Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 9 Nov 1939

Vol. 77 No. 8

Prisoners on Hunger Strike: Ministerial Statement.

A statement is to be made now by the Taoiseach by the express permission of the House. It is understood that such a permitted statement is not followed by debate. Questions, to elucidate points, may be asked, at the discretion of the Chair.

I am grateful to the House for giving me this opportunity of stating what the Government's attitude in regard to the prisoners at present on hunger strike is. Last night I got a letter containing a copy of a resolution which was passed by the Parliamentary Labour Party. As that Party is represented in this House, I felt it would be proper that I should give the Government's answer in the House rather than by letter. I had perhaps a further reason, and that is that the prisoners in question are in imminent danger of death, and I thought, therefore, that I should give that reply at once, or at the earliest possible opportunity.

The Government's attitude in this matter is this. There are no means by which the Government can secure the safety of the people here except the powers of arrest and detention of those who are in a position to bring this country to disaster. The policy of the hunger strike is aimed at taking away these means from the Government, and once these means are taken away what is to happen is obvious. You are going to have organisation to such an extent that the only way in which ultimately the supremacy of the people can be established is by arms. We know perfectly well that if arms have to be used many lives are going to be lost, and that the only way that is left to prevent that from happening is to restrain— because that is what is being aimed at —those who are bent on courses which will undoubtedly lead to disaster.

We all know that there is a body in this country with arms at its disposal. We know that in the last year its activities have taken a new turn, that the body has definitely proclaimed itself as entitled to exercise the powers of government here, to act in the name of our people, even to commit our people to war. Now, we are in a time of peril. We have a war being waged around us, the outcome of which no man can tell. We have seen already in this war nations, comparatively large nations, losing their freedom. Is the Government of this country to be deprived of the only power that it has to prevent things taking place here which are going, I firmly believe, if not prevented, to rob us of the independence which has been got so far as this part of the country is concerned, and, in so doing, to rob us of the fruits of all the efforts that have been made for the last 25 years? That is what is at stake.

We do not want to see any Irishman die. We do not want to be opposed to any group of Irishmen. We would wish, in this particular time of danger and anxiety, that every section of the people was with us, and heaven only knows before the end of this situation we may want every section to stand with us to try to maintain the rights of our people.

It is not then in any spirit of vindictiveness that we have approached the consideration of this question. We have sat down and considered every alternative that was possible for us, and we see no alternative, because we have been placed in a position in which there is no alternative. The alternatives we are forced to face are the alternatives of two evils, one to see men die that we do not want to see die if we can save them, the other, to permit them to bring the State and the community as a whole to disaster. But they have put us in that position—it is not we who have done it—they have put us deliberately in that position. And I wish that one half of the efforts that are being made to try to get the Government to abdicate—because that is what it means—were used to induce these people to see reason and to see that, in this part of Ireland, every political body that wants to do so can go out and advocate any programme, with the single sole reservation that they must not resort to force in order to achieve their ends.

I do not want to argue in this case. As I have said, the Government have been faced with the alternative of two evils. We have had to choose the lesser, and the lesser evil is to see men die rather than that the safety of the whole community should be endangered. We do not wish them to die. We would wish—Heaven knows, I have prayed for it—that these men might change their minds, and that the people who are with them might change their minds, and realise what our obligations and our duties are. If we let these men out, we are going immediately afterwards to have every single man we have tried to detain and restrain going on hunger strike. Some of them have been detained in their own interest, because they have been subject to orders, and some of these orders might mean their death. It is in their interest, as well as in the interest of the community, that this restraint has been used; but we cannot use it if these men are let out and then immediately afterwards others go on hunger strike. We have had that experience. We are anxious to avoid what I would regard as a calamity, the calamity of death, if it can be avoided. We let one man out after 30 days' hunger strike. What happened? Next day, I think half-a-dozen more went on hunger strike. If we let these men out now we are going to have to face a hunger strike by the remaining prisoners, perhaps. Unless it is at some stage decided by the Government that they will face the second evil, we cannot rule here, and not merely would we be abdicating as a Government, but we would be making it impossible for any other Government to govern. These are the considerations which have determined the Government not to release the prisoners. Therefore the answer I have to give to the Labour Party is that we regret we cannot release them.

Top
Share