SECRETARY of State Roy Mason rejected suggestions from NIO officials that he may have to back down over republicans' dirty protests, in case a prisoner died.
A decision was taken in September 1978, to strengthen the prisons’ internal health programme and hygiene measures, to improve internal monitoring of prisoners and the general situation in jails – so prisoners could have no comeback on how they were b
eing looked after.
An NIO report said, however, if a prisoner refused medical treatment the consequences would officially be put to him, on an “on your head be it” basis.
An internal NIO memo dated October 20, 1978, copied to the Secretary of State, said: “The Government’s determination is at least equal to that of the prisoners but the Secretary of State needs to take into account the risks.”
But other notes flying between officials and ministers did talk, at times, of government possibly stepping back.
There was a lot of concern, in internal notes, for prisoners’ health – not least because the death of an inmate would be a massive propaganda tool and also bring down the weight of international human rights opinion on the Maze.
In the autumn, one official reported to the Secretary of State: “The issues are difficult and finally balanced. The regime is not one designed for a long struggle.”
“The Government is vulnerable if something were to go suddenly wrong.
“A change in regime (handling of the situation) may not be an immediate option, but the Secretary of State may think it is worth further consideration, including consideration of how a change may be presented.
“There should be no question of negotiating with prisoners or their representatives. Rather the Secretary of State needs to satisfy himself that the regime for which he is ultimately responsible is both just and humane in respect of an indefinitely long protest and is seen to be so.”
But on behalf of the Secretary of State, his Private Secretary Mr Pilling replied: “The Secretary of State’s first reaction is that this is not the time for humanitarian concessions. He points out that you could offer something to cleanse our consciences and because it would be good PR, only for the prisoners to gobble up the concessions and press on for more.”
The prison authorities were engaged in a continuous psychological battle of wills with dirty protest prisoners, government files reveal.
Republican inmates began refusing to wear prison clothes and went “on the blanket” in the summer of 1977.
The campaign slowly escalated, both in the numbers involved, and in the nature of the protest, which included refusal to carry-out chores and moved onto refusal to wash.
In the spring of 1978, the prison and NIO documents reveal an intensification of the dirty protest.
