.

For that reason I would be interested to hear from the Minister what developments there are on the rehabilitation side, on the provision of educational facilities. I would also be interested to hear from the Minister what sort of record is being kept—what data is being made available to him on that side? Is there any evidence available to the Department of Justice of success on the rehabilitation-education side? It is important that this aspect of the detention of elements convicted of criminal offences should be kept to the fore. It is not simply good enough for us to say this is the kind they are, lock them away, forget all about them, because no human being is without virtue of some kind and perhaps a little more financial support is needed to provide better educational development in relation to persons who have to be detained.

As I said earlier, the principle of military custody is objectionable and I do not think our Army should be involved in it, but I accept the case the Minister has made, that until a suitable building is available this need will continue. One is entitled to make some criticism of the time it is taking to provide this accommodation, and this is not a criticism of the Minister.

I have said before in this House that it is really extraordinary what can be done by a community in a time of war or emergency, and how long it takes the State to do something when there is not that sort of pressure. It must be a few years now since it was first decided to use the Curragh Camp for the purpose of detaining prisoners convicted of criminal offences because they were of a subversive kind who needed to be kept away from the normal run of prisoners. However, having said that I accept the need for this Bill and I would urge the Minister if he can do so to give us a little information on the whole area of rehabilitation and education.

In conclusion, may I ask the Minister also if he would give us a little more information on the Arbour Hill situation? Which categories of prisoners are being detained there? Will the need to detain them in military custody end with the new security prison? I think the Minister has just indicated there is no military custody in Arbour Hill. I understood that there was. I would be interested to know what type of prisoner is being detained in Arbour Hill, as distinct from the type of prisoner who is being detained in Mountjoy Prison.

The Labour Party are opposed to this Bill on several important grounds of principle. In the Dáil the Labour Party tabled a motion declining to give the Bill a Second Reading in the following terms:

Dáil Éireann declines to give a Second Reading to the Prisons Bill, 1980 on the grounds that:

(a) The continuing existence of the Curragh Military Detention Centre, in which civilian prisoners are subject to military control, is unnecessary and inappropriate; and

(b) a form of custody originally designed as a short-term expedient should not be allowed to continue in existence after the factors which brought about its establishment have ceased to operate.

On behalf of the Labour group I will begin by explaining, perhaps in a little detail, what the fundamental point of principle is. The Labour Party find it unacceptable that civilians be held in military custody, because it undermines the whole development in approach to penology and development of the prison system and of the prison service. I will refer to some international minimum standards in that regard.

It is unacceptable because it does not exist anywhere else in the free common law world. I accept that there are problems and disruption in the prison system, and difficulties, and I am quite prepared to accept that there are very complex difficulties in the prison system and I am not trying in any way to undermine them. Why are we unique in this part of Ireland? Let us remember that there is not military custody in Northern Ireland and if there was we would be very eloquent and very free in our criticisms of the military state and the military connotations that that implied, and the overlap between the prison service and the defence forces in Northern Ireland. I am sure we would be very quick to criticise the possibility of civilians being held in military custody in Northern Ireland.

It does not exist in other countries where there are serious problems. It does not exist in the United States where there have been very serious prison riots and at times extremely serious problems arising from racial tensions which we do not have to cope with in this country. It does not exist in Australia or New Zealand, where again there have been serious difficulties in the prison system. They would not accept the principle of holding civilians in military custody.

We, as fairly often happens in this country, drifted into it on an ad hoc basis. There was justification to a certain extent in May 1972 when there was a major riot and disturbance in Mountjoy Prison and the need to transfer 180 prisoners. At that time a number of Members of both Houses asked searching questions to ensure that this would not be used to create a permanent acceptability of military custody. We got certain assurances at the time, and indeed it was pointed out that the Act would only last for a period of two years.

Of course it is always open to a Government to introduce a further Bill extending it, as was done in 1974, and then a further extension for another three years in 1977. Now we are being asked to extend the Act for another three years. It is important to state at this stage that it has not been the responsibility of any single Government. One of the grave worries and concerns about this subject is that it appears to be an unconsidered, unplanned, evolving situation where for administrative convenience and for punishment of individuals who are disruptive in the prison service—this is an extremely important point of principle—we have tolerated the notion of civilians being held in military custody. What we have not had is a Bill introduced into the Oireachtas setting out the planned objective in this regard. It happened initially in a rushed manner to cope with a particular factual situation of grave urgency at the time. It went through both Houses very quickly for that reason because it was realised that this was an urgent situation. But it has been renewed twice and is coming up for a third renewal.

The grounds have shifted a little. The Minister in his introduction, in his reasons given for the maintenance of military custody at the Curragh, has shifted the grounds somewhat from the original grounds for opening the Curragh to hold civilian prisoners. Part of that justification has been the development in Portlaoise. I want to dwell on some of the language, in particular that very loose term "subversive" that the Minister used in relation to Portlaoise. I believe that when a Minister for Justice uses a word, if it has no meaning of a specific sort, he should explain what he means by using it. The word "subversive" has not a defined meaning. I would appreciate if in his reply to this debate the Minister would define precisely what he means by "subversive", because it is extremely important that we know what the Minister means when he uses that word. It has not a dictionary definition in this context, and in my view it is not an acceptable word to use in these circumstances.

The development in Portlaoise to a considerable extent has been used to justify the further existence of the Military Detention Centre in the Curragh for the detention of civilian prisoners. The Minister can give further details on this if he wishes, but I understand that the vast majority of prisoners held in the Curragh—and this has been the case for a number of years—could not even under any vague and nebulous definition be regarded as what I believe is the Minister's use of the word "subversive".

I want to try to identify the values that we are talking about in relation to the prison service, values which are an extremely important part of good order in our society. I want to try to identify what possible reasons there could be for the unique situation in the Republic of Ireland that we are tolerating and continue to tolerate the holding of civilian prisoners in military custody. It is not on the basis of a planned policy proposal coming from the Minister or the Department of Justice. It happened on an ad hoc basis but it has been continued on shifting grounds ever since.

I believe that the military custody which exists in the Curragh and which is now coming up to eight years in existence is contrary to international standards which Ireland has adhered to and ought to be upholding within our prison service. I am referring in particular to the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and Related Recommendations, published by the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations, dated New York, 1977, although the minimum rules were in fact adopted in 1955. I want to refer to the note that precedes these Standard Minimum Rules. It refers to a resolution of the Economic and Social Council. It states:

By resolution 663 (c) (14) of 31 July, 1957, the Economic and Social Council approved the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and endorsed inter alia the recommendations on the selection and training of personnel for penal and correctional institutions and the recommendations on open penal and correctional institutions, as adopted by the first United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime, the Treatment of Offenders, held at Geneva in 1955.

According to this resolution Governments were invited, among other things, to give favourable consideration to the adoption and application of the Standard Minimum Rules and to take the other two groups of recommendations as fully as possible into account in their administration of penal and correctional institutions. These minimum rules set out the basic values, and indeed the basic international standards, for the conduct of prisons. The first aspect of that which I want to refer to is the question of personnel. Article 46 of the Standard Minimum Rules refers to institutional personnel and provides as follows:

46 (1) The prison administration shall provide for the careful selection of every grade of the personnel, since it is on their integrity, humanity, professional capacity and personal suitability for the work that the proper administration of the institutions depends.

(2) The prison administration shall constantly seek to awaken and maintain in the minds both of the personnel and of the public the conviction that this work is a social service of great importance, and to this end all appropriate means of informing the public should be used.

(3) To secure the foregoing ends, personnel shall be appointed on a fulltime basis as professional prison officers and have civil service status with security of tenure subject only to good conduct, efficiency and physical fitness. Salaries shall be adequate to attract and retain suitable men and women; employment benefits and conditions of service shall be favourable in view of the exacting nature of the work.

I will also quote Article 47 in this context. Article 47, paragraph 1 provides:

47 (1) The personnel shall possess an adequate standard of education and intelligence.

(2) Before entering on duty, the personnel shall be given a course of training in their general and specific duties and be required to pass theoretical and practical tests.

(3) After entering on duty and during their career, the personnel shall maintain and improve their knowledge and professional capacity by attending courses of in-service training to be organised at suitable intervals.

It goes on in considerable detail emphasising the importance of the profession of the prison service, the importance of it as a vital social service, the importance of full understanding of this in the minds of the public, in the minds of the prison personnel and in the minds of prisoners within the prison system.

How can we even begin to develop these values adequately when we have an easy interchange between our prison system and military custody, a total aberration of everything that this international standard is looking for? That cannot be over-emphasised. It is unacceptable fundamentally to have civilians in military custody. If it were to exist at all it should be in circumstances where there is an absolute breakdown of law and order in the society, of peace and security such as would involve derogations from the European Convention on Human Rights, which might be the kind of conditions which in the past gave rise to a declaration authorising internment under the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act, 1940.

I want to emphasise that there is a tendency, which is understandable, when you have something that has existed for eight years, to see military custody as more or less acceptable for hard-line cases or as a type of indirect punishment of ring-leaders or trouble makers. That is not acceptable. That would not be acceptable in other systems. That would not be acceptable among penologists. That would not be acceptable in the prison services of other jurisdictions. Let us at least acknowledge that. Let us at least admit that we have departed from minimum standards at the international level and what would be regarded as a norm in prison services in countries which have more or less the same common law principles as ourselves. I would emphasise that there are severe difficulties and problems from time to time in relation to the running of their prisons.

I would invite the Minister in his reply to this debate to answer this point: is there something uniquely difficult in the Irish situation when we have had eight years of holding civilians in military custody? Is there something so far out of line with the kind of difficulties prison services in other jurisdictions have that we depart from this fundamental principle and accept and tolerate the continuing notion of civilian prisoners being held in military custody?

I would like to make two brief observations, because neither of them is a point I feel I need to labour. I will make them lest I will be misunderstood. There are people who sometimes misunderstand when one is making a point. I am looking in a certain direction, as I speak. I will say no more.

The first point I would like to make is that I am not making any criticism of the Defence Forces in the Curragh. They are not trained prison staff, that is not their job. I join with other Senators in saying that they do the job that is cast upon them and they do it with goodwill. They do it as they respond to other jobs that our society thrusts upon them. They should not be asked to do it. I make no criticism at all of the way in which they do it. On the contrary, it is to their credit that they have been prepared to carry out a very difficult task down the years.

My first point out of the way, I hope, the second point is where there can be the possibility of being either deliberately or perhaps innocently misunderstood. I am not a front for any subversive group. I am not influenced by any subversive group in whatever way you want to define that word. From the beginning I have tried to identify the standards and the values of our society, which are deeply involved in this very sad situation of the continual renewal of the original Act which was to die within two years when it was brought in. It is one of the areas where our civil liberties are being undermined. That fabric is very thin indeed and shredded and here we ought to be extremely concerned about it.

I would like to come to an important aspect of the problem, and that is the classification of those who are to be transferred from civil prison custody to military custody at the Curragh. The Minister in his speech introducing the Bill in this House gave the same two reasons he gave in the Dáil, so at least there is absolute consistency in that. I would like the Minister in his reply to break down these two categories and tell us a great deal more about his thinking and about the representations made to him on the basis of these two categories by the prison authorities, presumably by the governors of the prisons, in inviting him to make an individual transfer of a prisoner from Mountjoy or Portlaoise or wherever it may be to the Curragh. The classifications that the Minister has given us are as follows:

Military custody which was first introduced in 1972 is still required to isolate out of the civil prisons, (a) persons requiring a high degree of security who cannot be accommodated in Portlaoise prison or elsewhere in the civil prisons system.

The Curragh itself is not a high security prison. I would like the Minister's comment on that—that it would not be regarded in its physical lay-out as a high security prison. It may result in people being held in a highly secure situation if there are about 28 of them and they are in the middle of a military barracks and there are a very considerable number of military personnel guarding them. That is a slightly different thing. But if the objective is to have a high security or segregation unit then that unit, as every other aspect of the prison service, should be operated by trained prison personnel with all the more training and all the more back-up and support and recognition of their specialisation when it is a special security or segregation unit.

The arguments about using the Curragh for this purpose do not hold up, because Portlaoise is a more secure prison than the Curragh. There has been a lack of willingness to process out of the system the use of military custody in the Curragh. It is convenient, I am sure it is marvellously convenient, for dealing with people who are disruptive and who cause problems in the prison system, but it is unacceptable to use it as a form of indirect punishment or as a threat that can be held over prisoners who are disruptive in the ordinary prison system. They must be dealt with by a code of rules, by a punishment system, inherent in that prison.

We ought to ask that the kind of classifications which exist in other countries in relation to high security units be made and that they meet the criteria for anybody being transferred and also that they be known and well acknowledged. The kind of criteria I am talking about are, for example, those that operate to my knowledge in relation to high security units in New South Wales. The classification is well known within the prison service there. It is set out and it prevents the possibility of a transfer to a high security unit, or worse still, a transfer, as here, to military custody being a form of individual punishment. It is not acceptable that a transfer to a high security unit be in the form of an individual punishment for disruptive conduct.

Those three criteria are not necessarily the only ways in which one can draw up the criteria, and the classification of the kind of person who may be transferred to a high security unit, but they are a reasonable identification of the criteria and the classification. There are three criteria in the New South Wales system. The first class are those of such high degree of danger to themselves that they cannot be accommodated in a normal prison system where they will be highly destructive of themselves. I know of one or two instances where these very sad cases have existed under our own prison system and it has given rise to a certain amount of concern about how to treat a prisoner like that. That would be the kind of person who could be classified as being somebody who could be removed to a high security or segregation unit. Secondly, somebody who has a continual and persistent record of being an escape risk, who has made persistent attempts to escape from prison and who, for that reason, on his personal record in the matter in relation to that term of imprisonment is somebody who cannot be held under the normal prison conditions but needs high security accommodation. Thirdly, under the New South Wales classification, a person who has such a record of intimidation of fellow inmates in the prison as to amount to somebody who is posing a danger or risk to other prisoners held in that prison. In other words, for the protection of other prisoners.

The reason I set out these classifications which are used in another jurisdiction in relation to a high security unit is because I do not get the impression from what the Minister has said that there are these objective classifications. I get the other impression, the impression that the military detention centre at the Curragh is used as a form of punishment for prisoners who have been involved in disruptive activities in one of the other prisons, somewhere like Mountjoy or Portlaoise. That would be unacceptable in other jurisdictions. Let us at least think about that because if the prison system at present has this kind of flexible possibility of weeding out trouble makers and carting them off to military custody, are we ever going to give up that? If we do not examine the values underlying it, if we accept it in principle, are we ever going to give it up? Even if there was a high security prison would the Minister give up this possibility of still retaining the facility to weed out trouble makers and have them held in military custody in the Curragh in conditions which do not conform to the minimum standards identified and set out at international level? This is extremely important.

Whether the House decides to approve this Bill—I hope the House will not—and we continue to have military custody in the Curragh or whether we go forward to have a high security unit which the Minister says has now commenced its preparatory stages, and moneys have been voted for it this year and more money will be allocated next year, in the grounds of Portlaoise Prison, let us go ahead with an understanding of what a secure unit within our prison system should be. We should consider the kind of classifications which should be there for any prisoners who are to be transferred to the particular high security unit. It is not acceptable that it be a form of punishment. The only punishments that are acceptable—again I refer here to the minimum rules— are those contained in the prison rules and the disciplinary structures set up within the prison.

I should like to refer to article 29 of the Standard Minimum Rules which provides:

The following shall always be determined by the law or by the regulation of the competent administrative authority:

(a) Conduct constituting a disciplinary offence;

(b) The types and duration of punishment which may be inflicted;

(c) The authority competent to impose such punishment.

It is clear what the value is there, that when people have been deprived of their personal liberty there has to be very real care taken that they know what the rules of the prison are, have a defined structure so that they cannot be either discriminated against on an individual basis, or be the subject of arbitrary treatment, or lack the basic knowledge of what kind of conduct can lead to them being disciplined. If there is a let-out on that whole system, if prison governers know that if a prisoner is causing disruption which is giving rise to breaches of the prison rules in that prison, is there not at least the temptation that there would be a tendency by prison governers to say: "Right, one more word out of you and you are off to the military barracks in the Curragh? Is this not what happens? Is this not what happens now in our prison system? This is held over the heads of prisoners. It is used as a form of punishment. Members of the House may not see anything wrong with that but I am saying that it does not conform to standards in relation to the governing of prisons in other jurisdictions with which we would like to say we had a parallel and a comparable position. We might reflect on this, because we find ourselves in a rather unique position and we should examine some of the values underlying that position.

The point, in principle, is a very basic one. It is one that is relevant to the whole perception of a prison. That is one of the areas which has not had anything like adequate public scrutiny and examination and, in particular, parliamentary scrutiny and examination. There should be an opportunity at regular intervals in this House to examine the prison system as it is operating. We are not getting that opportunity because of the lack of access to adequate information. The problem is that because of the absence of information, the absence of any idea of what the policy is in relation to our prison system, except the recent news that we are going to build some new prisons including a new women's prison—that does not seem to fit into any plan or policy but we are going to do it anyway—we need a fundamental reexamination of the purpose of a prison system in our society. We do have a very good standard to observe in that. We have the kind of values set out in the minimum rules I quoted where the emphasis is on the rehabilitation of prisoners, on the prison service as a social service, on the necessity for adequate means of education, for adequate health care and facilities and for adequate preparation of prisoners for a return to the outside world, a return to a normal life.

There is considerable room for improvement in our general prison service. Most of these values and criteria are totally absent when we have people held in military custody. I intend to refer to some reports of the visiting committee to the Curragh to show that in those reports there is a constant criticism and constant references to the inadequacies and, yet, we are renewing this legislation for a further three years.

Another aspect of the problem is the effect of continuing this military custody in the Curragh on the whole administration of our prison system and the prison service. There should not be an overlap, or a common area of jurisdiction, between the present service under the responsibility of the Minister for Justice and the Defence Forces under the responsibility of the Minister for Defence. This is blurring and bringing together two different public systems of administration. To do so is undermining the basic values of the prison service and is a very severe departure from minimum standards at international level. One of the proofs of this is the fact that although we now get rather late each year—I do not blame the Government for this because it has been a problem with successive governments—an annual report on prisons which gives some minimal information, and even a few photographs in the most recent reports, about our various prisons, reports of the visiting committee, the names of the visiting committees and when they visited the prisons and so on, the reports on the military detention centre at the Curragh are not included in the annual report on prisons. They are not included because they do not come within the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice. This means that they are that little bit less accessible to the public or Members of either House. One has to make a little more effort, and when one does the report is not published in the same form or conveying the same kind of information as the reports on the prisons. Given all these problems and defects, we still have the successive reports of visiting committees. They were not referred to at all by the Minister when introducing this Bill. I do not know whether that is because they did not just occur to him or whether it is not particularly important whether the visiting committee report or not. I would have thought there might have been some attempt not just to refer, as the Minister did, to some admission or deficiencies but to go through the successive complaints made by the visiting committee and either to admit that nothing has been done or to say that something will be done, or whether he regards some of the criticism as serious or not. It is not a question of there being different criticism in different years. Some of the most important criticisms of the visiting committees have remained constant from the earlier reports to the more recent reports available.

I do have to go into great detail in commenting on, referring to and quoting from the successive reports down the years, because the Minister had the benefit of that being done in the Dáil. If one looks at the debate in the Dáil on this Bill one will see the various extracts from these reports. However, for the benefit of Members I should like to draw attention to the similar complaints made. For example in the 1976 report, submitted in early 1977 under the general heading of Labour and Employment the visiting committee stated:

The Committee wishes again to draw attention to previous reports in which it stated that the Military Detention Barracks is not at all suitable for prisoners serving long sentences. The type of prisoners admitted to the prison raises difficulties regarding the provision and maintenance of gainful labour and employment. The employment available is not sufficient and of a kind most suitable for preparing prisoners to earn their livelihood on release, nor are these facilities suitable for prisoners serving long sentences. This insufficiency is met to a degree by the revision of the art and English classes. However, there is a requirement for workshops or some such facilities. There is a lack of facilities for the rehabilitative training of prisoners in military custody. The Committee is aware that in a prison with a population of between 22 and 27 prisoners the provision of such facilities might be disproportionately costly and not get full usage.

At a later stage in the report on psychiatric treatment a very important criticism was made. That does not seem to have been picked because it appeared in later reports. Under the heading of Psychiatric Treatment, the visiting committee stated:

During the past year the committee made recommendations concerning the availability of psychiatric facilities. Prisoners who had been receiving treatment for psychiatric disorders prior to their transfer to military custody continued to require treatment subsequent to their transfer. Due to the fact that there are no psychiatric facilities in the prison, treatment is limited to medication. This situation is unsatisfactory. The committee strongly recommends that prisoners requiring psychiatric treatment should not be transferred to military custody in the future.

That report was signed by the various members of the visiting committee who include, of course, members of the different political parties, including at that time, Deputy Joe Bermingham who, subsequently, resigned from the visiting committee to the Curragh prison camp. He did so because he was not satisfied with conditions there or with continued military custody.

That is not the reason given by Deputy Bermingham in his letter of resignation.

I read what he said in the Dáil and if the Minister did so he will find I have not misrepresented Deputy Bermingham.

I am afraid the Senator has.

Deputy Bermingham was a member of the committee when the 1976 and 1979 reports were being filed and he is the Labour Deputy who moved the motion in the Dáil to decline to give a reading to the Bill and to decline to extend further the military custody. The arguments he put forward are the arguments I have put forward.

I will read the Senator that letter in my reply.

It would be no harm to have the letter on the record of the House. Apart from any letter a Deputy may write he is entitled to express his views, as he has done, in moving the motion in the Dáil.

The 1979 report echoed a number of the criticisms in the 1976 report, as did the 1977 and 1978 reports. There is a general provision as follows:

The military detention barracks is unsuitable for long-term prisoners. Long-term confinement in such an enclosed area must have a tension-creating effect on prisoners. Prisoners transferred to the military detention barracks appear to be those who do not fit into the ordinary prison system. The visual impact on seeing this structure must have traumatic effect on the minds of children when visits to parents are made. Visual and audible methods could be used effectively for interviews between married couples instead of the presence of an MP.

This could apply to all prisons. It is clear from the reference in the 1979 report to education that, basically, the educational opportunities are still confined to English and Art classes and have not developed into the kind of rehabilitative courses, pre-employment courses or educational training courses that the committee called for in successive years. It is clear that long-term prisoners are still being transferred to the Curragh detention centre despite strong recommendations in successive reports that it is unsuitable for them.

One wonders what the role of a visiting committee is when it finds itself making successive reports of this nature. It is fair to say that visiting committees to prisons do not go out of their way to set off a critical appraisal of the prisons they visit. If a visiting committee expresses in writing criticisms we can take it that the criticism has been well thought out, carefully considered and weighed and that the committee felt obliged to place the criticism in writing. I should like to turn to the question of the transfer of prisoners in and out of the Curragh. It seems to me that the system established in 1972 for a short-term period of two years is not adequate. That system was that in the case of a prisoner being transferred to military custody either to the detention centre or the Curragh Military Hospital, the two military detention centres, there should be a written notice that the Minister had given direction and that this direction should contain the name of the person transferred, the offence for which he was convicted and the sentence imposed on him. I am sure Members have noted references, fairly frequently, on our Order Paper to the fact that a notice of this sort has been tabled in relation to somebody either being transferred to the Curragh or transferred out of it.

The kind of information in these notices is minimal, and except for giving a clear idea of where the person is when the notice is tabled it does not really convey very much. I have two such notices in my possession and both of them are dated April 1980. There is a tendency to be less meticulous in the preparation of these forms than might be the case if they were regularly examined and debated in the House. In relation to one of these forms dated 9 April the recital is correct. It says that the Minister for Justice has given a direction under section 2 (5) (a) of the Prisons Act, 1972, for the transfer of the person specified from military custody to civil custody.

The name of the person is given, the offence—the possession of house breaking instruments—the length of the sentence—12 months imprisonment—and a note at the end saying the prisoner is at present detained in Mountjoy prison. However it does not give any indication of how long the prisoner was in the Curragh, whether the prisoner only spent a very short time there or whether he spent a longer time. I do not think that is quite as crucial when the overall sentence was only 12 months imprisonment, although it would be helpful to know this, but the second notice which referred to a long term prisoner was, in fact, incorrect in the section it quoted. It quoted a non-existent section. That notice stated that the Minister for Justice had given a direction under section 2(6) (a) of the Prisons Act, 1972.

There is no such section. That was, presumably, a clerical error and I will not pursue it too far. It is curious that in the two notices I sought for the purposes of examining the position one of them, at least, had a clerical error. More important, it referred to the transfer of a prisoner out of military custody from the Curragh—this time to Portlaoise. He was a long-term prisoner who had been sentenced to seven years imprisonment but this form did not say how long he was in military custody in the Curragh. That is extremely important if one is to assess whether or not the recommendations of the visiting committee are being borne in mind, whether, in fact, it is realised that military custody in the Curragh is unsuitable for long-term prisoners or prisoners with serious medical or mental difficulties, and whether there is some development at least in trying to avoid the worst of the human problems posed by the use of military custody in the Curragh.

The best use that can be made of this debate, this sad debate, on a Bill we are supposed to renew for a further three years, is to take the opportunity to ask a number of questions of the Minister in the hope that in his reply he would put on the record of the House the kind of information which is not available at the moment, which we do not know about, and makes it very difficult for us to assess even some of the thinking in the Department of Justice, in particular, the thinking in relation to the transfer of individual prisoners from prisons to military custody at the Curragh. My questions are to elicit information and are by no means the only questions one could ask, but if we at least have specific answers on the record to them it might give us a good deal more information than we have at present. The first question I should like to ask the Minister is whether there has been any attempt in the past eight years to devise objective classifications for the transfer of prisoners from prison to miltary custody. Are there any guidelines which he or the Department have drawn? Are there any objective criteria which I referred to? Is it the case that the transfer is as a result of the individual conduct of a prisoner and, therefore, at least closer to that border of being an individual extra punishment of the prisoner? Is it left to the prison governor to take the initiative in the matter or does the prison governor abide by clear guidelines before the matter is referred to the Minister requesting that the Minister use his powers under the Prisons Act, 1972? How does the matter come before the Minister for a transfer order to be made?

Secondly, I should like to elicit from the Minister information about long-term prisoners held in the Curragh so that we can see whether there has been an improvement in that aspect which evoked criticism in successive reports of the visiting committee. I should like to ask the Minister how many long-term prisoners have been held in the Curragh in each of the eight years from 1972 to 1980 and, if possible, the period for which they were held in the Curragh in the different years.

Thirdly, I should like to ask the Minister on how many occasions there have been transfers of prisoners from the Central Mental Hospital in Dundrum to the Curragh or from the Curragh to Dundrum in each of the eight years in question.

Fourthly, I should like to ask the Minister if he will give the House some indication of what drugs are used regularly in treatment of prisoners at the Curragh. How many of the present 28 prisoners held at the Curragh are in regular receipt of drugs. I appreciate that somebody may get medication in relation to some once-off either illness or reason for pain. I am talking about the regular administration of drugs to individual prisoners, and I should like the Minister to give us as much information as possible on this aspect of the treatment of prisoners in the Curragh. I have been furnished with information—I have not been able to in any way check on whether it is true or not—that approximately 50 per cent of the persons held in custody in the Curragh are under regular drugs treatment. It is important that the House should know precisely what the situation is in that regard.

Fifthly, I should like to ask the Minister what attempts have been made in the light of the recommendations of the visiting committee to arrange for the type of pre-release facilities and employment opportunities which exist for prisoners held in the other prisons. I should like to know whether any contact has been made with any voluntary bodies which are involved in providing a service in relation to the other prisons and whether there has been any development in this area. Has there been any attempt to have any parole introduced for prisoners in the Curragh? Once again, the statement has been made that there is no facility of this kind available. I should like the Minister to clarify the situation and say whether any attempt has been made to try to break down that barrier between the confinement of a prisoner, particularly a confinement in military custody, and the prisoner's release to the outside world to resume family relationships, work or seek for work. I should like to know whether there has been any attempt to ensure that that prisoner would have the same kind of opportunities that exist for prisoners who are held in other prisons.

Sixthly, I should like to ask the Minister if he will give information on whether any attempts have been made, or whether there has been any improvements, in the educational and employment possibilities in the Curragh. The visiting committee have referred to the fact that there are Art and English classes provided by the local vocational education school but that these are not adequate, that there are not sufficient employment and training opportunities and that prisoners only have the opportunity to learn hobbies or handicrafts. That was a feature of some of the early reports of the visiting committee and they have continued to make this criticism. Perhaps the Minister could take the opportunity of saying whether anything has been done in this regard?

I ask these questions because the approach of the Labour Party is to oppose this measure in principle and to oppose it in the reality of the situation in Ireland which is no worse in regard to prison difficulties than other comparable countries. Take New Zealand, for example, which has a comparable population and which has had serious prison riots and prison disturbances in the last few years. Yet they have not contemplated, or, if they have contemplated, they have quickly reasoned their way out of the notion, opening a centre for military custody. We did it in a rushed, ad hoc way in May 1972 and it has become, regrettably, part of the norm in regard to the prison system in our society.

The Labour Party do not believe that there is justification for continuing it. We believe that those 28 prisoners held at present in the Curragh could be very securely and adequately accommodated within the existing prison service. The Minister has not justified, even in practical terms, the continuance of the detention centre at the Curragh. If this Stage of the Bill is approved, despite the opposition of the Labour Party and any other Senators who oppose it, we are entitled to know, before we in any way endorse a further three years of this military custody of civilian prisoners, exactly what the accommodation is, what steps have been made in eight years to bring about real improvements in the matter and what the planning is for the immediate future.

I should like to support the Bill and say that, although Senator Robinson has indicated that she does not want to be misrepresented, she has frequently misrepresented the situation during the course of her speech. I will attempt to deal with these misrepresentations in the course of my speech. Firstly, I should like to pay tribute to the Minister as a man of courage and a man of vision in relation to the problems that present themselves in society today. In this developing situation the Minister has acted with speed and efficiency where possible and with total justice in relation to the various problems of his Department. I should like to pay a very special tribute to the members of the Defence Forces who have been maligned here to some degree today by Senator Robinson and that I will deal with at length.

Predictable.

This unwanted job that has been placed on the shoulders of the military personnel is one that we hope will end in the very near future. The comments here today from Senator Robinson certainly cast a sad reflection on honourable men.

I am glad I anticipated your fairness and impartiality in these remarks.

I should like also to pay tribute to the prison staff who have at all times carried out their duties with efficiency and impartiality, and to the Garda who in their own way in relation to the entire system are also entitled to great credit. On many occasions the credits are not doled out but the criticisms are and they were certainly doled out today. First of all, I am glad that the Labour Party have now changed their attitude to this whole situation in relation to military detention. Senator Robinson has indicated that the Labour Party will, in principle, oppose this Bill. I am very glad that the Labour Party have so decided. The Minister has indicated that he sees, in principle, the question of military detention as being objectionable and, indeed, all speakers on this side of the House have indicated their objections to military detention.

Let us have a look at the situation in relation to military detention. Let us have a look at the situation in relation to the development of the Curragh, to the conversion of Plunkett Barracks at the Curragh. This was done by the Coalition Government, of which the Labour Party were members. This was done at a time when they had the opportunity if they wanted to build a prison for high security prisoners, to do so. However, they sought to maintain and establish for all time the question of military detention. This was a jackboot activity, establishing at the Curragh a military detention centre for civilian prisoners. This was done by the Coalition Government. It was chosen by the Leader of that Government and endorsed by the Minister for Defence at the time. The thinking in the Government was that we must have a military detention centre and we must build one now.

This jackboot mentality was only the thin end of the wedge in regard to a further development of other centres and other military detention high security prisons, possibly in other military camps elsewhere. Otherwise, why would they build it at the Curragh? Would they not build it at a place where they could build a prison to accommodate the type of prisoners for which it was thought necessary? That was the thinking behind the Government; there is no other explanation.

Government thought in those terms and the Government implemented it at that time. The Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party established for the first time a military detention centre, a high security prison for civilian prisoners in the Curragh Camp. The Minister for Justice and myself were denied an opportunity to visit that detention centre in the course of construction. When we sought from the Minister for Defence an opportunity to go to see how the money was being spent there, we were denied that opportunity. Why all the secrecy? Maybe Senator Robinson did not read the Dáil report of that period; maybe she read only from the latter day saints whom she quoted here today. Let me say that we were violently opposed to the establishment of a military detention centre of that particular type for civilian prisoners in the Curragh Camp. Our party were opposed to it but, despite all the reasonable people, the Board of Works, the military personnel, the Department of Justice, the Government decided to go ahead and established it. Let us know the reason. Was there any reason for it? What was the thinking behind it? We know the thinking behind it: it was the jackboot mentality of the Leader of the Government at that time and the jackboot mentality of the Government that did it.

Military custody is objectionable and we all agree it is objectionable. We know that the short-term situation came about because of the riot in Mountjoy. We all appreciate that it needed to be remedied at that time. At that stage in 1972 the Members of both Houses were concerned about the prolongation of any system of military detention. This was expressed by the people who participated in the debate. Notwithstanding that and all the propaganda they chose to disseminate at that time in relation to military custody, they set themselves on a course of establishing more and bigger and better prisons than the Curragh, which they did not want anyone to see and would not allow anyone to enter.

Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas were denied the opportunity of getting into this palace of grandeur, as we were told it was by the then Minister for Defence, this "Donegan's Folly" in the Curragh. We know that the Curragh presented very many problems. The security of a military post was put in the melting pot because of the establishment of a detention centre of that type in a military compound. We know that the protests at that time from the wives and families of military personnel living there in married quarters forced the Government to re-think about the filling of that prison. Would they wait until after the election to fill the prison?

Why did they build the prison? Was there a reason for it? Why was it built and why was the money spent? The reason was that the jackboot mentality was there—put them in and lock them up in the fashion that they now complain about. We are opposed to that. The Minister has indicated the alternative and is proceeding with the alternative. Now that the Labour Party have changed their attitude to the establishment of prisons in military encampments and military detention of any kind, I would like to hear views on why at that time they decided to establish it. Why was the money spent there? Why was it never filled? Was it because of the protests in both Houses of the Oireachtas? Who is in favour of this particular type of detention? Is it Fianna Fáil, as is indicated by innuendo, or is it the previous Coalition who built one and deprived military personnel of a barracks in the Curragh? The spot was chosen against all professional advice and the prison was built. Maybe Senator Robinson did not know. Now she knows, and I am glad to know that the Labour Party at this stage have changed their attitude. As I said before, it was only the thin edge of the wedge. That was the thinking of many members of the Government at that particular time. What were they preparing for? Was that to be the first of many? Would they let Members of the Oireachtas see the other ones? There must have been others. Why did they not choose a site outside the military camp? They had the opportunity to do all the things that Senator Robinson said should be done now.

I want to refer to Senator Robinson's speech in which she said that people were sent to the Curragh for punishment. This is accusing Army personnel, who are in charge of the detention centre there, of punishing people not according to the book, because if they were doing it according to the book then according to Senator Robinson, it is OK. It indicates that the army personnel are punishing prisoners—

It is a fascinating twist of a very typical nature. I will let the Senator continue to twist away.

(Interruptions.)

This is the propaganda of Senator Robinson, aimed at undermining the prison system. She made many other references also about acceptable punishment.

That is a fairly serious charge. I resent any implication that I am undermining the prison system. I ask the Chair to call the Senator to order. I object to being referred to as somebody who sought to undermine the prison system.

This seems to be a type of political charge—one that is frequently made.

She sought to undermine the prison system by indicating that the prisoners were sent to the Curragh for punishment. It was all right if they were punished in accordance with the book from which she quoted. If they were sent for punishment it implied that military personnel were punishing prisoners in the Curragh.

That is what you said. Read the report and you will find that is what you said. You said that the only punishment acceptable was that contained in the prison rules. Is something else happening in the Curragh outside the prison rules in relation to the punishment of prisoners? If there is, it is Army personnel who are inflicting it. I say to indicate that is to mislead this House.

May I ask the Senator to address the Chair, please?

This type of propaganda is aimed at undermining the prison system. It is discrediting Army personnel who are doing an unwanted job magnificently under difficult conditions. These are honourable men who have given good service to the nation and it is tough to see them branded in the way they have been here in this House.

I think I will leave at this stage.

I have never run away from my responsibility or from criticism. On any occasion that Members of this House have sought to question me or criticise me, I stood my ground in order to listen to or to answer any criticism that might be levelled. By innuendo on many occasions Senator Robinson has indicated an effort to undermine the prison system.

I would like to refer to one or two matters that she said in the course of her attack on the military personnel and the prison system itself. She spoke about the 50 per cent in the Curragh, and she had information from some group that 50 per cent were on drugs. She did not say who gave her the information or where the information came from or what type of drugs were taken. Were they aspros? What type of drugs were they? To imply that drugs are being taken by prisoners in the Curragh is a very serious matter. Are they on medical prescription? Were they prescribed by the doctors or the medical orderlies in the Curragh? Were they being used to treat complaints or were they drugs that the Drug Squad are concerned about? It is important that when we are referring to personnel in military custody there we should make our position clear so that no blemish will fall on the characters of the people who are assigned to that duty which they feel is objectionable.

I have indicated the thinking of the previous Government; how the barracks came about; how we were denied an opportunity to visit the camp or the prison. We were denied an opportunity to find out the real reason for it. We all know that this mentality percolated through and it was only the beginning of a long run. We would all be happy if there was no need for prisons but we are living in a period in which society must be protected. At present rape is like the common cold. Every day we read in the newspapers about this serious crime which is an absolute insult to women.

We read about vandalism, robbery with and without violence, attacks on the aged, car stealing, possession of arms and the ramming of vehicles. The unfortunate situation is that the public are not responding in a way that we would expect in a country such as ours. We should respond in order to ensure that there is no continuity of these crimes. Far too often the culprits are known and, possibly because of threats, people are afraid to come forward with information which would bring them to justice. We all have a responsibility to ensure that the crime which is so violently attacking our nation is brought to an early conclusion by co-operation with the police force, who are doing an excellent job under very difficult circumstances. The co-operation of Deputies and Senators is also important. We can undermine their confidence if we come into this House or the lower House and embark on a campaign of attack as we have heard here from Senator Robinson. We must not undermine their confidence, we must assist them, to ensure their confidence is maintained at the highest possible level. They will know that if the public at large are afraid to come forward at least the voice of the people in both Houses will come forward loud and clear.

That last part is not totally in order on this Bill.

To return to the Bill, Senator Cooney and others spoke about improvements in the present prison sustem. This is no big deal. We would expect, in a country such as ours, that we would have this constant review of the problems, constant review of the facilities, updating of the many training aspects and facilities of every type. That is what we expect of every Government. They have the responsibility to ensure that legislation is updated and that conditions are better. The whole question of imprisonment and resettlement is one that has been touched upon here and possibly, maybe not in this Bill but in another one, the Minister may give us some indication of the type of facilities that will be available in the new prison that is mentioned in the Bill, the educational aspect, the job training facilities and the resettlement approach so that we can have a global view of what is happening rather than just that a prison being built.

I know that the Minister is concerned about their future and is concerned about the opportunities that will be given to people serving terms of imprisonment. Maybe in the course of the debate the Minister might indicate in some way that these are matters that will be updated together with the facilities that will be available.

I regret that I was denied the opportunity and, indeed, that the Minister was denied the opportunity when Fianna Fáil were in Opposition to visit this institution. It is a sad reflection that Members of the House who sought an opportunity to visit an institution were denied it by a member of the Government. I hope when the time comes that the present Minister, if demands are made on him, will be more liberal than Deputy Donegan was on the occasion that he made the refusal. I do not think that Deputy Donegan would have refused if he had not been prompted or pushed from another angle. The aim at the time was to ensure that representatives of either House of the Oireachtas would not have the opportunity or the knowledge to know what was being developed within the compounds of the Curragh.

I am happy to support this Bill because it is necessary, not because I want to see it there. The sooner we have a release from this situation the better it will be for everyone and particularly the people who are in charge of the Department of Justice. Nevertheless, we must ensure that the people who are inflicting ruin on society cannot freely roam the countryside, causing the types of destruction that I have mentioned in the course of the debate.

I feel quite inadequate following that colourful contribution by Senator Dowling. I would like to say that, with friends like Senator Dowling, the Minister hardly needs enemies.

There was a quotation from the debate on this Bill in the other House but I believe that it is worthy of a repeat in this House because we must get back from the kind of atmosphere engendered by the last speaker to the real purpose and the real importance of this debate. I will quote Mr. Ramsey Clarke, a former US Attorney General, with whom I had the honour of discussing prison reform when in the United States recently. Mr. Clarke has written and I quote:

No activity of a people so exposes their humanity, their character, their capacity for charity in its most generous dimension, as the treatment they accord persons convicted of crime.

I believe that is a true statement, and it is an extremely difficult requirement of society to face up to the humanity expected of it in dealing with people whom their very instinct is to reject. Indeed the contribution directly before me is an indication of the dangers, the unpopularity, of discussing the whole question of prison reform in this country. I, at least, have the advantage that I was not a supporter of the last Government and am not a supporter of this Government and I cannot enter into the wrangle as to who did what, when they did what or if they were right or wrong in what they were doing.

In those most unseemly wrangles, I was not edified by Senator Cooney's contribution in that respect. I feel that the people who are forgotten are the very people whom we are here to try to help—the rejects of society, the bottom of the barrel, the very difficult members of society, the people who we all like to feel were born bad and always will be bad, for whom we really have no way out except to lock them up and forget them. I was most impressed by the very humanitarian sentiments expressed by Senator Brugha in that respect.

There are obviously no votes at all in prison reform. Anybody who reads the newspapers and listens to the radio will realise that the public mood at present appears to be against any kind of compassion or attempt to examine in depth the reasons for crime, or the reasons why people are in places like the Curragh at all. There is a rejection of any connection between the word "prisoner" and the word "right". I do not reject that connection myself. I probably did in the past, but once one begins to think about it one really cannot make that rejection. I am bearing in mind a morning radio programme which goes out every morning and carries an unending stream of very violent letters which demand the birch and so on for offenders. We are faced with a situation where something happened in 1972 and was supposed to be ratified and made all right for a short time in an emergency and in 1980 we are putting a seal on it and allowing it to go on for another three years. We are talking about 11 years from the time it was first introduced as an emergency measure.

The Minister does not like it and regrets having to do it. The previous Minister did not like it but we are doing it even though nobody likes it. The visiting committee dislikes it very strongly. It was pointed out in the other House that many members of the visiting committee are supporters of the Government but that did not stop them saying very strongly that they disliked the situation. Despite all the dislike and the regret, the fact remains that there was either inaction or muddled action leading to a situation where we are only apparently now beginning to think that something should be done about it. The Minister said that he does not think that is going to happen in three years but we will get this Bill passed to be going along with. That kind of stop-go muddling or inaction over a period of eight years is a sign of massive indifference.

In Senator Brugha's very interesting contribution he said that it was amazing what people can do when they feel they have to, and he mentioned wartime. We do not really have to go back to war time. It was amazing what could be done when the Pope was visiting Ireland—the very solid constructions which went up, solid enough to take the Pope and a bevy of international cardinals and bishops, and the special requirements which were met when the country felt it was urgent and important. That was an indication of priorities. We might remind ourselves also that the Pope in his pastoral letter to the bishops made the very clear and strong point to them that they must interest themselves in the plight of prisoners, in the way they are held and the mental and physical conditions under which they are held. The inactivity we have seen and which we are being asked to perpetuate for another three years on this issue of keeping prisoners in military custody is an indication of a lack of priority or indifference.

Senator Dowling mentioned that he was very annoyed that he was not allowed to visit a prison that was being built. I asked the present Minister in 1977 for permission to visit prisons and I was told I could not. I was refused permission to do so. In a normal civilised society elected representatives should automatically be able to visit any prison, giving reasonable notice where there are security problems. I find it impossible to understand why people who are considered responsible enough to stand in the national parliament of the country are not considered responsible enough to visit the prisons. I should like to know why, if I may visit the prisons in the future and what plans the Minister has for allowing elected representatives of the people to visit the prisons. I would much prefer to be discussing this Bill having visited the prison, talked to the prison people—they are not wardens but soldiers—looked at the conditions they are living in, seen what kind of classes and training they are having, and I would come here then feeling responsible, and armed with knowledge. Perhaps I would find that things are much better than I think they are. The only details I have had about what exactly is going on there are what I keep getting through the post from various organisations. The Minister in his very short introductory speech did not give any details of the accommodation down there. I hope that the Minister will tell us why he sees it necessary that Members of the Oireachtas may not visit the prisons at will, having made proper arrangements in advance where there are security problems. Where there are not security problems, I do not think that Members of the Oireachtas should have to make special arrangements in advance.

I have spoken on this subject to people from other countries, people who work in Departments of Justice and in prison systems in other countries. They find it quite astonishing that as a Senator of the national parliament I cannot visit the prisons. I do not accuse the Minister of paranoia but there is an impression among some groups of responsible people that there is something approaching paranoia in the higher echelons of the Department of Justice when it comes to discussing in detail prison reform, the kind of prisoner that we have in our prisons and research into the social and economic background of prisoners. I am interested to find out why there should be a lack of openness. The main culprit for the present situation is the appalling level of crime committed for a so-called political reason.

Another burden of responsibility which so-called political prisoners have to bear is that they have allowed a situation to develop where the ordinary prisoners in Irish society have not been looked after and have not had the benefit of society's scrutiny of the way they are held. Prison reform as a concept in this country has been held up very much by the fact that the general population when they think of the word "prison" immediately think of the IRA. I have come across that reaction among responsible people also. I have sympathy for this Minister and previous Ministers who have dealt with the situation caused and exacerbated by so-called political criminals.

Senator Cooney referred to the prison system as the Achilles' heel of an ordered society. I do not believe that it needs to be that, but we have to sort out in this country, as so many Western European countries have, how to contain properly the terrorist type prisoner. As regards the rest of the prisoners, particularly the non-violent ones, we must look into alternatives to the whole prison reform system. I will not go into details, as Senator Robinson did, about the situation in the Curragh. The Minister has many questions from her which I hope he will answer and which I would be interested to hear also. I know that it is a matter of great regret to many people who live in the area of the Curragh that the presence of this high security enclosure has had very detrimental effects on the area immediately around it and has stopped a lot of the recreation facilities and general pleasantness that existed before this occurred.

Senator Robinson quoted at length from the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and Related Recommendations. She did not mention one or two points which I should like to bring up. Paragraph VII on the selection and training of personnel for penal and correctional institutions stresses the need for non-military organisation of the staff, and it states in subsection (1):

Prison staff should be organised on civilian lines with a division into ranks or grades as this type of administration requires.

Subsection (3) states:

Staff should be specially recruited and not seconded from the armed forces or police or other public services.

Paragraph VIII (1) states:

Except in special circumstances, staff performing duties which bring them into direct contact with prisoners should not be armed.

Paragraph VIII (3) states:

It is desirable that prison staff should be responsible for guarding the enclosure of the institution.

It is not necessary to labour any more the way our present system in the Curragh is falling foul of these standard minimum rules as laid down by the United Nations. It is worth mentioning that they do single out the undesirability of having military personnel or weapons in a normal penal institution. It has been admitted that this is not a penal institution housing what the Minister has referred to as subversives. It started out like that but it is now housing people who are very disorderly and in every other society are housed in a high security civil prison.

We have had a very full debate on this subject but I should like to ask a question which perhaps the Minister will not be able to answer; how often do judges sentencing people visit all our prisons, particularly the Curragh? They should visit regularly the institutions to which they are sending people. The visiting committee system should have an independent tribunal appointing visiting committees to prisons. It should be taken out of the realm of political appointments altogether. I support Senator Cooney's mention of an independent parole board which would be a step towards opening up the prison system. I hope that in the near future this Minister will feel, unlike other Irish Ministers for Justice, secure and able enough to appoint a full commission of inquiry into the prison system which will carry out a full scale investigation, for the first time, into how society is treating its rejects.

I find myself in the same position as other speakers and the Minister in finding the Bill, in the circumstances which exist, absolutely essential, however regrettable, however unfortunate and in some respects however tragic. I would understand some of the criticisms that have been made to some extent if we were simply talking in a vacuum and were extending this legislation without any alternatives in mind as regards suitable accommodation or suitable facilities. The criticisms ignore the fact that there is a policy and a plan for providing the accommodation that is essential in Portlaoise. In the intervening years—hopefully they will be a short number of years—if we do not activate this legislation the only alternative is to return the men who are in the Curragh to the other prisons.

Many points have been made with which I am in full agreement in relation to rehabilitation and our responsibilities to prisoners. I do not know how many Members of the House or how many people generally have seen the effect of disruptions in prisons or know about them or have read about them. I have some limited experience of it, and from what I have seen and know of the situation, to accept an alternative of returning certain prisoners who are in the Curragh at present back to Mountjoy or Arbour Hill or wherever is to completely subject men and women in these prisons to huge risks and injustice.

The effect of a riot in a prison is so destructive physically and so damaging to the facilities and life of the men and women in prison and so undermines the whole rehabilitation work, that I simply cannot see how anyone who is conversant with the problem or who really thinks about it could oppose the Bill on the basis that even though there is not at present alternative accommodation in Portlaoise, the only logical follow-through is that we return the men in question to other prisons and run this appalling risk.

When there is trouble in a prison many people suffer from riots and disturbances but nobody suffers more than the fellow prisoner. It is quite possible and has happened that very small numbers of men, even one person, can foment trouble to the point where very serious disturbances occur, very serious violence can occur and prisoners can be seriously hurt and damaged, apart from the mental effect and the whole depressing effect it has on the entire institution and the tremendous set-back it is to the work of rehabilitation. For that reason this Bill is essential, however regrettable. It is essential for the welfare of people who are in custody today because the risk that they are put in in the event of disturbance or violence is absolutely appalling and almost indescribable.

Regardless of how one sees the role of prisons, whether one takes the view that they should be essentially rehabilitative or that they are institutions for punishing offenders, one thing is certain: if we do not have a successful rehabilitation policy, no matter how one reviews the system or thinks it should work, it will fail. I do not know what the figure is now, but the last time I checked it the rate at which people returned to prison was something in the order of 60 per cent.

Whether one regards prisons as rehabilitative or that they should exist to punish offenders, a 60 per cent return to prison represents a failure of whatever objective we have in mind. That is a problem that has gone on for years and years. The conditions of the modern world seem to be accentuating it for reasons which are very difficult to analyse and come to terms with. No matter how one views the prison and penal system, it is in everybody's interest that the work of rehabilitation should expand and be successful. Any measure or any decision which would disrupt that or put it at risk, which is the alternative to this Bill, is absolutely retrograde and simply something which could not be countenanced under any circumstance.

I have been associated with an organisation and with people involved in rehabilitation work for a number of years. It is extremely difficult work, and it is extremely difficult to really have the beneficial effects everybody sets out to have. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that there is room for success and there have been and will continue to be successful outcomes in individual cases. It cannot be done in isolation, and I should like to put on record that, from my own experience, the level of co-operation which voluntary organisations of which I have knowledge have enjoyed with the Minister for Justice and the Department of Justice has been first-class and something with which no complaint could be found. I know the way in which financial assistance has been provided to independent voluntary rehabilitation bodies, which was absolutely essential to their work and without which their work could not have continued even though they are independent bodies and are capable of financing themselves to a point. But even more important than money has been the level of co-operation and advice and, in particular, the degree to which voluntary workers have been able to work at close range with the welfare officers of the prison system.

That is essential, because it provides the link between men who are about to be discharged from prison and about whom the welfare officers know a great deal as to their training, background, education and suitability for various forms of employment and the people who are going to help them when they leave prison. It is an essential link, and one which has been strengthened and fostered particularly in the last few years. It is the most important area where co-operation between the Department of Justice and the Minister and the various voluntary workers who are engaged in rehabilitation work has existed.

If there was serious trouble in any of our prisons—and there has been—and if through violence, burning, destruction of property and destruction of the whole atmosphere, that work was set back, it may resume in one month, two months or six months but, remember this, we are talking about individual people and it is no good to the man who happened to be there and in need of this work, this co-operation and assistance for those vital six months in his career. We are talking about people day in, day out. It is essential that rehabilitation work continues uninterrupted day by day. There are men coming into prison and being discharged from prison and attending classes at prison. It is essential that that service continues at all times. For that reason the Bill is absolutely essential.

In relation to my own experience of what can be done, I have seen in the past year alone in St. Patrick's Institution a tremendous development of the facilities available to young boys there. It is a very old building and not ideally suited. With the type of support which I suppose we all feel really should exist but is sometimes difficult to muster among the public it is the type of building, built in the last century, which should not really be used in the twentieth century. Even within the confines of those restrictions the school unit which exists and has been expanded in the past year is first-class and tremendous attention is given to it. One of the problems in the past was that school facilities ceased during the summer months. From this year on, it is intended to extend the classes almost through the summer period, which is of immense benefit to the young boys attending them because the break of two or three months during the summer was very disruptive to their continuation and application. That will take effect this year. Training work involving assembly, metal work, wood work, printing—there is a printing shop which is small but first class with very modern equipment—and block making, all very practical work with great training content in it, has been developed within the past year. It is important to put on record that while the problem is immense and at times frustrating and depressing one thing is certain: there is no point in embarking on a crusade of criticism which, without taking account of the work that is being done or realising the facts, simply discourages those who are working day and night either professionally, devoting their careers to it, or in a voluntary capacity.

We are all in this together and everybody has an inherent interest in the success of this work. If it was interrupted, even for a short time, the cost to society and to the individual prisoner concerned would be immeasurable. Individual members of the public have a basic right to their own freedom, a basic right to live in peace and a basic right to protection. While it is understandable and true that when violence occurs there may be an immediate reaction from people to take action against the wrongdoers which may be excessive or not particularly helpful, nevertheless, the public, in supporting voluntary rehabilitation work, have been extremely generous in all kinds of ways. I have noticed over ten years that financially, in the provision of all essential employment facilities and equipment, there seems to be no end to the generosity of the public. Despite the anxiety, and fear that exists this huge volume of goodwill continues.

Slightly removed from the Department of Justice but inherent in what we are discussing, I should like to say that the role of the Defence Forces in this work is something I have no doubt they would rather not be involved in. Nevertheless, it is just another example of the extent we are indebted to them. They have a particular job. They joined the Defence Forces to further a certain career and carry out a certain type of work. They patrol the Border, and we are all proud of their peace-keeping work abroad. Yet, we come to them in times of crisis and trial to remove our rubbish from our streets, to run a bus service when it is needed and, in this case, to look after the Curragh detention camp. It is an opportune time to acknowledge generously our huge debt of gratitude to the members of the Defence Forces for standing by this country so loyally and in so many different capacities. For the reasons I have given, regrettable though it is, I have no hesitation in supporting the Bill.

With one exception, all the contributions to this debate have been, to my way of thinking, encouraging to listen to. There were several notes of regret and caution about what we are doing that I should like to echo. With varying degrees of concern everybody expressed regret and sadness that this Bill is necessary. As far as direct opposition to this measure is concerned I have to take Senator Donnelly's point, that to vote against this measure would mean, in effect, sending prisoners presently detained in the military centre at the Curragh back to prisons like Mountjoy or Arbour Hill or wherever they have come from. I accept that to do that would be regressive and damaging to the prisoners who are already incarcerated in places like Mountjoy and, particularly, Arbour Hill. For that reason we are not opposing outright the passage of this measure.

There are very many aspects of the Bill that I am dissatisfied with and upset about. However, to overcome the difficulty with regard to these what are described as disruptive prisoners if we are to knock the Bill we will have to provide overnight something by way of accommodation that we have failed to do over the past eight years. Perhaps there are reasons. I appreciate that things take time, but in this case it is because of the absence of a properly drawn list of priorities that this problem has not been dealt with over the past eight years.

There was one exception to the contributions made. I do not think anybody would find difficulty in seeing the exception. Senator Dowling's speech was so irresponsible, outrageous and offensive to the dignity of this House that I am not going to indulge in the temptation that I had prepared myself for of dealing with each item, if one could describe them as such, that he raised. It deserves nothing but a silence and a contemptuous silence. It is with contempt that I remain silent on what he said. It was the most disgusting and offensive performance I have ever seen to take place in this House since I have become a Member.

But utterly typical of him.

I do not pretend to have any particular knowledge of our prison system service. I have no comprehensive knowledge of it at all. In my professional practice I, unfortunately, have to suffer the occasional misfortune of representing somebody who is sent to prison. For that reason I have had contact, in a small way, with the prison service. I have had contact with people who have been sent to prison and those who have come out of prison. That gives me some little knowledge. In my contribution I want to raise questions and, perhaps, make some suggestions. I do not do so with any feeling of expertise or of knowing anything more than an ordinary layman who has had no contact with the service we are discussing. I was disappointed, and surprised, to learn that there are prisoners who are so disruptive as to cause the problems we are trying to deal with. It is the medical view that such prisoners do not necessarily suffer from any mental disorder. They do not require any treatment by way of mental treatment. We are dealing with a real problem of people whom, in the ordinary sense of the word, we cannot say we can try to treat. These people are not mentally deranged.

I should like to refer to the Third Interim Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Mentally Ill and Maladjusted Persons which was concerned with the treatment and care of persons suffering from mental disorder who appear before the courts on criminal charges. That report consists mainly of a draft Bill to deal with the type of situation we are talking about, a Bill that would be known as the Criminal Justice (Mental Illness) Bill. In the report that prefaces the Bill there is a reference to the type of person we are concerned with here. Paragraph 12 states:

Section 27 of the Bill provides for a special category of persons who are not suitable for detention either in a prison or in a designated centre. Those are violent persons who come within a class sometimes referred to as psychopaths or sociopaths but which we consider it more proper to identify as persons suffering from a persistent disorder or disability of personality which manifests itself in abnormally violent or aggressive conduct. Because of their propensity to cause injury to themselves or to others, such offenders create problems of security and therapy or care which prisons or kindred institutions are not equipped or staffed to cope with. Nor would designated centres be suitable for the detention of such persons,

I should like to interject to say that designated centres are another type of centre that the Committee suggest. The paragraph continues:

for, as the Committee has been advised, such persons are not generally amenable to any conventional psychiatric therapy and the conditions of high security which they require would be otherwise counterproductive in a designated centre. As there is likely to be at any given time a small number of such persons requiring suitable detention, the Committee envisages the designation by the Minister for Justice of a unit, which the Bill refers to as a special unit, for the detention of such persons. The special unit should be designed and run so as best to deal with the special problems presented by such persons who, according to the expert advice available to the Committee, do not fit into any recognised category of mental disorder and who do not accordingly qualify for exemption from criminal liability by reason of mental disorder.

Inexperienced as I am in categorising prisoners or people in any sense, I accept the thrust of that paragraph I quoted. We have a problem to deal with. I have already acknowledged the point made by the Minister and Senator Donnelly, that we have to deal with them now. Unfortunately, we do not have available to us a unit in which to put them. I trust, and hope, that in the next three years that this problem will be dealt with so that a satisfactory unit will be provided.

Having expressed the hope that the physical accommodation will become available I want to ask some questions about other aspects of the matter. I accept that the problem arose in 1972 because physical accommodation had to be found for people who were causing trouble in prisons and that it was not possible at that time to ensure that the personnel who would look after that prison would be anything but military. However, over the past eight years there has been adequate time to train sufficient people from the ordinary prison service to look after those prisoners. The Minister's response when that query was put to him in the lower House was that to provide such a staff would reduce the resources of prison personnel from the ordinary prisons and so reduce the service provided in our ordinary prisons. I would accept that if this was the first time this Bill came before the House. It is not, and after a period of eight years we should at least be in a position to ensure that we have a staff from the prison service to man and service this detention area in the Curragh.

What is going to happen in three years' time when the new prison in Portlaoise is available? Are we then going to say that if we take people from the prison service we are going to reduce the service available in other prisons? Clearly, that is not what anybody would wish and we want to take this whole area of responsibility away from the Defence Forces. We should have been on the way to doing that already. If it has not been done to date it is regrettable but I do not see why we should have to wait another three years for the physical accommodation to become available before we make available the ordinary prison staff to man and run the prison at the Curragh. For that reason I should like to ask the Minister, not why it has not been done to date because it is almost irrelevant to ask such a question at this stage, but why he will not do it now. Why will he not provide the proper civilian staff in ths prison within whatever length of time it takes to recruit and organise proper personnel? I read somewhere—I presume it is correct but perhaps the Minister will advise me on this—that the length of time it has taken to recruit members of the military to execute the task they have been asked to carry out in this prison is a matter of weeks or months. I do not see any reason, therefore, why people from the ordinary prison service could not be recruited across to that. I accept that if he takes people from that service the personnel in that service will be reduced but it can be brought up. It will have to be done in three years' time and unless there is some compelling reason why it should not be done—we have not been given a compelling one—it should be done now.

In case Senator Dowling attempts later to distort the record, I am going to put it on record, like Senator Robinson, that I have no knowledge of any mistreatment or irresponsible acts by any member of the Defence Forces in relation to their work at the Curragh. It seems necessary to say that, given the interpretation that some Members of the House are prepared to put on what colleagues say.

It will not stop them.

I want to ask some questions for two reasons. The amount of information we have about ordinary procedures at the Curragh is limited. We only have the reports of the prison committees. I do not want to be unduly critical of the prison committees, whose recommendations and advice have not been taken by successive Governments, but their reports are extremely sketchy. It is unfortunate that the ordinary annual prison report we receive from the Department of Justice does not have a section devoted to the military detention centre at the Curragh. It is not good enough that we, as Members of an Oireachtas, who authorise the incarceration of individuals in military custody, should be satisfied with reports as light as that. I am looking at a document that stretches in big print to a page-and-a-half of quarto size double type space.

I am not familiar with the amount of work done by the prison committee but I know it holds regular meetings, visits the prison on occasions and that all its members are concerned and extremely responsible. One can see that because it does not come easy to any member of a political party to criticise its party in power. Many of those prison committee members must have done some considerable soul-searching before they did that, but members from all parties did. I regret we accept that as a good enough report from a prison committee. I do not know why it is that way. I imagine there are reasons because their recommendations and the concerns they have expressed annually have been ignored. Perhaps they are frustrated and fed up with their function now. I do not know why Deputy Bermingham resigned. Senator Robinson mentioned that he resigned in frustration, as a protest at what happened. That may or may not have been the case but the indications are, from every source, even a dissenting report from a Mr. Boylan in 1977 who wrote a special letter regretting that the views of the committee were being ignored, that this committee are totally dissatisfied.

As Members of the Oireachtas we overlook completely our continuing responsibility in this matter. We are not simply passing a Bill and saying that it is the end of it. We have a duty and a responsibility to ensure that the management of that unit is in order and up to standard. If we do not do that we fail in our responsibilities not only to the prisoners and to those people who are denied their right of liberty but also in our responsibility to society. We have a job to see that the purpose of the imposition of any imprisonment sanction imposed by any judge or any court is properly carried out. I do not think that we, whether we are Independent Members or members of political parties, have discharged our responsibilities in this respect.

Before this Bill came before the House I had never concerned myself sufficiently with this unit. I am ashamed to admit that but it is true. I imagine that the vast majority of Members of this House, apart from, perhaps, Senators Donnelly and Robinson who have some connection with this, and others who were concerned about the whole question of our prison system, have ignored their responsibilities. I am certainly horrified by some of the things I have discovered.

In making that statement I cannot say that what is going on in the Curragh is wrong but we do not have the information available to us for us to say, as is our duty, that everything is right at the Curragh. During the period covered by the Bill sufficient information should be made available to Members of the Oireachtas so that they can judge at any time—at least on a six-monthly or 12-monthly basis—what the position is. They need to know exactly what the procedure is at the Curragh, upon what basis people are transferred to the Curragh and about complaints being made by prisoners in the Curragh, not merely that complaints were made about transfers, food, discipline or whatever.

We need to know the details of those complaints so that we can consider whether or not the procedure at the Curragh is being properly executed. I want to stress again that in saying that I do not suggest that the military personnel are committing irresponsible acts, that they are not abiding by the rule of law or ignoring their responsibilities. The fact is that they do not have a responsibility to operate a prison service, except the very limited responsibility given to them in the 1972 Act. There are no provisions in that Act for the management by the military personnel in the Curragh of how they run that prison. I accept what the Minister said, that they are subject to the same regulations. However, the fact is that these military personnel do not have the experience—they have some now but it is within their own category—the expertise, the knowledge or the background that ordinary officers and governors in the ordinary prison service have.

I am not saying they are doing wrong but we have responsibilities as Members of the Oireachtas to ensure that if we put people in a certain place because of the inadequacies of our overall prison system we keep an eye on the position to ensure that everything that goes on there can be examined to make sure it is right and in order.

To copperfasten my concern I want to refer to the Bill the Inter-Departmental Committee, whose report I have already quoted, suggest. In that report they acknowledge the fact that disruptive prisoners exist, that people exist who require this incarceration in special units that are utterly secure. They do not envisage that they be detained in military centres.

We advocate that simply because we do not have any option at the moment. However, we allow these people to be incarcerated, in my view, without sufficient examination of the transfer. We allow them to remain there without sufficient examination of the procedures that are adopted. We do not particularly question when their incarceration in that military unit might be reviewed. That is the weakness of our position. If I can provide a view as to an alternative system—this is something we could easily put into this Bill without any difficulty at all if we chose to amend it—we could look at the procedure proposed in the draft Bill by the Inter-Departmental Committee as to how people should go into this special unit they regard as necessary.

Section 27 of that proposed Bill refers to the special unit. I should like to quote it:

(1) The Minister for Justice may designate a place for the detention of persons suffering from violent personality disorder and a place so designated is in this Part referred to as a special unit.

(2) Where a person is convicted by a Court of an offence and the Court is satisfied that the person is suffering from violent personality disorder, the Court may, on imposing sentence, direct that it be served in a special unit and order the person's detention therein for the period of the sentence.

(3) Where, on the application of the Director of Public Prosecutions to have a person serving a sentence in a prison transferred to a special unit, the Court which imposed sentence is satisfied that the person is suffering from violent personality disorder, the Court may direct that the remainder of the sentence be served in a special unit and order the person's transfer thereto.

(4) Where a person is in detention in a special unit the Court may, if satisfied that the circumstances so warrant, order that he be transferred to a prison.

(5) For the purposes of subsections (2), (3) and (4), the Court shall hear the evidence of at least two approved medical officers, such other evidence as may be adduced and any representations made by or on behalf of the said person.

(6) Subject to section 19, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Criminal Appeal from an order under subsection (2), (3) or (4).

The Inter-Departmental Committee accept necessary for the provision within our prison service of the type of unit we are talking about providing that is separate from the prison service. They say that if that is to be done it should be done by means of utter independence and impartiality. It should be seen to be utterly independent and impartial when people are transferred there.

I ask the Minister why we cannot adopt that type of procedure in relation to the transfer of a person from Mountjoy or Arbour Hill, or wherever, to this military detention centre at the Curragh. Is it not reasonable that a person who is being taken from an ordinary prison and being put in a prison that is worse more difficult or more harm as it must inevitably be because of the circumstances in which those people are held and because of the reasons for which they are held, should have the right to appear in open court to make his views known to a judge that is separate from the people who are immediately or who have immediate responsibility for his incarceration? Is it not reasonable that that person should be able to ensure that, before he is sent to such a place of detention, medical personnel, as the Inter-Departmental Bill proposes—two qualified doctors—give evidence before that court to indicate that that person is such a person as is fit to go to such a place? Is it not reasonable that such a person if he is to be incarcerated and if such a court makes an order against him has the right of appeal?

Those propositions are reasonable and fair. If we acknowledge that we are further restricting the limited rights any prisoner has we should grant these additional rights of appeal to ensure no wrong decision is made. I am not suggesting it is intended that a wrong decision should be made but just as our Constitution and our courts ensure that justice will not just be done but be seen to be done, the analogy is perfectly applicable here in that we are restricting further a prisoner's rights, the facilities in which he must live and his environment. We as legislators have a duty to ensure not simply that justice is done but that justice is seen to be done.

Why has that sort of approach been taken by the Department? We are not talking about an emergency expedient but one that is necessary because things have not happened, or things have failed to be done, over the past eight years. It is high time we considered adopting that type of procedure. If it is only for a period of three years that such a precedure will apply to the military detention centre at the Curragh the procedure will be perfectly adaptable to the construction of the special unit the construction of which is now being undertaken at Portlaoise Prison. It will not be wasteful. The Minister should consider that.

I have already made reference to what I regard as the rather sketchy reports of the prison committee for this detention centre. It is strange that although we get the annual prison report from the Department of Justice as Members of the Oireachtas, we do not get this report, sketchy and all as it is, from the Department of Defence. When I called to the Oireachtas Library today for a copy of that report it was not there. It was only after request being made that that report and those going back to 1972 will be made available in the Oireachtas Library. Why is that? I do not want to suggest that there is any suspicious or underhand reason for it but it is something that we as Members of the Oireachtas have a particular responsibility for. We have tolerated not just three of these Bills or Acts but a situation in which the annual report of that prisons committee that investigates and looks into the prison conditions in this military detention centre are not available in our own Library. Has anybody sought these reports in the Library before? What has happened? I understand other people have made complaints. It has been made in the Dáil but to get these reports is difficult. I saw reference to hammering at the door of the Department of Justice but it is not their responsibility. It should be their responsibility although they claim the report is one for the Minister for Defence. Why do we have the Minister for Justice here now? He is the Minister who asks us to amend the legislation, to extend the facility, but when we ask the Department of Justice for the annual report of the visiting committee we are told it is a matter for the Department of Defence. It seems that there is confused and woolly thinking in relation to the general management of the military detention centre. I do not want to blame that on any individuals within Departments. It is our fault again because we are the people who pass this legislation and who fail to discharge our responsibility in relation to these matters.

I should like now to go through some matters I have no knowledge of. We are told in the various prison committees' reports of the lack of facilities and the fact that art and English classes are available to these prisoners. I claim to have no special knowledge about the rehabilitation of prisoners but it seems to me that we are dealing with very hardened criminals here and I wonder, with all respect, whether art and English classes from the local vocational education committee are appropriate to these people. I gather there is a proposition that music classes be introduced. That may or may not be a good idea but I wonder whether it is good.

Senator Robinson referred to the fact that there is a need to provide an occupation there that might be of use to people when they leave. It is possibly a good idea that a trade like carpentry or joinery be introduced but I ask the question whether art and English are the most appropriate courses to have available in a prison like this?

I should like to know how many hours per day those prisoners spend in cells. What do they do in the course of a day? What amount of time do they have to watch television? There is reference made to the fact that they have a television set but we do not know how much time they spend watching it. We do not know what physical accommodation is there. We do not know what contacts they have with visitors. We do know that complaints have been made in that regard and that they are concerned about it.

We know absolutely nothing about the daily routine of the prisoners who are in that place. I think we should know. Before we were asked to consider this legislation we should have been told about this. We should have had a complete and detailed report laid before us so that we knew precisely what the ordinary routine of these prisoners is. We should know what type of library facilities they have. We know that the Encyclopedia Britannica is available. That is very interesting and very encouraging, but I really wonder whether the Encyclopedia Britannica is the most appropriate form of reading. The Encyclopedia Britannica is an expensive set of volumes to provide in any library. I wonder whether, given the choice, those prisoners, or the social workers, or the experts involved in this field might advise that the first £1,000 in library services should be used up by buying the Encyclopedia Britannica. I do not claim to be an expert, but this does seem to me to be decidedly odd, to say the least. I also see constant reference in all the reports from the very start about discharged prisoners' aid societies. Year in, year out, the words of this paragraph in this report are the very same:

The prison does not have attached to it any discharged prisoners' aid societies or other agencies having for their object the welfare of prisoners. The committee is aware that a welfare officer from the Department of Justice attends at the prison each week.

What is the significance of that? That has appeared in every report. The Minister, unfortunately, did not refer to any of these reports in his opening statement to the House. I regret that, because I am far more concerned about what goes on in the day-to-day running of the prison and the ordinary daily life routine of these prisoners than I am at present concerned about alternatives. We do not have any reasonable alternatives to speak of, so far as the incarceration of these people is concerned. I want to know why there is not a discharged prisoners' aid society or societies attached to this prison. It seems to me that if the prison committee year in, year out, for eight years, said and noted, apparently with some significance, that there was no such society there, that somebody should have asked should there be a society there? What would the society do? Would it do anything. I would ask the Minister to allow——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is now 6 o'clock and it is the time fixed for the taking of item No. 6 on the Order Paper. Could I call the Government Whip, Senator Ryan?

As a result of a discussion I have had with Senators Cooney and Harte we have agreed to allow this Bill to continue and to change the Order of Business.

I wonder if you could tell the House will item No. 6 be taken this evening?

If this Bill concludes by 7 o'clock we could take the motion for one hour, but I feel that if this Bill goes on to 7.30 there is no point in taking the motion today.

May I take it that the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Bill will not appear on the monitor at some stage this evening?

Will the House sit tomorrow?

No. We will not sit tomorrow. The next sitting day will be next Wednesday.

As one of those who signed the motion that was to be discussed could we have an assurance it will be taken next week, if it cannot be taken today?

We hope to take it, but if the Minister is not available we could not take it. That is the only guarantee I can give the Senator.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Molony, on the Prisons Bill.

Another aspect that we have very little information about in relation to all of these prisoners—perhaps the information is available to some people but I have not been able to find it—is what type of prisoners are we talking about? I appreciate that they have been disruptive in other prisons. What else do we know about them?

Let me say that the only other source of information I have in relation to this Military Detention Centre, apart from the Minister's remarks in the Dáil, and the prison committee's reports, are various reports or position papers or pleading documents issued by the Prisoners' Rights Organisation.

I think it was in a document produced by the Prisoners' Rights Organisation that in one period in 1978, 20 per cent of the people incarcerated in the Curragh were people who had been convicted of sexual offences. I do not know whether that is the case or not but I would like to know whether the people who are incarcerated there have a common background. I know that there are very few political prisoners there. I would like to know what type of offences all prisoners incarcerated in the Curragh military detention centre have been convicted of initially. I would like to know what their prison record is. I would like to know the prisons from which they have come. I would also like to know what are the problems they have, apart from psychopathic or sociopathic or whatever. There are people there who, I am sure, have difficult circumstances behind them. I do not know what they are. I do not know whether the Minister knows what they are. I do not know whether his Department officials or anybody in the Department of Defence knows what they are but I think that we, as Members of the Oireachtas who are sending people to the centre, should know what they are, and I would ask the Minister, if he can, to give me some information about this.

If he cannot provide this information today, I would be happy to accept it by letter or by any other form of communication that I can understand. My concern simply is to ensure that, as a Member of this House, I know exactly what the position is in relation to all prisoners and their life style and the ordinary procedures at the Curragh Military Detention Centre. I also want to ask questions about the disciplinary procedures in the prison. I accept that the Minister has made reference in the Dáil to the fact that they are governed by the same regulations as other prisoners are. The fact is that the people who apply those regulations are different from the people who were intended to apply these regulations. I want to know precisely what the procedures are for discipline.

I think it was Deputy Noel Browne in the Dáil who made very specific allegations in the House about certain events that were claimed to have taken place with regard to discipline. Although the Minister did respond by saying that the same regulations applied he did not respond specifically to these charges, and I want to ask whether there was any truth in those. I want to read one or two of these into the record of the House so that the Minister will have the opportunity to reply specifically to them. I am now quoting from a document issued or claimed to be issued by the Prisoners' Rights Organisation. It is not dated but appears by reference to have been dated some time this year. It reads as follows:

On Wednesday 5th March this year two prisoners were punished by Commandant Moloney after the green cloth of a billiard table had been found to be damaged. No evidence that these two prisoners were the culprits was produced but they were each given 2 months solitary, lost all privileges and lost 14 days' remission. On the following day March 6th, the majority of prisoners staged a peaceful sympathy strike. They placed cell furniture outside their cell doors; later some of them were beaten by soldiers. So the following day the prisoners refused to work and the protest escalated into non co-operation and became a dirt strike. Most of the prisoners refused to slop out or empty chamber pots. Excrement was smeared on the walls and the prisoners did not wash themselves.

The document goes on further, and I want to go to another instance further down. I quote again:

Commandant Moloney shows a tactless attitude to the civilian prisoners in his custody. He refuses them the right to complain. If prisoners do complain they are punished or assaulted. Prisoners have been refused for trivial reasons. Letters to and from prisoners have been witheld. Prisoners have to salute the Governor or lose three days' remission.

I should remind the Senator that persons outside the House should not be named.

I have no knowledge of the truth of these allegations but I do know that they have been laid on the records of the Dáil and it is sad to read through the Minister's reply and see that they are not refuted. The point has been made time and time again about the establishment of an independent police authority. Nobody is saying that the police in this country or, in this instance, the military personnel, ignore their responsibilities or abuse their position.

It is important that every Member of this House and of the Lower House knows and recognises that fact and that they are seen clearly to be apart from the type of criticism and the serious charges that are made here. I would ask the Minister to comment specifically on those charges. I want to know as a Member of this House who has a responsibility for sending people to that military detention centre, whether there is any truth whatsoever in those charges. I am quite sure that if anything like this happened there is some report that the Minister could make available to us, that he could tell us that an investigation was carried out, that we know what the position is. Nothing like that has been said, the charges have already been made in the Dáil. I would ask the Minister to respond specifically to these charges and to give us the information that, as Members of the House, we have responsibility to consider and to ensure that everything is all right at the Military Detention Centre at the Curragh.

I have covered a sufficient number of points to convey to the House that my concern is the openness or, I should say, the lack of openness of what goes on at the Curragh. I regret that people have to be incarcerated in military custody. I accept the inevitability of the situation as it stands at present, but I am completely and utterly dissatisfied with the information that is made available to us as to ordinary daily routine at the Curragh. I am not saying that the charges I have read out or have conveyed to the House are true, but I am saying that we do not know. We know very little about what goes on there. We have a responsibility to know, and I would ask the Minister to accept the questions in matters that I raised in that spirit. I would ask him to respond. Perhaps he may not be able to respond in detail to every point that I have raised but I would ask him to adopt some procedure to ensure that on any occasion when a Member of this House wants to know what is going on at the Curragh, that information will be made available to him.

Senator Dowling in his opening contribution referred to the fact that he was denied access to a prison at the Curragh in which nobody in fact was ever incarcerated. I do not know whether it is appropriate that Members of the Oireachtas be permitted simply at their whim to enter into any prison area, and I sympathise with the Department, the Minister, and with the staff of that prison on the difficulties that that would present to them. We should have the opportunity to visit it on an organised basis at some stage. Whatever about a visit to it, we should always have information about it available to us.

I can give one simple example in relation to it. I have already mentioned the daily routine of prisoners and all that sort of thing. There is no difficulty with that, but the prison committee's reports referred to complaints being made. We do not know what these complaints are, we should know in detail what they are. We should know how they have been responded to, what has happened in relation to them. I accept that complaints will be made that are vexatious, that are untrue, but we do not know anything about the content of these complaints.

I hope that in the future we can work towards a far happier prison system than the one we have. What frightens me a little about this debate is that we are more tolerant now than we were eight years ago of any type of special detention. I recall a debate in 1972. I was not a Member of the House then but I looked at some newspaper reports since and at some extracts that were referred to by Deputy Keating in the Dáil. It was clear then that on all sides of the House there was great concern and great worry about what was being done. We have moved a bit away from that position I regret to say that that is not entirely due to what is happening within Irish government as much as to what is happening within Irish society and society generally. We have seen the development of suicidal terrorist activities, activities of people who are prepared to lose their lives to pursue acts of violence. There are serious questions to be asked in relation to this. I am not going to go into them now, but I would like to because it is appropriate that we sound a note of regret about all this type of thing.

I ask that we do not lose this opportunity now, an opportunity that was lost on at least the last two occasions, in 1974 and in 1977, when such Bills came before the Houses of the Oireachtas. A commission would be helpful but it has taken eight years and it is going to take us another three years, that is a total of 11 years, to provide proper accommodation for these people. Let us not delay it any longer and have another ten years with a commission. Let us at least make plans to ensure that our approach to these matters is more humane. Let us make sure that when this unit is available in Portlaoise we just do not have security personnel in it, which it seems is worth considering in relation to these matters. These people may well have disrupted other prisons, they may well be difficult to rehabilitate, but the fact that their problems are greater means that the services and the resources we provide in those prison systems should be greater also.

It seems to me that the last point made by Senator Molony was perhaps the crucial one so far in the debate, because he pointed to how much our standards had deteriorated since 1972 when special arrangements for a small number of prisoners were first made. I not alone agree but it is a profoundly important point, and perhaps I shall finish up taking it a little further. Today, from the Government's side, we have had what I can only call a festival of humbug, because we know the situation in reality. I find them playing a game according to the rules that they know to be largely irrelevant. We know that this Bill has gone through the Dáil. We know, since the response of Senator Cooney as an ex-Minister of Justice when he replied to the Minister's opening speech, it is going to go through the Seanad. We know these things, so we are not debating whether it will become law or not. The Labour Party are voting against it; we do not have the power to stop it becoming law, and that is not the issue. That is why I thought that the, as usual, admirably expressed, urbane, decent, persuasive and reasonable speech of Senator Donnelly, who is here to hear me say it, was nonetheless humbug, because with all the skill and urbanity he did not have to go to the defence of something that was going to happen anyway unless he believed it.

Let us recapitulate as to what the situation actually is. In every society and, for as long as we know about the mental state of prisoners, there has been a small minority who are extremely difficult. One can use fancy words, call them psychopaths or sociopaths or anything else. They exist here and they exist in other countries we know about. They have existed in the past, and that is normal in a prison population. Until 1972 we contained them within our prison system and within our prisons and then there was a damaging riot. Due to past neglect we panicked and, in my view, we carried out a very basic violation of civil liberties and basic human rights. We did awful violence to the whole of our society by transferring them from civilian to military custody and by transferring the responsibility for them, as we have seen in Senator Molony's speech and in other speeches, from the Minister for Justice to the Minister for Defence. That was a fundamental and serious thing and we did it. There was a crisis, and that is fine, but we are now talking eight years later and we are talking about 28 persons, as of the Minister's speech—it may be a few more or less, but of that order of magnitude—less than half 100 people and eight years down the road. We are being seriously told and asked to believe that what is contained within a prison system in other countries that we know about is not capable of being contained within our present system eight years later for 28 people in Irish circumstances, and that really we have no choice but to continue for the sake of 28 persons a very fundamental violation of the ordinary norms of the democratic society.

It was interesting that in Senator Cooney's speech, to which I will refer later, he gave a tot of the estimates for construction, I take it for the construction of prisons, from the Book of Estimates. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong but it has to be for actual expenditure on the physical fabric of prisons, from the year 1972-73 to the year 1979. I exclude 1980 because it is money that would not have been spent yet though Senator Cooney gave that figure. Starting at 1972-73 and finishing at 1979, the amount of money spent on the fabric of our prisons was £11,500,000, but 28 persons who were able to be contained within the system up to 1972, eight years later, and £11, 500,000 later, could not be put back into what we all believe to be the desirable place, which is the prison system. We all say that of course there ought to be a prison, this is not nice and, we all disapprove of it but it is, to use Senator Donnelly's word, essential. He does not like it but it is essential.

If, eight years and £11,500,000 later, it is essential for 28 people then the Minister is incompetent. It is an inescapable conclusion. Either it is essential, which is what we are told, though everyone dislikes it, the Minister is incompetent because the Minister is the representative of a series of persons. He gets the plaudits and he gets the thumps, he gets the brickbats and the bouquets. The Minister is incompetent because things have not been done, over a long time, when a lot of money was spent, which perpetuate the need, in his view and in the view of his supporters, to continue a situation which is basically violating the civil liberties of this country.

Civilian prisoners should not be in the hands of military guardians. That is inescapable. We had a long hoo-ha as to whether the people in the Curragh who are the custodians, the soldiers—and I am sure they hate it and it must be hard to find people to do it—are behaving well or ill. My own guess is that they behave like any other statistical group of people in similar circumstances, which is well in the great majority and an odd one not so well. That would be the norm. I would require evidence to prove their departure from the norm. I am not really concerned with how they are behaving. Of course, that is not true, I am concerned that they behave will and in the majority of cases they do behave well. What is crucial to me is that the prisoners should not be put in the position of being minded by soldiers, but neither should the soldiers be put in the position of minding prisoners. It is the basic action to which we are objecting as fundamentally inimical, not simply to the interests of soldiers or prisoners, but to the interests of our democracy as a whole. Senator Molony was right in saying how much our standards have deteriorated since 1972 and how careless we have got in the intervening eight years.

I want now to talk about my own experience of Government. I listened to the Minister's introduction; I listened to the opening speech of the former Minister, Senator Cooney, and I noticed how much they agreed with each other and how much, apart from the odd political points, they nodded and how much they appreciated each other's problems. The only point about which they did not agree was about expenditure, and expenditure is on the record and who did what is really a barren exercise, it is political cross-roads stuff. In the last 50 years, for about 80 per cent of the time Fianna Fáil were in power and for about 20 per cent the Coalition were in power and if that is a yardstick to apportion blame then it is in the order of four to one. Otherwise there was a great deal of agreement.

I want both to acknowledge responsibility, because I was part of a Government, and to indicate my position and my belief that what we did in Coalition was not the correct thing to have done. It raises a fundamental principle that comes up in relation to this Bill. I am not for a moment saying that I do not accept responsibility; I accept it totally. The blame for what I have to say next is as much on me as on Senator Cooney. He was the Minister and I was a member of the Government. It seemed to me that in the face of threats to the harmony and internal peace of the State that in the instance of continuing this particular piece of legislation, which we did, and also in relation to a few other things, which I will not mention but which people will recognise, we behaved in a way that was regressive. I very much regret that and in no way try to shift the responsibility to anybody else.

In thinking about it since and in the experience of the time I have drawn this conclusion, that it is precisely at the time when civil liberties and institutions of the State are under threat that the State must refuse to be driven by the IRA or by other illegal organisations into a posture which validates them in their criticisms. It is precisely in times of threat that one has to do more liberal things. It is precisely in times of threat that one has to validate civil liberties even more. I think, to an extent, that it was, in fact, the IRA who were dictating the actions and not the sovereign Government. We were responding. I think, in retrospect, that we responded more restrictively than I wished at the time but I did not think it important enough to resign about. I say that because, of course, the Coalition Government have responsibility for the fact that we are here in 1980. We have renewed this as well as our predecessors. They introduced it and they reintroduced it now. Both sides have responsibility. I believe it to be wrong, for both lots, both times, and I accept responsibility for the wrongdoing on the occasions when it was the Coalition's responsibility.

I want then to say a last thing, which is about efficiency. We all share the desire for rehabilitation. Senator Donnelly did not make it explicit when he talked about rehabilitation with both knowledge and passion but I have no doubt where he stands although he did not make it clear. There should be a protective element in prisons and a rehabilitative element, but there should be no element of punishment at all. That is my position as clearly as I can put it. I do not believe that it is socially useful to punish. As regards the rehabilitation element, it always interests me that economists never measure the real total social cost of crime. They measure it in the Estimates of particular Departments but one never gets a figure that covers the entire loss. Let us take a crime against property, leaving politics, sex and so on aside. There is the cost to the individual enterprise, there is an insurance cost, a policing cost, a court cost, a cost of detention and there is the cost after detention is over in the possible destruction of the personality of the person and the making of a permanent criminal of a person who might have started out as a fool or somebody who was drunk or leadable. When one adds up the total cost of a single crime, let us say a theft, it is very large indeed. It is in that context that we ought to measure expenditure on the one hand on prisons and on the other hand on rehabilitation of every kind, because in the area of prisons we are spending a lot of money. It will cost about £10 million for the new facility at Portlaoise before it is finished. This is what we are told by the Minister, and what one can add to it.

That is for a facility before one pays the bill of the people to mind the prisoners. The social cost of having people in prison is absolutely enormous and, if that is right, is it not then prudent to add a few percentage points to the cost of an individual prisoner in the hope that in the long run one will have fewer individual prisoners? Is it not therefore extremely prudent in-the whole process from first contact as law breakers to a final situation to spend money on rehabilitaton, medication, psychiatry, and so on all the way through from the very beginning, from the time as children they have their first contact with the law? If that is right, then is it not very serious that these number of exceedingly difficult people are treated in the way that they are treated in regard to both rehabilitation and psychiatric treatment? That really is serious.

I said it was not of prime importance to me how the prisoners in the Curragh were treated but that they were there at all. In the Curragh, which is what we are specifically discussing—but in the wider sense in our prison system—we spend money on the fabric to enclose people and on warders to see that they do not break out, but we are foolish in terms of total social costs that we do not spend a little more in another way to diminish the need for both the buildings and the warders. In real cost benefit terms not to spend money on the whole rehabilitation area is actually foolish as well as immoral.

If anything has come out of this debate for me it is a series of conclusions about our prison system. Apportioning blame is a game we can play between the parties, but the past is in the past and we cannot reach it. We have a situation that actually exists now and that we have built in half a century of freedom. It is our responsibility, exactly as Senator Molony said so eloquently. It is inescapable that our prisons and our whole system, from the Minister for Justice through to his Department and onto the prison system, is authoritarian. That is a reflection on our educational system and society, but it is a very serious criticism. It is secretive in an appalling way, which Senator Molony and others have shown. It is imbued with unreformed British structures and unreformed Victorian British punishment attitudes which are counter-productive. When I say that I know, not perhaps as well as Senator Donnelly, the magnificence of the response of people involved in rehabilitation and I have the greatest honour and admiration for them. But I am not talking about the magnificent response of individuals to salvage a system that ought to be better than it is, I am talking about the system itself. I believe it to be authoritarian, secretive and imbued with improper attitudes to punishment. Perhaps more seriously of all, what has come out clearly here is that it is incompetent. I cannot accept that with the passage of years and the passage of large sums of money every year, a situation remains in which people who could be contained in the prison system prior to 1972 could not be contained in it after it and cannot be contained in it in 1980. That is why I said I thought that the whole debate was a bit of a humbug.

In the years since 1972 we have come to think that the putting of civilian prisoners into military custody is somehow justified by the exigencies of that particular moment. Everybody says they do not like it but it was necessary in 1972, it was necessary in 1974, it was necessary in 1977, it was necessary in 1978—they still do not like it but it keeps on being necessary. In the meantime we get used to the idea that this may be done in a democratic society. My main object in voting against this Bill is to say that in a democratic society the putting of civilian prisoners into the care of the military may not be done.

So much has been so ably said and so many searching questions have been raised, to which we anticipate very imformative answers, that I do not propose to spend very long on this Bill. In the course of one of his invariably dignified, responsible and constructive contributions, Senator Dowling made a point with which I must take issue. He suggested that unless everybody in both Houses supported the Bill and a renewal of the present situation, then somehow there was a question mark over that individual's loyalty to the State and to its institutions. This kind of smear and blackmail is all too common not alone in the present administration but, since we are in a confessional mood, in the last administration as well. I remember it was the constant theme of leading Ministers of the last Coalition Government that unless one agreed with their policies on law and order then one was a Provo or a Provo lover. I, for one, never took that lying down. It is one of the most important distinctions to maintain in any democracy that one will not thus be glibly classed with the enemies of democracy if one does not support a particular measure.

Although I would not accuse Senator Donnelly of the same subtlety with which Senator Dowling makes his point, nevertheless Senator Donnelly also suggested that somehow unless we gave approval to this measure then we were against rehabilitation. In neither case do I accept the logical fallacy involved.

Not against it but not helping it.

Senator Keating made the essential point that if democracy is worth defending it must be defended with kid gloves. One cannot defend democracy by using the authoritarian strategy of one's enemy. The more a state of emergency one has, the more it behoves people and public representatives to make this point, and to be adamant about it, that the fragile glories of democracy must be protected. One must not fall into the trap of adopting authoritarian attitudes as one's enemies would like one to do. The trouble is, in the context of the present legislation, that people have got used to this kind of thing. There is a sense in which there has been a state of quasi-emergency in this State and in this island over the last 50 years. We have had various emergency powers under one name or another and we have had military custody in one form or another in various areas. That is no reason why we should tolerate it or accept it.

In the last seven or eight years, perhaps I agree again with Senator Keating, there has been a deterioration in our attitude to civil liberties. One of the minor but still tragic consequences of the Northern troubles has been a reactionary effect on our attitude to civil liberties in this State. People are not as tender in conscience about this matter as they are in other matters. Perhaps for the same reason a particular kind of theological indoctrination over several decades has made them accept a crime and punishment ethic. You transgress and you are punished, if not damned, and serve you right. That is an attitude which is quite common, and it is up to us to try and correct and counter it.

Reference was made in the Minister's speech to "known trouble makers and disrupters." On one or two occasions people used the words "these elements", a kind of rhetoric which, whether intended or not, has the result of making us regard prisoners as a form of humanoids, sub-human species, utterly intractable. I submit that the more seemingly intractable they are and the more irremedial they seem to be, the more concerned we should be about their rehabilitation. The rights of man apply no less to prisoners than they do to free citizens. If there is one thing which should make us lie awake at night and really trouble our consciences, it is the plight of prisoners and the fact that whether we are Christians or humanists, they are our brothers. We do not worry adequately about what goes on behind prison walls.

I was impressed, reading the debates in the other House, by the attitude of the prison visitors. Right across the political board there is grave disquiet among prison visitors, and that disquiet was echoed here to-day. I accept that there are difficulties in admitting public representatives willy-nilly into every prison, but nevertheless, to collapse the points made by Senators Hussey and Molony, there is every case to be made for Members of both Houses involving themselves much more in the whole matter of our prisons and prison conditions. In the end, it is not a matter of how soldiers are behaving in the Curragh towards these prisoners. As Senator Molony pointed out, we simply do not know. To take Senator Keating's point, that is not the real issue. The real point is that military custody of civilian prisoners is an abomination in a free society. Nothing short of martial law can justify military custody of civilian prisoners.

I was astonished that people thought the Labour Party were not being consistent, because when the original Act was introduced in 1972, the Labour Party were very concerned and expressed that concern in the official reports of May 1972. They were so concerned that the late David Thornley, on behalf of the Labour Party, asked for an assurance from the then Minister for Justice that the measure would only be temporary. We got that assurance from the Minister, so there is nothing inconsistent with the Labour Party opposing the introduction of the Prisons Bill, 1980.

The Bill must be opposed by us because it is not consistent with our policies to accept that military detention centres are the most appropriate place to incarcerate people who have been sentenced through the normal court procedures. It may have been argued in 1972 that because of the riots Mountjoy was not a suitable place to contain all the people who were there at that time. It was an emergency, and everybody accepted it at that time, but they abhorred the fact that one had to resort to that type of emergency situation. Everybody looked forward to the day when it would end, and accepted the guarantee that there would be no continuation of it. That has not been realised. The purpose for putting people into military detention from Mountjoy in 1972 no longer exists. The circumstances on that occasion were such as to be a threat to the State and, quite rightly, the State had to take them into consideration and find some emergency situation to deal with it, and they did so. The evidence now is that the same situation does not exist, if that was the main argument at that time. Consequently, it is consistent for the Labour Party to say that the conditions or circumstances that brought about the need to introduce that emergency measure in 1972 no longer exist and, therefore, any continuation of that is not acceptable to the Labour Party. There is nothing wrong in that. That happens to be the situation. We got a guarantee from the Government in 1972. The Minister went on record as giving an undertaking that it would be a temporary arrangement with no degree of permanency at all. That has not happened. When one thinks of it, it has been eight years in existence and they are looking for a further three years extension—11 years is fairly permanent.

Consequently, we have the right to say that something which was introduced as an emergency is now taking on a substantial degree of permanency. It is not satisfactory to us. It was expressed as being temporary but the evidence we have of Ministers seeking extensions to it clearly indicates that there is no real political will to do away with that emergency.

Senator Cooney made a very good case for supporting the Bill today. In 1972 he came out much stronger than anyone against the Bill. If one looks at the records of the debate in 1972 one will see that he was very forcible in his arguments and said that such a measure should only be introduced where there is utter chaos or revolution. There is no utter chaos or revolution now. Therefore, Senator Cooney might have changed his mind on this occasion, but he did not. That is his privilege and more luck to him. I am making the point that it was so abhorrent to people on that occasion that everybody expressed the desire that it would be very short term. They were given a commitment by the Minister that it would be for short term, and that has not happened.

Everybody has been talking about experiences and how they have dealt with prison situations. Some said they have no experience. My own experience differs somewhat from other experiences of visiting prisons. I was detained as a military prisoner in military custody over a long enough period to feel the effects and understand what it is all about. It was sufficiently long to know that military personnel are not trained or geared, nor is it desirable that they should be, in supervising people who are sentenced to prison under the normal court system. What military personnel are trained to do is to deal with people who are punished for something that is prejudicial to the good order of military discipline. That is what their function is and they should be given tasks appropriate to that type of discipline rather than the opposite type that is needed for somebody who is sentenced through the normal court procedures. There are many things the military do which are not done in civilian prisons. I had a short sojourn in a civilian prison as well so I can speak with experience of both the military and the civilian prisons. That was in the thirties.

A military man is geared in a certain way. The prisons are structured in a certain way to deal with people who commit misdemeanours which are described as conduct prejudicial to the good order of military discipline. Punishment drills are introduced, for example cleaning an old rusty dixie which the staff sergeant demonstrates quite clearly could be done with a little bit of bath brick and soap. He cleans about an inch of it and says he wants to see his face shining in it. That is the style. That is the way the army are trained and it is accepted by the military. They have this kind of background and because of that they are not really motivated towards trying to bring people back. They can apply discipline and supervise well but they are not geared towards rehabilitation.

The people there are not in breach of military law, and to support that fact soldiers are not trained in the routine of applying the punishment so that the offender realises that he is in a prison.

A warden outside has to do an interview and the whole staff come up through the ranks. The person at the top is selected on his ability to deal with the needs of prisoners and so on. He gets the position after a series of interviews to determine if he is a person who is fit to deal with the peculiar circumstances that prisoners find themselves in. There is no such interview for a military person. They go through a different procedure altogether. It is sad to think that in trying to get solutions to problems one has to get people who are not appropriate to bringing about the correct solutions.

We are not for one moment suggesting that the State, if it is in a very serious situation, should not take all precautions necessary. We went along with the State when it was in bad circumstances. The Minister—a tough man—regretted the fact that he had to bring in such tough legislation. He did not want it. It was something that he was embarrassed into doing. It was with great reluctance that he spoke to the House and with generosity that he tried to give reassurances to the House that it would be short-term. Nothing much has happened in the eight year period to alleviate the situation. We can only assume that the political will was not really there. As a consequence, we must oppose it because we can see it no longer as a temporary measure and no longer as an emergency. We believe that the right thing for us to do is to vote against the Bill.

A commitment that was made was not fulfilled. The Labour Party, in trying to induce the Minister of the day to give a commitment that it would be short term, were sincere at the time. They were objective in trying to get the prison closed down. Consistent with the views of the visiting committee, which is made up of all parties, we believe that it is not a suitable place for people who are sentenced through the normal court procedures to be held. we submit that there is no real basis for suggesting that ordinary detention centres could not have been found in the meantime.

Whether we are beaten in the division or not, we do not feel that there is a desperate situation in regard to these prisoners and we urge the Minister to have a rethink about this. If the Minister can make some arrangement to have the people transferred to ordinary detention centres earlier than in three years that would be a welcome development. It is inhumane to have people put into a situation where unnecessary tensions are created, it has gone on too long. As Members of the Oireachtas we owe it to them to see that emergencies do not become permanencies. For that reason we are going on record to say that we are opposing action taken in an emergency being continued on a permanent basis. I understand that the situation in the Curragh is that there are only a couple of people laying claim to political status. That is another good reason why the so-called emergency is no longer an emergency and why there are good grounds now to have those prisoners transferred to detention centres.

I should like to thank Senators for their contributions to the debate. I also want to thank the Whips of the different parties for their kindness in facilitating the continuation of the debate beyond the 6 o'clock dead-line for other business tonight, and particularly Senator O'Brien. I hope I have not upset his plans in any way. I thank Senators O'Brien and Reynolds for allowing this to go ahead.

I want to say at the outset that I regard this debate on prisons as something that is completely nonpolitical. I have always tried to approach this part of my responsibility in that way and I will continue to do so. If Senator Cooney were here I would say to him that when I scored a political point or two in the other House it was because of a certain amount of provocation from members of the other parties. I am not even saying that I tried to score in self defence: I reacted in the normal way. I did not mean to, nor do I intend to now.

I can readily appreciate why Members of this Assembly, or indeed people in any assembly, would find it difficult to understand why a prison system which already accommodates 1,200 persons in custody cannot find space for the 27 or so who are now in the Curragh. I want to stress that it is not a matter of space alone. If there were no risks involved in their returning to the civil prison system, the space could certainly be found for them. The problem is, and it would be as well that we would know it, that these prisoners are known trouble makers and known disrupters. They have demonstrated in the past a capacity and willingness to foment disorder among the general population of prisoners. Indeed some of them have been involved in disturbances in the past, even as far back as 1972 and 1973. They are not the only long-term prisoners in custody. There are some 300 prisoners serving sentences of two years or more excluding those who are in Portlaoise.

What distinguishes those in the Curragh is that they are not prepared to serve their sentences in peace or avail themselves of the normal facilities which are there for prisoners. On the contrary, they want to create as much trouble as they possibly can, and if possible to prevent other prisoners from availing themselves of the facilities which are there for them in the ordinary prisons. My problem is to find accommodation in civil prisons which is secure enough to hold the Curragh prisoners, but more important, which is so arranged that they would be separated from the main body of prisoners. Separation is imperative if the opportunity of fomenting disorder is not to be given to these prisoners.

I have looked at a number of possibilities, and I want to assure this House that there is no suitable arrangement that can be made to accommodate these prisoners within the present civil prison system. That is why work is going ahead on a new high security prison which can accommodate them. Many statements have been made about the unsuitability of the Curragh for long-term prisoners. I agree that conditions there are not ideal. Improvements are being made, but the conditions there even now are much better than they are in some areas of the civil prison system. Mountjoy Prison, which has about 150 long-term prisoners, is not suited to them in its present condition. Neither is the St. Patrick's institution suitable for juveniles, or indeed the existing women's prisons for women.

There are many groups of prisoners in the civil prisons who have less congenial conditions than those in the Curragh. That is not to say that I am satisfied with the conditions in any of these places. I am not, and the extensive building programme that is under way at present shows that something is being done about the problem.

Conditions in the Curragh are broadly the same as those in the civil prisons. The Rules for Government of Prisons, 1947, have their parallel in the Prisons Act of 1972 and the Military Custody Regulations of 1972. Thus, for example, allegations of misconduct by prisoners must be dealt with by the Governor of the Curragh in precisely the same way as they are dealt with by the governors of the civil prisons. The punishments which may be imposed by the Governor of the Curragh are exactly the same as those which may be applied elsewhere. The rules and regulations allow variations in regimes as between places to suit the sort of prisoners held in them.

I am satisfied that the regime in the Curragh is as liberal as it can be, given that the maintenance of safe custody and control there demands an appropriate level of discipline of the prisoners. Decisions about the disposition of prisoners in the Curragh are taken by me as Minister for Justice. Transfers of prisoners into and out of military custody and decisions on parole, on early release and the like, are decided by the Minister for Justice. The day-to-day operation of the Curragh is a matter for the Minister for Defence. There is, however, continuous liaison between the Department of Defence and the Department of Justice about the treatment of prisoners in the Curragh in order to ensure consistency of treatment as between military and civil custody. It was said by Senator Molony that officers of the Department of Justice have free access to the Curragh.

There was a suggestion about the taking over of the military detention barracks and operating them under civilian control. As I have already said, a takeover would require a diversion of staff from the civil prisons which cannot be spared at the moment. However, staffing is not the only problem. The detention barracks are in the middle of an extensive military complex and the Army authorities have serious and understandable objection to handing over a part of the military complex to civilian control.

References were made to the legality and constitutionality of transferring civilian prisoners to military custody. The Act has been in operation since 1972 and there is a basic presumption of constitutionality unless the courts decide otherwise. I understand that at least one prisoner has failed in the courts in a challenge to the Act. The section of the Act under which prisoners are transferred to the Curragh is sufficiently wide to cover fully the circumstances in which prisoners are transferred now.

A suggestion was made during the debate that there might be a more formal structure to process parole applications or any forms of early release. Our system of parole is operated on a very generous scheme by international comparisons. In 1979, parole was granted on 2,800 occasions. I am not satisfied that the principle of the suggestion, a more formal approach, like a parole board, would be seen by anybody, or indeed by the prisoners in particular, as an improvement. It could lead to a rigidity which would not be to the advantage of those in custody. Furthermore, it would certainly inhibit the administration in responding quickly to the needs of the prison system and of prisoners.

There may be an assumption that some prisoners who do not now benefit from parole would have a better chance before a parole board. That is not really the way it might be. A parole board would have to establish criteria for the assessment of parole applications. These criteria would be unlikely to vary singificantly from the criterion applied at the present time.

Prisoners in the Curragh are eligible for parole just the as the prisoners in any other prison. The factors taken into account in deciding on a prisoner's application for parole include his general behaviour, the likelihood of his returning and his likely behaviour while at liberty, as well as, of course, the safety of the public. The fact is that prisoners in the Curragh are less likely than most to qualify for parole on an evaluation of such factors, and accordingly they do not benefit to the same extent as some other prisoners. I have not got for Senator Molony the percise information he sought in this respect, but I will send it to him.

Reference was make by a number of Senators to the administration of drugs to prisoners in the Curragh. I understand that five of the 27 prisoners are on drugs, prescribed by the consultant psychiatrist, not 50 per cent as was read into the record earlier this afternoon. The health care of persons in custody is in the hands of professional medical people, and I am satisfied to leave medical treatment in the hands of professional medical persons. If they prescribe drugs for individuals, I accept that they are prescribed as part of a treatment programme. These drugs are prescribed for medical reasons and not for the control of prisoners, as has been alleged not in this House but in other places.

Reference was made during the debate to alternatives to custody. At the moment the courts apply probation on an extensive scale. There are approximately 1,600 offenders on probation at present, which is more than there are prisoners in custody—there are 1,200 prisoners in custody and 1,600 on probation. The people on probation are supervised in the community by the probation and welfare service of the Department of Justice. Parole is operated on an extensive scale as an alternative to custody. Recently I increased the number of welfare officers in the probation and welfare service so that a scheme of intensive supervision in the community for selected prisoners could be introduced as an alternative to custody. By the end of May there will be about 50 offenders on intensive supervision and the aim is that this number will be increased to about 150 by the end of 1980. The Department of Justice are exter amining the possibility of introducing legislation to empower the courts to impose community service orders as an alternative to custody. This proposal requires extremely careful and detailed analysis and it will take some time to formulate a final scheme.

References were made to the philosophy of imprisonment. As far as I am concerned, the philosophy is a very simple one: my objective is to provide prisoners with decent humane conditions, and with assistance first to make their imprisonment as tolerable as possible and, second, to help them to make the best use of their time so that they will be well equipped for their return to society. I regard that as a reasonable and proper philosophy.

On the educational front, during the past year a number of building projects were completed within the different prisons which allowed for the expansion of educational facilities, particularly for adult offenders in custody. At St. Patrick's Institution offenders can avail of a very extensive education programme which includes a heavy commitment to the teaching of basic literacy, numeracy, general and craft subjects.

I was pleased that we as a community were able to make a break through in having available to us the services of teachers over the summer months. This was a big problem which I and my predecessor had, and thank God we have made progress there. There is also an extensive educational service at Shanganagh Castle, which is an open prison, where each offender spends half a day in the education unit. In the training unit, a specially designed free training and free release educational programme was introduced over a year ago. It has now become an established feature of the unit. This programme lasts for about ten weeks and it aims to equip offenders with some skills for dealing with day-to-day problems after release, obtaining jobs and household accommodation, use of leisure time and coping with drink and related difficulties. It endeavours to teach offenders how to cooperate with each other and to recognise that other people's views and ideas have to be considered as well as their own, as well as improving their confidence and self image.

In Mountjoy male prison, three additional classrooms have been provided. Courses in English, general subjects, literacy, numeracy, art, craftwork, basic cookery, laundry and hygiene are now available to the men.

In the Curragh are we going to provide such courses?

I am talking about Mountjoy. I will come to the Senator's point presently. The long-term planning for Mountjoy prison includes the provision of a fully-equipped education unit which will cater for the needs of those in custody there. In the short-term, work to provide four more educational rooms should be finalised there very shortly.

In Mountjoy female prison nearly all offenders take advantage of a very small but excellent education unit where literacy arts and crafts and home economics are taught in an informal setting.

The men are not taught home economics?

The men are taught basic cookery, laundry and hygiene. The long-term prison at Arbour Hill has a temporary education unit where classes are provided in English, general subjects, arts and crafts, pottery, home economics and physical education.

In Limerick prison a new education unit was opened last year. Four full-time teachers are at present employed teaching literacy and general English, social studies, arts and craftwork and home economics as well. A social education course along the lines of the one already being run in the training unit was introduced in February and early indications are that it is a considerable success.

In Cork prison a part only of the classroom accommodation has been completed. Four teachers provide classes in literacy and general English, general studies, arts and home economics. As further accommodation becomes available the programme will be expanded to include classes in physical education. It is also hoped to introduce woodwork classes.

Portlaoise prison presents particular difficulties because of the security needs. During the past few years arrangements were made for a number of men to study for the leaving certificate and the Northern Ireland and London O and A levels. All the necessary books and equipment were provided by the Department of Justice. An examination centre was established in the prison.

Library facilities have been greatly improved. Senator Molony will be glad to hear that for the benefit of those who do not wish to follow a specific course in education I have introduced a language tape cassette and video tape recording system which will allow the men to follow a range of educational programmes. Library services are now available in all prisons and places of detention. The services are provided by the public libraries, and I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere thanks to the librarians who have co-operated so willingly with the Department in order to provide as comprehensive a range of books as possible for offenders. Plans are at present being made for considerable expansion of the range of library facilities in the Dublin places of custody initially, following discussions at official level between the Department and the City of Dublin Libraries. We have requested the appointment of librarians who will be assigned full-time to the places of custody. The Encyclopaedia Britannica that Senator Molony mentioned was given free by the publishers. We are thankful to them for that. There is quite an extensive library there. It is amazing the number of people who do not know that these types of library facilities are there despite the fact that it has been said so often publicly by me and by others.

There was a programme on television recently and the only reference made to books on the programme was that they were all antique books, so old that the dust was on them, or something to that effect. Again the wrong impression was being given. I am not criticising the programme in any way. I just say it was not as helpful as what it could have been.

As well as extending the present service and providing support for teaching and training, it is hoped that the librarians will engage in a substantial amount of development work among those offenders who may at first be uninterested in or unable to cope with conventional books. They could, for example, show offenders how to use a library and engage them on a one-to-one basis to identify ways of facilitating and encouraging them. The could also introduce audio-visual library facilities.

I am very happy and—I am sure everybody here is too—that eduction facilities are being systematically expanded. The new classroom accommodation is of the highest quality, and the best of equipment and teaching materials are being provided in order to help each offender who wishes to improve his level of education during the period of time he spends in custody. Teachers are selected by the various vocational education committees in counties where prisons and detention centres are located. They are fully qualified and are deeply committed to the work of educating offenders.

During the rapid expansion of the education service I became aware that there was an urgent need to do something about that problem which I mentioned briefly, getting teachers over the summer holiday period. We have this under control and the difficulties have been resolved. I am thankful to the Department of Education, to the vocational education committees and the teachers' unions and indeed my own Department for all co-operating magnificently in this area.

With regard to work training programmes, the idea is that programmes in this area are to provide offenders with opportunities to develop their skills and work practices. Occupational work is provided for the majority of offenders during their imprisonment.

The primary benefit of this activity has two complementary aspects. On one hand it contributes to the good management of the prison. On the other hand it enables the offender to manage his sentence. The pace of work is moderate and emphasis is placed on having a well established weekly routine. From Monday to Friday emphasis is placed on production. Saturday is a day for machine maintenance and taking stock. Sunday is a rest day. The routine commences again on a Monday. This dependable routine is considered essential to help the offender to manage his sentence. Training related to post release jobs is provided in this occupational activity whenever possible.

We have a number of activities which could be classified as occupational work activities. I will go through them quickly because there is quite a number of them: woodwork and furniture in Mountjoy, Limerick, Cork, Arbour Hill—I will deal separately afterwards, if I may, with the Curragh—concrete products in St. Patrick's only; textile products in Mountjoy, Limerick, Cork, Arbour Hill and St. Patrick's; clothing and footwear in Mountjoy and St. Patrick's; printing in Arbour Hill and St. Patrick's; Braille productions in Arbour Hill and St. Patrick's.

We do great work and production and we are all very pleased and proud of it. We also have leather work in Mountjoy, Limerick, Cork, Arbour Hill; toy manufacture in Mountjoy, Limerick and St. Patrick's; picture framing in Limerick and horticulture in Shanganagh. There are reasons for that. It is not easy to have horticultural work in some of the prisons. Shanganagh is open and there is room for such work. Farming is done in Portlaoise but we have farm and grounds maintenance at Limerick, Arbour Hill, Shelton Abbey. St. Patrick's and Shanganagh. We have catering at Mountjoy, Limerick, Cork, Arbour Hill, Portlaoise, and a training unit at Shelton Abbey, St. Patrick's and Shanganagh; building maintenance at Mountjoy, Limerick, Cork, Arbour Hill, Portlaoise, a training unit at Shelton Abbey, St. Patrick's and Shanganagh, baking at Mountjoy, motor maintenance in Mountjoy and St. Patrick's; laundry in all of the prisons, except Shelton Abbey and St. Patrick's, and ordinary cleaning and upkeep is part of the work at all prisons.

Industrial training was mentioned by Senator Molony. This was introduced some years ago when a training unit was established in the new prison at Glengarriff Parade, Dublin, at the back of Mountjoy prison. At the training unit offenders work a full eight-hour day and follow training courses similar to those being provided for adults by AnCO. Industrial training is suitable for people who are being prepared for release, and training lasts for a period of six to nine months and is suited primarily to those serving sentences of 12 months or longer. Persons are transferred to the training unit towards the end of sentences so that release dates correspond roughly with the end of their training course. All of the training courses available at present are in the engineering field, and they provide skills which enable the offenders to obtain employment.

Training also provides a revitalising of the work habit and the work routine. It provides a sense of achievement and self-esteem at completing the course. In addition the programme at the training unit provides a number of other experiences which help the offenders to prepare for his return to a free society—I am talking about week-end leave to visit his family, for instance. There is a more broadly based course available which operates in conjunction with industrial training. It has been designated a communications course, and aims to prepare people for attending interviews and presenting themselves for employment. Topics dealt with in the course include dealing with difficult relationships that might arise in the work place, budgeting and managing the family relationships, home maintenance and the like. There have been some highly encouraging results from this course.

Another feature introduced to the training unit in Mountjoy recently was the provision of employment information to help offenders identify job opportunities or places where they could pursue further training. This service takes the form of a visually attractive display of job opportunities that have been identified, together with comprehensive information about the location of the job, bus routes serving the area, recreational amenities and the like. During 1979, a total of 97 offenders commenced training and a total of 56 completed training. Of the 97, 75 obtained employment or went for further training with AnCo. The reason I have gone into a lot of detail here is that, despite the fact that this has been said often, few people hear it or listen to it. I am not taking anybody to task for that in any way. I fully appreciate Senator Molony's opening remarks when he said something to the effect that if this Bill was not here for discussion he probably would not have been able to, or been in a position to, devote his time to try to find out as much as he could about the prisons.

It was slighty the other way round; that the information was not easily available to Members of the Oireachtas.

Quite so. The Senator also said that he knew practically nothing about the prison system.

One would nearly be tempted to go into one of them.

I will not say anything about that. With regard to welfare services I should like to state that shortly after taking office I increased the established strength of the welfare services from 101 posts to 104. We still have a number of vacancies to fill but the jobs are there and the cash is there to pay for the people. We are trying to recruit people at present. I am firmly convinced that the welfare service provides an essential support system to persons in trouble with the law. It must be encouraged, helped and expanded.

The scheme of intensive supervision of young offenders in the age groups of 16 to 21 commenced in April last year. Under the scheme offenders are placed under the care and supervision of the probation and welfare service of the Department in the ratio of five or six offenders to one officer. The scheme is, essentially, an alternative to remaining in custody. In this way it is hoped that these offenders will get sufficient support to enable them to solve their difficulties within the community. The main benefit of the scheme is that it enables persons in custody for whom custodial care is not essential to serve part of their sentence at large in the community. Presently it is operating in Dublin, Cork and Limerick.

In Dublin it operates from an attendance centre provided by the Department of Justice where counselling sessions, including group counselling sessions are held by the probation and welfare officers. The officers also organise the offenders' leisure time and, in individual contact with the offenders, try to solve any employment, work training, education, health or family problems which the offenders may have. In Cork and Limerick the scheme is operated from the local offices of the probation and welfare service, where similar help and facilities are available.

There are nine welfare officers and three senior officers assigned to this scheme. Any of the offenders who come into the scheme are of difficult disposition with unstable or insecure backgrounds and with well established patterns of delinquency. From available information to me it would appear that the scheme is reasonably effective, but it will need to be in operation for some further time before a definite evaluation of it can be made. It is only in operation since April of last year; just 13 months in operation.

With regard to queries or comments on temporary release, the Minister for Justice is empowered to grant temporary release under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1960. Broadly speaking, temporary release comes into two categories. There is a compassionate release, a temporary release for up to three days, on the death of an immediate relative or to visit a close relative in imminent danger of death or to attend an important family occasion like a wedding, a baptism or something like that. There is the other category, the resocialisation release consisting of, firstly brief home visits to enable offenders to maintain or re-establish close ties with their families. Home visits for two or three days are allowed to offenders in the training unit, at Shelton Abbey and Shanganagh Castle. Occasional weekends are also allowed to selected offenders in other centres, that is to a long-termer towards the end of his sentence to help him get rehabilitated. There is temporary release to employment, either daily, after which the offender returns each evening to the prison, or full-release by which the offender is released under welfare officer supervision. All the services involved in the management of offenders—the prison staff, the probation staff, the welfare service staff, chaplains, teachers, psychologists and administrative staff—contribute to the regular review meetings at all centres which make recommendations to my Department in regard to temporary release. Among the factors taken into account in considering an offender for temporary release are his reliability and whether he deserves a concession by virtue of his behaviour and attitude, or public interest factors like the nature of the offence.

The number of temporary releases granted has shown a steady increase from 1,250 in 1976 to 2,840 in 1979. The average break-down rate whereby offenders breached the conditions of their temporary release is estimated at 5 per cent. Breach of the conditions may attract a maximum of six months imprisonment but it is very pleasing to know that only 5 per cent breached the conditions of the temporary release. Unfortunately, the moment anybody does it get headlines in the papers and it does the whole system a lot of damage. It is a pity because if we are able to facilitate, as we have done and will continue to do, 2,842 for 1979 and, perhaps, more for this year, I am sure Members can see the difficulty of the big headline doing harm to some unfortunate person who might be 12 hours, 12 minutes or 24 hours late getting back to base.

I made a note here of what Senator Cooney said about the amount of moneys available to the prisons year by year. I am not going to take issue with him on that. I would have wished him more success in getting more money than what he got and I am sure that I have his wish that I will get more than I am getting. That is probably the feeling of everyone in the House. There was a delay in building this high security prison since 1972. I am not trying to score any points but there was a genuine security difficulty and also an absence of funds. That is genuine also. I am hoping, and praying, that there will not be any absence of funds for me next year, something over which I have no control. I will have to take my place at the Government table with other members of the Cabinet making my demands for what is always extremely limited. I hope I have the good wishes of the full Oireachtas in my efforts there.

On the general facilities, can the Minister say whether the sanitation situation has improved in the women's prison in Mountjoy following recent High Court proceedings?

The Senator will be glad to hear that it has.

Will the Minister elaborate?

I am not going to elaborate on the sanitation facilities except that steps were in train to have them improved. They would have been in-proved, and have been improved. The court case did not necessarily mean that is what prompted their improvement.

I have heard that before.

The Senator can accept that as true. All the things I have mentioned since I started replying came about without any court case. There was no court case to spur them on. I know the Senator is a great believer in using the courts to change things around but a lot of improvements have been made without having to bother people like the Senator to go to court.

On the question of military custody used to punish prisoners there should not be any doubt that military custody is used to punish prisoners. I am not going to chase any hares real or imaginary on this because it is not so. I gave my views on this earlier on. The same point was raised in the Dáil by Deputy Browne. It is not true in any way and I will leave it at that. In the absence of Senator Robinson I told the House that the alleged fact she placed on the record of the House that 50 per cent of the prisoners in the Curragh were on drugs, could not be further from the truth.

I would be grateful if the Minister would take more time to give the House some indication of the criteria on which prisoners are transferred.

I did, in the Senator's absence.

I will read the record. I have been here for most of the Minister's speech but I will read the start of it again. The Minister spent a lot of time on matters which are not strictly relevant to the debate. He should spend more time on the matters we raised.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister should be allowed to make his reply, without interruption.

I replied in full to that and it is a pity the Senator was not here to listen to me. It was unavoidable, I know, and one cannot be everywhere. The Senator's presence, or absence, had nothing to do with it because it is in the interests of the prison service that I set the record straight. It must be set straight. Whoever gave the Senator the information—she did not tell us the source and I do not particularly want to know—landed her a "bo-bo" in that regard. The Senator said she was told that was the position. I am telling her now that that is not the position.

I was asked for the details of the number of persons transferred into military custody and out of military custody from the beginning. That information was given by me in reply to a Dáil question. In 1972, 92 people transferred into military custody and 16 transferred out; in 1973, 59 transferred into military custody and 45 out; 1974, 20 into military custody and only one out; in 1975, 38 in and 23 out; in 1976, 38 in and 23 out; in 1977, 66 transferred in and 55 out; in 1978, 42 transferred in and 39 people out and in 1979, 43 people were transferred in and 27 people transferred out. Senator Molony asked me for information on the lengths of the sentence served by each prisoner. I do not have that with me but I will try to compile it and send it to the Senator.

I also asked that question and one on the transfers from Dundrum to the Curragh or from the Curragh to Dundrum. Has the Minister figures on that?

I have not got them with me but I will forward them to the Senator. I was asked a question by Senator Molony about the daily routine in the Curragh. It would be better if I sent that information to the Senator. It is quite long. He asked how long prisoners spend in their cells during the day. Prisoners are unlocked at 7.30 a.m. and their cells are locked five nights of the week at 20.00 hours and on two nights at 23.00 hours. I understand from that that they would be unlocked all day. There is no question of people being locked up in their cells all day. I will check that out to confirm it but that is the position. I should like to tell one or two Senators that nobody I know of in the Department of Justice is suffering from any great paranoic secrecy about what is going on in the prisons. I mean that sincerely.

Can we visit them?

Hold on for a second. Nobody is suffering in any way that the Senator has suggested. To suggest that that is so could not be further from the truth. The Senator should know that even during her reign here editors of our national newspapers were invited to all the prisons. They visited them all and wrote articles on what they saw. Nobody is going to tell the editor of any newspaper what to write or what not to write. There was no question of anything being laid on for them in that they picked the days themselves. They went where they liked and when they liked. I must admit that that was done at great inconvenience to officials of my Department who had to make arrangements to go along with them at the last minute. It caused quite a lot of upsets to the Department staff who had to be with them. Shortly after I became Minister for Justice I got in touch with the leaders of the two Opposition parties and extended invitations to them or their spokespersons to visit them. I am prepared to consider requests from the party Whips in this area.

What about Independent Members?

I am prepared to consider requests from the party Whips in this area but one thing I cannot consider is individual requests. I cannot do that. I would have great difficulty in running and managing prisons, a difficult job, if I made staff available on the spur of the moment to try to meet people. If the party Whips want to talk about it they are welcome to do so and I will talk to them. If they want to consider Independent Senators I will not object to that. There is no question of anybody trying to keep anybody out of our prisons.

Does that apply to the Curragh also?

The Minister for Defence would have to deal with the Curragh.

Did the newspaper editors visit the Curragh?

I am reasonably sure they did. There was no restriction on them as far as visiting places was concerned. The only thing I refused was a special visit back to one of the prisons by a particular person—I am not saying an editor—who wanted to witness prisoners slopping out their cells in the morning. The very basic reason for my refusal was that I thought prisoners were entitled to their privacy. That is what I said. I do not want to misinterpret Senator Molony, but I believe he said he was disappointed and surprised at the existence of disruptive prisoners, people who caused problems.

I was surprised that they did have a mental disorder.

I accept that. Let me assure the Senator that they are there in numbers. Unfortunately some of them who were inside are now outside and have formed themselves into an organisation which can cause, and does cause, a number of problems.

Which organisation is that?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister must be allowed to continue without interruption.

I am not here under cross-examination by Senator Robinson or anybody else.

It would be helpful to the House if we knew which organisation was causing the trouble.

I should like to tell the Senator that in a recent television programme a number of people who said they were an organised ex-prisoners group spoke very knowledgeably about things and misrepresented a lot of facts. They did not say whom they represented.

Is that the organisation the Minister is referring to? It would be helpful if it was specified.

With due regard to Senator Robinson, I did not interrupt her——

With respect, the Minister did.

If I did it may have been for one second and not for the umpteenth time as the Senator is doing now. I should like that the same courtesy that was extended to the Senator would be extended to me if it is not asking too much.

My intervention was not intended to be discourteous.

If I started picking at the Senator's contribution I could show that she walked on very dangerous land. The Senator cannot have it both ways.

Let the Minister take all the time he wishes. I am very interested in his comments.

I am quite happy to leave it as it is, recognising it for what it is.

The half-phrase; the unnamed organisation.

One that is not recognised by me or my predecessor. I have answered most of what I was asked as best I can. With regard to information on reports on prisons, I have done everything I could in my time as Minister for Justice to see to it that those prison reports were available as quickly as possible to cover the period which they were meant to cover. Through no fault of my predecessor, they were about a year-and-a-half, or maybe more behind. They are now down to six months or less. It is important that they should be kept up to date. It is a good thing in that people are entitled to the information. It also keeps those responsible for them on their toes. That is no harm. I honestly have not got the information on the transfer of people to and from Dundrum but I will send it to Senator Robinson. I have dealt with practically everything else. I should like to thank the Senators once again for their efforts and for obliging me by giving me more time than was planned originally.

I should like to ask the Minister if all the questions I asked could, within reasonable time, be digested. I would appreciate a response.

If I have missed out on matters—I am sure I have—I will ask my officials to go through the Report of the debate and pick out the questions unanswered by me—I can assure the Senator not intentionally—and deal with them.

One question the Minister would like to respond to is that which relates to specific incidents laid on the records of the House of the Oireachtas. I referred to them today because they went unanswered in the Dáil. They related to an incident that allegedly occurred—I think it was in April of this year—in the Curragh.

It would be better, in the interests of the House, that it be put on the record of the House. The allegation was that on Wednesday, 5 March, two prisoners were punished after a green clothed billiard table had been found to be damaged. No evidence that the two prisoners were the culprits was produced. They each were given two months' solitary, lost all privileges and lost 14 days' remission. The following day the majority of the prisoners staged a peaceful sympathy strike. They placed all furniture outside the door. Later some were beaten by the soldiers and an allegation was made that there was a refusal on the part of the military authorities to give prisoners the right to complain. If prisoners do complain they are punished, assaulted, visits have been refused for trivial reasons, letters to and from prisoners have been withheld. I want to refer the Minister to specific allegations that are made. I accept the Minister is going to respond to many questions that I ask by way of written communication.

(Interruptions.)
Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 21; Nil, 5.

  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Brugha, Ruairí.
  • Cassidy, Eileen.
  • Conroy, Richard.
  • Donnelly, Michael Patrick.
  • Doolan, Jim.
  • Dowling, Joseph.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Herbert, Anthony.
  • Hillery, Brian.
  • Honan, Tras.
  • Jago, R. Valentine.
  • Kiely, Rory.
  • Kitt, Michael.
  • Lanigan, Michael.
  • McGlinchey, Bernard.
  • McGowan, Patrick.
  • Mulcahy, Noel William.
  • O'Toole, Martin J.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Ryan, William.

Níl

  • Harte, John.
  • Hussey, Gemma.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Murphy, John A.
  • Robinson, Mary T.W.
Tellers Tá, Senators W. Ryan and Brennan; Níl, Senators Harte and Hussey.
Question declared carried.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 21 May 1980.
Barr
Roinn