I move:—
That Dáil Éireann is of the opinion that the Government should forthwith release from custody the member of Dáil Éireann and other persons who are interned under the Offences against the State Acts.
Committee on Finance. - Internees under the Offences Against the State Acts—Motion.
On a point of order. For how long will Private Deputies' time continue to-night?
Three hours. On this motion the Deputy will be allowed the usual three hours.
The House adjourns at 10.30, as usual.
This motion will get three hours.
Five minutes less than three hours to-night.
It is a tragic state of affairs that a motion such as this has to come before an Irish Parliament. It is essential to give Deputies the background as to why it was necessary to put this motion on the Order Paper. On 5th July last, the Irish Cabinet had a protracted meeting. The result of that meeting was that Part II of the Offences Against the State Act, which amounts to power to arrest and detain without trial, was brought into operation. The Government proclamation, dated 5th July, 1957, appeared in a special issue of Iris Oifigiúil on 8th July, 1957. On that same date, swiftly and ruthlessly, the Government went into action and 63 Irishmen were arrested and taken without charge or trial to the Curragh internment camp. This sudden action on the day the proclamation appeared shocked and stunned the Irish people.
Since that date other Irishmen have been unceremoniously hauled off to that internment camp. Some of them were taken from their beds at night; others were taken from their work and, without charge or trial, were rushed by lorry behind barbed wire, so that to-day there are approximately 120 Irishmen of tender years and more mature years, all men of patriotic outlook, held behind barbed wire as a result of the decision of the Government to bring Part II of the Offences Against the State Act into operation.
I want to put this proposition to the House. It is, or it should be, an accepted principle in Ireland that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty. I think all Deputies, on the face of it at any rate, accept that proposition. I think all fair-minded people, in this House and outside it, deplore the fact that such detestable and undemocratic legislation as Part II of the Offences Against the State Act should be put into operation. I think all fair-minded people profoundly disagreed with the Government's decision in this respect. It is, in my opinion, blatantly dishonest to suggest or to say that the Constitution safeguards the natural rights of the individual when, in fact, internment without trial can be brought into operation at the whim of a Government.
It is a terrible condemnation of our political institutions that such a revolting and shameful provision as Part II of the Offences Against the State Act should be enshrined in our legislation. Nobody will deny that if a man is believed to be guilty of a crime or an offence, whether the offence is criminal or political, the fair way is to have him brought before the normal courts where such an alleged infringement will be tried. All Deputies, therefore, who believe in democratic procedure and the democratic way of life can show their true conviction in that regard by supporting this motion.
I propose to deal with the motion from a number of aspects. First, I shall take it from the point of view of those people both in the House and outside it, who may entirely disagree with the political outlook of many of the young men at present interned. Dealing with the matter from the point of view of the ordinary rights of the individual, I want to point out that this country regularly sends its representatives to the Council of Europe and one of the first creations of the Council of Europe was the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
When that charter was being discussed, Deputies from both sides of the House took a very prominent part in the proceedings. They vied with each other in submitting proposals and suggestions to make the convention the most effective instrument possible for the protection of human liberties. Some of the Deputies who took part in the discussions boasted that the convention was only an empty formula, until the Irish delegates got to grips with it. Irish delegates, who were representative of all political Parties in the House, submitted numerous proposals to improve the convention. One of the Irish delegates — I do not think it is fair to give his name here — stated publicly that the charter was defective, until the Irish delegates got their teeth into it. They submitted a series of proposals on the right to free elections, to private ownership of property, and on the rights of parents in providing religious and moral training for their children.
According to themselves, they fought tirelessly to make this an ideal instrument to preserve the fundamental rights and liberties of the individual. For the benefit of Deputies who have not studied this convention, it lays down a series of rights and the Governments subscribing to it have guaranteed the observance of these rights within their jurisdiction. The convention provides for the protection of life and liberty: it outlaws forced labour and — let me emphasise this — it outlaws detention without trial. Mark you, this charter was approved by Dáil Éireann and by the Government.
I do not propose to deal at any length with the various provisions of the charter and I shall confine myself to one section and a few sub-sections which have a bearing on the motion we are discussing. It describes the conditions under which an individual may be deprived of his liberty. Subsection (a) mentions the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court. These are the conditions under which a man may be deprived of his liberty. Another condition is (b), the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court, or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law: and (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence, or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence, or fleeing after having done so. That is the important section, so far as we are concerned.
Under certain conditions, the Government are entitled to restrain an individual for the purpose of bringing him before a competent legal authority and having him tried and, if found guilty, having him convicted. It is important to remember this in connection with that latter clause. It states that where a person is arrested or detained under that clause he "shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial."
It is clear beyond doubt that the convention specifically outlaws or prohibits internment without trial. That clause I have read out says it is the duty of a Government promptly to bring before a judge or before another officer authorised by law the man who has been arrested, whether he has committed an offence or is about to commit an offence. At any rate, he must be brought before the competent authority and tried. If he is not brought before the competent authority within a reasonable time, he must be released pending trial.
We have subscribed to that Charter and the Dáil has agreed to it. Let us see what has happened. In the Articles of the Convention on Human Rights and Freedoms there is a certain loophole given to the consenting parties — namely, the Governments who are members of the Council of Europe —to deviate from the provisions and regulations concerning arrest and trial I have already mentioned. There is a very slight loophole for Governments to derogate that instrument on freedom and human rights.
This is the loophole. It states that:
"In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation, any party to the Convention may take measures derogating from its obligations under the Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law."
In a nutshell, it means this. If a Government does not wish to abide by the terms whereby a man must be given a trial — and if he is not given a trial within a reasonable time, he must be discharged or allowed out pending trial — it must invoke the following: "in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation." It goes further. Any contracting party, namely, a Government, that avails itself of this right of derogation must keep the Secretary—General of the Council of Europe fully informed of the measures it has taken and the reasons therefor. The machinery for availing of derogation is clearly defined. Only in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation can derogation be allowed.
Last year the British Government submitted a formal instrument of derogation in respect of Cyprus and recently submitted another formal instrument of derogation in respect of the Six Counties or occupied Ireland. In both cases the British Government are pleading the existence of an emergency threatening the life of the nation. I would like to know what is our view. Deputy Declan Costello put a question to the Minister for External Affairs in connection with the bringing into operation of certain sections of the Offences against the State Acts. I quote from column 31 of Volume 164, of Wednesday, 23rd October, 1957:—
"Mr. D. Costello asked the Minister for External Affairs whether he has been advised that the bringing into operation of certain sections of the Offences against the State Acts constitutes a violation of Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; and whether there has been any communication with the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe under Article 15 of the Convention, and, if so, if he will state the terms of such communication."
I do not propose to weary the House by quoting at length the Minister's reply. I will confine myself to the third section of his reply, concerning his indication to the Secretary-General of the action taken by the Irish Government and the reasons therefor. The Minister for External Affairs notified the Secretary-General that the Irish Government had brought Part II of the Offences against the State Acts into operation. This is the reason he gave, and I quote from column 32 of the same volume:—
"The detention of persons under the Act is considered necessary to prevent the commission of offences against public peace and order and to prevent the maintaining of military or armed forces other than those authorised by the Constitution."
That is the statement made to the Secretary-General by the Minister. It is a statement of the action taken by the Government, but the Government lodged no formal instrument of derogation with the Secretary-General. However, they suggested indirectly that the communication sent to the Secretary-General could be construed, if necessary, as an instrument of derogation. They did not want to take the same formal action concerning the bringing into operation of internment camps here as the British Government did in regard to Cyprus and the Six Counties.
I have not the slightest doubt that the Government's action setting up these internment camps sets aside the Human Rights Convention and is contrary to what the members of this House expressed themselves in favour of when they spoke at Strasbourg. As I have said, this instrument to safeguard the freedom of the individual was ratified and approved by the Dáil and the Government. In spite of that, the Government saw fit to trample on the rights of the individual by bringing into operation Part II of the Offences Against the State Acts.
The Deputies who took part in the various debates at Strasbourg on this Charter should interest themselves very much in this motion. They will find it very hard to explain to their colleagues at Strasbourg that, in spite of the fact that they, the Irish delegates, had spent so much time trying to make such a perfect instrument of this Charter, an Irish Government was the first to take steps in conflict with the decisions made by the Council of Europe, and in conflict with the decision taken by this House and this Government, when they ratified that Convention. I would say to those Deputies who may not agree with the outlook of many of the men who were interned, that, at the same time, they have an opportunity now of suggesting to the Government that their action was wrong and that, if the Government felt certain individuals have committed offences, political or otherwise, against the State, whatever the State may be in the minds of the Government, the process that should be followed by the Government should be that laid down by that Charter, namely, arrest of the individuals concerned, trial before the normal courts and the decision allowed to rest there.
To those Deputies who were anxious to preserve the freedom of the individual, who believe it wrong for a Government to take a man from his bed at 2 o'clock in the morning, or from his work or recreation without warning, haul him into a truck and deposit him behind barbed wire in the Curragh, I suggest that this is the place to show their sincerity in bringing home to the Government that the people of the country do not believe that is the correct approach to dealing with any problem.
It is only fair that we have it on the records of this House how the internment camps came about and how that sad state of affairs obtains at the present time. Deputies should throw their minds back to December, 1956. I propose to show here to Deputies and to the people outside the House that the action taken by the Government in setting up this internment camp was taken as a result of the direct and indirect pressure, the threats and intimidation brought to bear on the Government by the British Government. In order to produce the necessary evidence, in so far as it lies within my power, I propose to refer back to December, 1956.
I have not had, of course, an opportunity of having a look at correspondence and papers between various Departments, or at correspondence which passes between heads of Governments, but it is not necessary for any Deputy to be in a position to read any of these files. All one has to do is read the papers for certain dates and watch the result of certain statements made by people in high positions outside this House. On 12th December, 1956, there was a widespread series of incidents, raids and attacks on British installations inside the Six Counties. On 14th December, two days afterwards, the Irish Government, then the inter-Party Government, announced certain plans involving the use of the Army, the Garda Síochána and the Special Branch along the Border, this unnatural Border. I understand the duties of the Garda and military at that time were to protect and safeguard the nation. The dates are important. On the 12th there was the series of raids and attacks and, on the 14th, the Government announced its plans to deal with these events, mark you, outside their own jurisdiction.
On 19th December, Sir Anthony Eden spoke on the situation in the British House of Commons. It is well worth while reading his speech on that occasion because it conveys a lot, and every sentence dealing with the situation in the Six Counties, every sentence making reference to the Irish Government, carries grave significance in the light of events that have taken place since. On 19th December, he said: "Immediately after the outbreak of violence on 12th December, Her Majesty's Ambassador in Dublin arranged to see the Minister for External Affairs to obtain further information from him, and to express the serious view which Her Majesty's Government would be bound to take of these events." That statement was made on 19th December. He went on to say, and this I think is of significance also: "As the House will know, on December 14th, the Republican Government issued a statement on their own initiative in which they said that they had determined to take, in conjunction with the police and Defence Forces of the Republic, such steps as they deemed necessary and appropriate to prevent activities which, if they were allowed to continue, would inevitably cause loss of life."
We now know that immediately after the raids on 12th December, the British Ambassador made known to the Minister for External Affairs the serious view which Her Majesty's Government was taking of the situation. We now know that the Irish Government disclosed their plans for action after a Cabinet meeting, presumably some time before 14th December, because it was on that evening the plans were announced. The result of that Cabinet decision was that police and military were sent hot-foot along the Border to turn back young men from the Twenty-Six Counties and prevent them crossing over, and at the same time to prevent young men from the Six Counties area from crossing over here. One would think that the statement issued on 14th December by the Irish Government, pointing out the steps they were prepared to take, would have given a sense of satisfaction to the British Government or, at any rate, that they would be satisfied the Irish Government had things well in hand.
One would think that that statement by the then Taoiseach, that the military and the police would be sent along the Border and that the Irish Government would take all possible steps to prevent loss of life, should have satisfied Her Majesty's Government. I wonder if it did. I want to put to the House that, in spite of the reassuring statement made by the Irish Government on the 14th, Sir Anthony Eden went on to say in the course of his speech on the 19th:—
"In the light of this action"
— that is, this statement by the Republican Government—
"Her Majesty's Government decided to direct Her Majesty's Ambassador to deliver a communication expressing their very great concern at the recent incidents in Northern Ireland and the hope that the important objective which the Republican Government had proclaimed in their statement would be effectively and successfuly secured."
In other words, it is quite clear that Sir Anthony Eden is not satisfied that the statement made on the 14th by the Republican Government would result in securing the objectives that the Irish Government had proclaimed in their statement.
I do not think anybody can deny, even though we have no documents from either the Minister for External Affairs or his counterpart in the Foreign Office, that the British Government were putting the screws on our Government. I asked in this House some time ago if the Minister for External Affairs would disclose the texts of the communications which passed between the two Governments in the period 12th to 20th December. I got the reply that there was nothing doing. In view of statements made in recent months by the Taoiseach in connection with the threat of war by another nation, it is necessary that we pay great attention to the events that took place last December.
I think the British Government made threats to our Government last December in connection with the events that took place in the Six Counties. I think our Government lost no time in paying heed to the threats issued to them by the British Government because, on the 19th, in the very same speech, Sir Anthony Eden concluded by saying — after telling the House of Commons about the communication that was sent to the Irish Government through Her Majesty's Ambassador; in my opinion, "communication" is the wrong word: I would say "ultimatum" is a better word —"In the Ireland Act, 1949, the Parliament at Westminster declared Northern Ireland to be an integral part of the United Kingdom. This is a declaration which all Parties in this House are pledged to support." Here, to my mind, is the kernel of the speech: "The safety of Northern Ireland and of its inhabitants is, therefore, a direct responsibility of Her Majesty's Government which they will, of course, discharge." The sting was in the tail-end of the speech, when he disclosed to the House of Commons that there would be no doubt whatever with regard to what action would be taken by Her Majesty's Government if certain events were allowed to pursue their course in the occupied part of Ireland.
Is it unfair, then, to suggest that these first threats of war or vengeance were issued by the British Government to the then Government here in Ireland? We know that the incidents started on the 12th. We know that on the 14th the Irish Government announced their plans to deal with events along the Border. We know that on the 19th Sir Anthony Eden, in a speech in the House of Commons, disclosed that the British Government directed their Ambassador in Dublin to deliver a communication expressing their very great concern at the incidents in Northern Ireland and, at the end of his speech, Sir Anthony Eden pointed out that, under the Ireland Act, 1949, the British Government would not hesitate to give the necessary protection to the Six Counties as an integral part of the United Kingdom.
Let us go back. On the 17th December, a number of young men were arrested by Irish forces in the vicinity of the Border. These men were arrested by the Garda Síochána and the military but they were all released. No charges were preferred. No Offences against the State Acts was invoked. However, after that speech by Sir Anthony Eden on the 19th December, as soon as the next series of incidents took place, the police force in the Twenty-Six Counties went into action and part of the Offences against the State Acts was enforced. As we all know, there was a series of arrests, charges and trials resulting in many cases in imprisonment for periods ranging from three to six months for many young men in various parts of the country.
That, briefly, is an outline of what took place during the latter portion of the inter-Party's Government reign of office in connection with the incidents and events in the Six Counties. It is to the credit of the inter-Party Government at the time that, when they did decide to take action, they took action through the normal channels and — whether it is felt rightly or wrongly does not matter — when an offence was committed they decided that the people alleged to have committed it would be brought before the ordinary courts, charged and tried and, if found guilty, would be punished in accordance with the law as set out. It is to their credit that, in spite of threats and everything else that were invoked by outside Governments, the Government of the day decided that an offence or an alleged offence, as far as they were concerned, would be tried before the court and that a man would get a fair trial.
As things turned out, we know that a certain district justice disagreed with the evidence and the manner in which the prosecution was brought and we know that as a result of his action and of his comments, he was subjected to an inquiry. The result of that inquiry was not made known until the change of Government had taken place. We also know that the judge who conducted the inquiry specifically stated that, in his opinion, the justice involved should not be asked to resign.
That does not seem to have any bearing on the motion.
I shall relate it to the motion in a moment. The views of that district justice were that it was contrary to legislation to have, at that stage, any such charges brought before him under the Offences against the State Act. However, let me say in passing, the Government at present in office decided that the district justice had better be removed, and removed he was. I have no doubt his removal was a reminder to our other district justices that the same fate awaited them if they did not agree with the great chief. As I have said, the heavy hand was held over the inter-Party Government.
In this matter the first big event occurred under the Fianna Fáil Government. This House sat during the early summer months and we had no talk here of repressive legislation. On July 4th there was the attack on Forkhill Barracks in County Down at 2 o'clock in the morning. On Friday, July 5th, the day afterwards, the Minister for Home Affairs in the Six Counties, Mr. W.W. Topping, said that he hoped the Government in Dublin would re-examine the situation in the light of the representations made by the United Kingdom Government, but also from the realistic approach of what might happen if they allowed the campaign to continue.
That statement was made by Mr. Topping on the afternoon of July 5th and it would appear from it that the United Kingdom Government had already made representations to the Irish Government in connection with the Forkhill ambush. In fact it was suggested then that the men involved had escaped across the Border. If such representations had not been made, how would Mr. Topping have been able to say so? We can take it that the British Government lost no time in telling the Irish Government what their views were and what the consequences were likely to be if the campaign, as it was described, were allowed to pursue its course.
As I have already pointed out, the Government took action on the 5th July, that evening. There was a protracted Cabinet meeting and the result was the issuing of a proclamation in Iris Oifigiúil on July 8th. That morning 63 men were hauled unceremoniously down to the Curragh. If that were not action taken as a result of representations, I do not know what to call it. It stunned this country. This House had been in session up to Thursday, 4th July. The Government waited until the Dáil rose for the Summer Recess before deciding to bring in Part II of the Offences against the State Act, giving them power to intern without trial any man who, in the opinion of the police, should he arrested and interned.
The people felt so perturbed about the position in July that a wrinkle of their feeling went back to the Taoiseach through the members of his Party, many of whom did not support in any shape or form the action taken by the Government when they set up the internment camp. The Taoiseach, like the wise politician that he is, made a special pronouncement on the reasons why the Government found it necessary to apply Part II of the Offences Against the State Act. Putting it in a nutshell, stripping it of its verbiage, this is what he said: "The possibility of embroilment, not only in war with another country but a hateful civil war as well, was one of the reasons for the Government's action."
That statement was published in the Sunday newspapers of 14th July. Does it not prove that the statements I have made all along were correct—that the threat of war must have been made by the British Government? Otherwise why did the Taoiseach say that the possibility of embroilment in war with another country was the reason for the setting up of the internment camp? I am accepting the Taoiseach's statement as true; I am accepting that there was this threat of war. I do not suppose for a second that the Taoiseach would be dishonest to the extent that he would try to frighten the Irish people with the threat of war if such a threat had not been made.
I do not think the Taoiseach would try to panic the Irish people in order to get them to support his policy of repression against young Irishmen if such a threat of war had not been made to the Government by outside forces. An ultimatum must have been given to the Government. It would appear, therefore, that what Sir Anthony Eden said on the 19th December had its repercussions in July of the following year. Let me just repeat what he said in December: "He hoped that the plans of the Republican Government would be successful."
It is evident that, when this incident at Forkhill occurred, the British Government felt that the actions of the Irish Government were not successful enough and that they then put the gun to the Irish Government saying: "You must take further action; the action that has been taken is not sufficient." The result was that Part II of the Offences Against the State Act was invoked on July 8th, when the internment camp opened.
It is a terrible tragedy that men in this House, who themselves were interned and under sentence of death by the British Government for trying to secure the freedom of the 32 Counties, should reach the stage of interning young Irishmen for trying to secure the very same thing. It is bad enough that it should have been done to them without their doing it to young men who have read the history of this country through Fianna Fáil glasses.
The House is entitled at this stage to have full particulars concerning this threat of war with another country which the Taoiseach announced on 14th July. Surely it is a very serious thing if such a threat has been made? Surely, in the light of statements made by the British Government and the puppet Government in Stormont, it is essential that the texts of the statements which passed between the two Governments, the British Government and the Irish Government, between December and the present time, should be disclosed? In regard to this threat, or ultimatum of war, as contained in the Taoiseach's speech, what reply did our Government make and what action did they take, apart from setting up the internment camp?
Did they bring the matter to the attention of the Irish nation or to the attention of the Secretary-General of the United Nations? Did our Minister for External Affairs make any attempt to make this known when he visited the United Nations and spoke there at length recently? If there is not a true disclosure in connection with that period of time, between December and July, if we are not given the facts and if the correspondence is not disclosed, then we are entitled to suggest what I would regret to have to say, namely, that the Taoiseach was bluffing here on July 14th when he made the announcement to the Irish nation giving the reason why the internment camp had been set up.
I want to make this clear to Deputies who do not subscribe to my views but who believe that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty. Let them concentrate on the kernel of the matter: is it right to take a man away without a trial, to lock him up and to keep him there as long as the Government wish? Let me quote the London Times— which I do not think is a paper which is said to favour Ireland—on the action of the Fianna Fáil Government on July 9th, 1957. In an editorial headed “Grasping the Nettle”, it says: “The bold stroke it has delivered was prompted by a fundamental necessity which is well understood in Belfast and in London, as in Dublin”. It goes on to say: “But wholesale arrest is distasteful and the sooner it is superseded by specific charges against individuals, the better will be the prospects of moving into a phase of peaceful co-existence.”
Even the London Times, although it felt that action was imperative, and although it has described young Irishmen as scum, thugs and murderers, still felt the action taken by the Irish Government was distasteful and that it would be wiser and in the interests of peaceful co-existence if the Government superseded internment by specific charges against each individual. It would appear from some of the speeches made by some of the Deputies here that they have the idea in their minds that until the majority in the Six Counties decide that they want to come in here, they have an absolute right to say they will stay out. On that basis, I would suggest to the Deputies that they can support this motion and, if they wish, can then suggest to the Government: “You think offences have been committed and you think that men interned have been guilty of offences against the State. Arrest them and then, if they are found guilty, punish them.”
Let us come to the internment camp itself. As I said on 8th July, the Government issued its proclamation of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act, 1940 (Detention) Regulations, 1957. The regulations came into operation and that series of regulations bears the signature of the Minister for Defence, Deputy Kevin Boland. That instrument, which I think is a disgraceful product, contains 64 paragraphs dealing with the internment camp and how that camp is to be conducted, the privileges and punishments to be awarded to the members therein. It is significant that when this came out on July 8th, no copy was sent to any individual Deputy. It is the normal procedure in this House that copies of regulations and so forth are, out of courtesy, at any rate, sent to every individual Deputy, especially when the House is in recess. This series of regulations was not sent out to each individual Deputy and it was up to an individual Deputy to go along and purchase a copy of the regulations. I do not blame the Government and I do not blame the Minister for Defence trying to keep as quiet as possible some of the data contained in this paper dealing with the internment of young men.
As I have said, it contains 64 provisions and some of the provisions, or regulations, are copied directly out of old British internment camp regulations, word for word. There are other regulations in it that are the product of the native, brilliant, penal intellect They are actually an improvement, if such is the correct word to use, on the work of the experts the British used. They were able to think up refinements that the British had not thought of. It is a tragic thing for Irishmen to think up these restrictions to impose on brother Irishmen.
I do not propose to bother the House by quoting these at length, but I propose to refer to a few. Paragraph 24 of the regulations governing the Curragh Internment Camp deals with the chaplain and this is what it says:—
"The chaplain shall conform with the rules and regulations of the camp and shall not interfere with the working of them as regards the safe custody, discipline and labour of the internees but shall support the camp commandant in the maintenance thereof."
That regulation, in so far as the chaplain is concerned, simply means that the chaplain shall support the commandant of the camp in the maintenance, safe custody, discipline and labour of the internees. That is what the chaplain is asked to do. That is a new function for a chaplain, whose main duties should be to care for the spiritual welfare of those in his charge. Here we have it specifically laid down that he is charged with helping the commandant of the camp in seeing that the prisoners are held in safe custody. Is that not a nice function for a chaplain? To my mind, it is a new and novel function, at any rate, for a spiritual adviser.
Let us go on to paragraph 30 which deals with some of the offences against camp discipline. In this paragraph, there are 14 sub-sections pointing out the different ways in which an internee can commit an offence. I do not propose to read them all out now. I will just comment on a few. Number 3 of the rules and regulations in the paragraph states that "an internee shall be guilty of an offence against camp discipline, if he behaves irreverently at Divine Service and prayers". Where was that taken from? Was it thought out by Irishmen or was it taken word for word out of a British manual on regulations dealing with internment? That is taken directly from the old penal system imposed by the British Government to deal with Irishmen, in so far as their religion is concerned.
The other 13 provisions deal with all sorts of things. For example, if a man sings or whistles in a noisy manner, he is liable to commit an offence against camp discipline. Number 12 sums up the situation beautifully. It says that if an internee in any other way offends against good order and discipline, he has committed an offence against camp discipline and can be punished by receiving close confinement for three days. He can be given a restricted diet; a deprivation of victuals for a period not exceeding three days and also deprivation of facilities such as receiving visitors, sending letters and so on.
The only other paragraph with which I shall bore the House is paragraph 35. I think it would be well for Deputies to bear in mind where this came from. I am going to ask Deputies a six mark question. Was this the result of the British penal system? Did it come from the French convict system, or is it the product of the Irish penal intellect? It says that an internee may be put in irons or under mechanical restraint by the camp commandant, if necessary.
What does that mean? I think the Bastille is only trotting after the provision in that respect. There were no written provisions, to my knowledge, in connection with the type of restraint used on prisoners in the Bastille. We read history. They were sent to that prison without trial or without any charge preferred. They were locked up without their relations knowing where they were. They were put in chains, but it took an Irish Government to put it in writing that an Irish officer was entitled to put Irishmen in chains, if he found it necessary. These are some of the regulations in force, so far as the internees are concerned.
I do not suggest for one moment that those provisions are being operated, but it is a terrible thing to have in cold print such disgraceful restrictions laid down. I do not think the Irishmen in the unfortunate position of being in charge of the camp would like for one moment to find themselves in circumstances in which they would have to do what is suggested in the regulations.
Let us have a look at the camp itself. As I have said, there are approximately 120 men in this camp. I have not nad, personally, an opportunity of seeing for myself what I am about to say now, but the information I am about to give is information that I am satisfied was true up to the past fortnight. I cannot say what may have happened during the past fortnight. I cannot say whether improvements or changes have been made. The position, as I will outline it, is what was described to me as being in operation in the camp up to a fortnight ago. I will tell the House later why I was not in a position to see the conditions myself. I cannot say what changes have taken place. Up to recently, internees have been interned in huts that were formerly occupied by German internees. I was familiar myself with German internees. The German internees had comfortable cubicles, but I understand that they were all removed. I understand that the ordinary huts have no privacy whatever and that the huts concerned have been grossly overcrowded. Not only that, but the huts are damp and draughty, and it is quite normal for the men to suffer from heavy colds as a result of the draughts piercing through the wooden partitions.
The sanitary arrangements were, again up to recently, in my opinion, very poor indeed. Last August, as a result of the sanitary conditions that obtained, there was an outbreak of dysentery. For several weeks after these men were interned, there was no arrangement whatever made for the men to dry their clothes after washing. Provision is made for washing in an outhouse, a galvanised shed. Many of the taps are leaking. Many of the pipes are corroded with the result that the floor is constantly wet. The drain leading from this washhouse is choked. Conditions are indeed most unpleasant for anybody at this or any other time of the year.
I do not know what the position is at present in relation to footwear, but it was bad. I shall not go into that in further detail since it might be hurtful to certain people.
Some of the relatives of these internees have to travel 150 miles to visit the camp. They are allowed only a quarter of an hour. If a number of relatives come, there is no waiting-room provision. All interviews take place inside a hut, with a bayonet in the back of the internee as he marches in. While he is engaged with one visitor, the rest must wait outside irrespective of whether or not it is wet and for as long as it is felt necessary they should wait.
Up to recently many men were badly in need of dental treatment. When an application was made, the only treatment offered was for the purpose of extractions. There was no question of fillings or anything else. Only where an internee was suffering acute discomfort as a result of toothache were extractions permitted.
Many men in the camp had asked for the services of an optician. So far they have received no information as to when this service will be made available. Where false teeth and glasses are needed, they have to be supplied by the relatives of the internees. Many of these relatives were dependent on these men, since many of these men were the breadwinners of their families. It is now suggested that these relatives should bear the cost of glasses or false teeth for these unfortunate men behind barbed wire, many of whom were the only breadwinners in their families.
I can say without fear of contradiction that the conditions are far worse than those which obtain in any other State prison. Mountjoy and Maryborough are luxury hotels by comparison. Criminals in State prisons are not treated in the way I have suggested. Neither are they neglected in relation to their personal health and hygiene in the way in which these unfortunate men are, men whose only crime is that they want to unite this country.
In saying that, I am not for a moment criticising the personnel in charge of the camp, the commandant or any of his staff. I do not for one moment suggest that they are responsible. They are merely carrying out the distasteful duties imposed upon them and, to my knowledge, they are carrying them out as favourably as they possibly can from the internees' point of view. They are trying to make things as easy as possible but, if they have not got the necessary facilities which should be made available, they can do nothing about it.
I have given the House an outline of conditions in the camp. I was perturbed on a number of occasions by the complaints made to me about the conditions obtaining and some time ago I came up here and rang the Minister, Deputy Boland. I could not get him. I told his private secretary the purpose of my call, namely, that I wanted permission to visit the Curragh Internment Camp for the purpose of inspecting the housing and sanitary arrangements therein. I told the private secretary I would ring again. In one day I rang the Minister three times and on every occasion he could not be got. It was extraordinary that he could be absent for so long.
In order to clarify the position, I wrote a formal letter to the Minister, a blunt one, asking him for permission to visit the internment camp to satisfy myself as to the conditions in relation to housing and so forth. I got a reply from the Minister's private secretary as follows:—
"20th September, 1957.
A Chara,
I am directed by the Minister for Defence to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 19th instant and to say that if persons detained in the camp at the Curragh intimate that they wish you or any other member of the Dáil to visit them and see the camp the Minister will give the matter immediate and favourable consideration."
I never at any time asked the Minister for permission to visit any particular internee. I never suggested that I wished to see Mr. A., Mr. B., Mr. C. or Mr. D. All I was concerned with was to inspect the housing and sanitary arrangements. Mark the clever reply I received: if persons detained in the camp intimated that they wished to see me, the Minister would be glad to facilitate me. I do not propose to try to interpret what was in the Minister's mind, because that would be impossible, but I am entitled to suggest that I fear the Minister's aim was to get me to disclose to him the names of individuals or relatives who had made complaints to me so that he, in turn, could go back through his agents to the camp and say: "John So-and-So who has been interned here is recognising Dáil Éireann and making representations to Deputy McQuillan", thereby hoping to break the morale of the men by setting them against one another. That is the only interpretation I can put on that reply.
I pursued the matter a little further. I replied to that letter on the 24th:—
"I am in receipt of your letter of the 20th instant and it would appear that a misunderstanding has arisen. I repeat that I am anxious to inspect the internment camp housing and sanitary arrangements for the purpose of satisfying myself as to the accuracy of some of the allegations made to me concerning this camp's facilities. I feel as a public representative it is my duty to do so and I therefore urge you to grant me the necessary permission to visit the camp without delay.
(Signed) J. McQuillan."
I got a reply to that, dated 27th, as follows:—
"A Chara,
I am desired by Mr. Kevin Boland, Minister for Defence, to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 24th instant and to inform you that the internment camp at the Curragh is administered under the provisions of Statutory Instrument 146 of 1957, as amended by Statutory Instrument 154 of 1957, made by me in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7 of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act, 1940."
That was the reply I received from the Minister. In other words, on the 20th he was prepared to facilitate me or any other Deputy in visiting the internment camp if I would name individuals in it who wanted to see me. When I specifically state I want to visit the camp to inspect housing and sanitary arrangements not to discuss anything with internees, he replies on the 27th giving me a whole stream of regulations which simply mean the Minister has not the power to allow me in. If those are not contradictory statements from the Minister inside four days I do not know what to call them.
However, I cannot do any more about that, but I have given the facts as I know them as to the conditions that obtain in the camp. If the Minister tells me the information I have given is not fully correct he can only blame himself because I would have preferred to come in to this debate having seen for myself what the conditions are or were in the camp. The Minister refused to give me that permission and his refusal, to my mind, is significant. I do not see why, when a Deputy of this House asks for permission to visit such a place as the internment camp to satisfy himself that these men are being treated as human beings, any Minister should refuse him permission to do so.
Having dealt with the camp, let us have a look at the cases of individuals who are in the camp. I am disclosing no information that is not already printed and available to the public when I put this on the records of the House. I have asked for permission from nobody; I have consulted no individuals or relations of individuals in the camp in connection with the facts I shall put before the House now. They have been published elsewhere. If Deputies want to satisfy themselves they can read them in other places outside the Dáil.
The first case I want to bring to the notice of the Minister is that of a member of this House, a Deputy who is interned in the camp. It can be seen from the motion that is down in the name of Deputy Finucane and myself that we have called on the Government to release a member of this House who is interned. There is a young man in the Curragh Internment Camp, Deputy Rory Brady. He was employed as a vocational teacher under the Roscommon Vocational Committee. Last January a notice came down to the Roscommon Vocational Committee from the Minister for Education suspending Deputy Brady from duty with the vocational committee because he was serving a sentence of six months' imprisonment.
To give the details briefly, Deputy Brady was arrested and charged under Part I of the Offences Against the State Act and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. That was during the inter-Party régime. While he was in Mountjoy a letter was delivered to Deputy Brady asking him to lodge a certain signed document with the chief vocational officer of Roscommon before a certain date. The letter said that if the document was lodged his suspension would be lifted. This happened in July. In the meantime, Deputy Brady's release came about and as he was being released from Mountjoy he was seized unceremoniously outside the gates, thrown into a lorry and hauled off to the Curragh Camp — a member of this House, a member of Dáil Éireann.
He had no opportunity at that time of doing anything in connection with this letter or threat with regard to his employment, but while in the camp he applied for permission to consult his legal adviser in connection with his proposed suspension. Deputy Brady sought the permission of the camp commandant to have an interview with a solicitor on the 29th August, 1957. The camp commandant sent this request to the Minister, namely, that Deputy Brady wanted permission to interview his solicitor for the specific purpose of obtaining advice in regard to his suspension and future employment by the Roscommon Vocational Committee. On the 5th September Deputy Brady was informed by the camp commandant that the Minister had refused him permission to see his solicitor in this connection. This cannot be disputed because it came before the Roscommon County Council on two occasions in the last two months, and the Fianna Fáil Party on the Roscommon County Council joined in to make a unanimous resolution of protest to the Minister in connection with the scandalous way of treating this Deputy.
There is another case which I believe should be brought to the notice of the House. When the Taoiseach spoke here in July last in connection with those who were to be interned, he said that the persons detained were detained because they were members of one of the unlawful organisations, that is one of those engaged in armed activities. Let us take the example of this man who was interned. I shall not mention his name here but he is related to a Deputy in this House. This young man, who was President of the National Students' Council in U.C.D., was arrested at 11.30 on the night of July 18th last. He was arrested as he was leaving a cafe in Lower Leeson Street and taken to the Bridewell. His parents were never officially notified as to where he was taken or as to his arrest. They were notified by telephone by a young student, a friend of this boy, at 12.30 that night, an hour after his arrest by the Special Branch. In other words, he was picked up off the street, just as men are picked up in Hungary and Russia and then disappear and that is the last one hears about them.
This young man is 21 years of age, a law student, and he was detained under Section 30—as far as I could gather— of the Offences against the State Act. He was not charged with any specific offence. He was not given any opportunity of undergoing a trial for any offence. He was not, to my knowledge or that of anyone else, a member of an illegal organisation. In case Deputies here doubt that, this young man is prepared to testify on oath that he is not a member of an illegal organisation. In spite of that, he was hauled off to the camp without warning. He was brought to the Curragh.
What was his offence? His offence, to my mind, was the fact that he was President of the National Students' Council, that he got up at public meetings outside and that he was rather boisterous and tough in his attack on the Government for bringing in Part II of the Offence Against the State Act. He also organised a number of protest marches in connection with that Act. These protest marches, to my knowledge, were conducted in no more unruly fashion than any other protest meeting which has ever taken place in this capital. He organised and spoke at meetings. He spoke at other meetings protesting strongly against the detestable provisions in the Act which give power to the Government to lock up men and intern men without trial. Ironically, with all his protests about what happened to other men, that is the very thing which happened to himself. He was hauled in at 11.30 and swept off to the Curragh.
The present Pope Pius, in a Christmas message in 1944, had this to say in one of his major statements on the theory of government, in a speech which concerned democracy:—
"A necessary condition of every democracy is that there shall be complete freedom to state the opposite view when policy is being debated."
It means freedom of speech, freedom for university students outside this House in their youthful idealistic manner — in a manner at times that may be brusque and over-enthusiastic — but they should have that freedom at the same time to express their views against action taken to restrict the freedom of their fellowmen. That was the view also expressed by His Holiness with regard to freedom of speech. However, with no disrespect to His Holiness the Pope, "his holiness" here does not agree with that.
That young man has since been released. He was released because the proper pressure was brought to bear on the Government. That cannot be denied. I wish him luck in so far as his examination is concerned. It was a shocking thing to do to a young man who was studying at the time, but it just shows what can happen in this country, in spite of what many well-thinking men in the Fianna Fáil Benches believe. This could happen, although they themselves do not believe to this day that it could happen.
A third case concerns a man who was employed by C.I.E. This man also did three months under the Offences Against the State Act.
May I ask the Deputy a question? Did this young man who was President of the Students' Council have to sign this peculiar form to be released?
No. The man I am talking about now and who did three months, was employed by C.I.E. He went home after serving his sentence and was whisked away again and taken off to the Curragh. Before he went, he was asked to sign this document that we have heard so much about. He was asked by C.I.E. to sign this document; he did not sign it and lost his job. How is it that C.I.E. are in a position to force any employee to do what the Government was desirous of doing with every other man whom they have interned? Are we not told every day of the week that, as far as employment and administration are concerned, the Government has no function, the Minister has no function in the day to day administration of C.I.E. business and that the question of termination of employment is a matter for C.I.E.? Yet we have this semi-State company, this semi-bankrupt outfit, coming along and saying to this young man: "You must sign this document or else your job is gone."
Those are only some of the cases. Let me deal with a few more. I call this man Mr. A. He is now in the camp. He appeared before a district justice in January. He was charged with failing to give an account of his movements for a period of a fortnight before his arrest. That was not the only charge against him. There was a worse charge. The other charge was that of failing to give to Detective Officer So-and-So information in his possession regarding other persons. That young man is down in the camp, too.
Another case concerns eight young men charged with failing to give an account of their movements and there is the second charge against them of refusing to give all information in their possession in relation to the commission by another person of scheduled offences. Those eight men are detained in the camp. They refused to tell what their comrades were doing. In their case, Inspector So-and-So gave evidence of the preferring of the charges against Mr. X, of his refusing (1) to give an account of his movements and (2) to give information in his possession regarding the movements of others. All these men are behind barbed wire to-day.
Now, this is a very important aspect of the Offences Against the State Act and of the reasons why men are interned. The informer is a species peculiar to Irish history and for a handful of gold men have been known to betray the cause and their comrades down through the centuries. Every generation of Irishmen has had its quota of traitors and spies — those who give away their comrades. In Irish history those people are remembered and spoken of and treated with horror and disgust. Irish history, as we know it, emphasises that the lowest form of humanity, the lowest animal, is he that would betray his comrades.
The British Government and Dublin Castle used the weapon of bribery in olden times to attain their ends. Offers of high offices and offers of money were made to many individuals, money was lavished in order to achieve the ends suitable for the British Government. But there was no legislation that I know of in British days, that made it an offence for a man to fail to betray his comrades. It was always sought to get the betrayal by bribery or by threats. It took an Irish Government to bring in legislation making it mandatory and an offence against the State if a man did not betray his comrades and tell what they were doing two days or a week or a month before. We have it in Irish history on the records of our Legislature that it took an Irish Government to bring in that type of foul legislation which would ask a boy to betray his pals.
I can state the section of the Offences Against the State Act, if anyone does not believe me. It gives authority to the police to arrest a citizen, to question him as to his activities, his whereabouts on any given day. Not alone that he must disclose the names of his comrades and what they were doing on that particular day and during that particular time as well. I do not know what happened in the Bridewell or in the other places where these young men were interviewed, but I know that every effort was made to get them to "spill the beans". They were told: "You will get off if you tell us where So-and-So was." That was done and that is a terrible approach, especially when we consider that these men were only following in the footsteps of the men who now man the Front Benches here.
I could say that the bogs and lakes of Ireland contain the bones of men who were executed, under old customs, for alleged spying on their colleagues, and when those colleagues are in this House, the legislation they now have is to make it an offence for a man who wants to remove the unnatural Border if he does not betray his comrades.
The Deputy may not discuss legislation on this motion.
The legislation deals with——
The Deputy may not now discuss the provisions of legislation.
Very good, Sir. The Minister may say to me: "I admit that these men are interned, but I will let them out if they sign the document." That may sound very sensible and very reasonable to people who do not think beyond what they read in the papers.
They can go to the commission. They do not have to sign anything to go to the commission.
Let us get this clear. First, it is made an offence if you do not tell on your comrades. In other words, the feeling is there that they are doing something disgraceful. Does the Minister not realise that the very implication of a man having to sign this document is that he is branded in the minds of the people outside, even of those who disagree with him in many respects, as having betrayed himself, his cause, his comrades and what he is doing? Is that not the one weak point in the Minister's argument?
Let me bring home clearly to the Minister that, no matter what he may say about the Constitution, the Constitution does not embrace the Six Counties. The people in the Six Counties were never consulted in connection with the Constitution that was enacted for the Twenty-Six Counties. Therefore, if young men, misguided or anything else — call them what you will — wish to take action with comrades in occupied Ireland, there is no right for any Minister or Government to suggest that they must sign a pledge which would preclude them from going to the assistance of resistance fighters inside the occupied part of Ireland. Our writ does not run there. Our Constitution as such was not put to the people of the Six Counties. We have no right to suggest that the Constitution as such should be imposed on the people of the Six Counties. Therefore, it is wrong for the Minister or the Government to suggest that any man should sign any pledge with regard to any activity that takes place outside the jurisdiction of the State and, therefore, the Minister will not get anybody to sign this document.
I have dealt with what has been described as the legislation which calls on a man to betray his comrade. The Ceann Comhairle says I cannot develop that.
The Ceann Comhairle said the Deputy may not discuss on this motion legislation passed by this House.
Very good, Sir.
That is what the Ceann Comhairle said.
There is another aspect that I want brought home to the public. Down through the years, Irishmen who took up arms and fought, as in practically all cases, a losing fight for the freedom of the country, were described as traitors, thugs, murderers, disturbers of the peace. They were described in these terms by the British Government on the basis that they should be put away from society, that they were not fit to mix with the ordinary people. That situation obtained throughout Irish history and that outlook obtained as far as the British forces were concerned. In the occupied part of Ireland to-day, young freedom fighters and resistance fighters are described in the very same terms by judges and men of high position. They are described as thugs, murderers, criminals and all the rest. The weight of the British Empire has been brought to bear in the occupied part of Ireland to crush these people, to crush the nationalist population and to crush the people and the young men in the nationalist movement who are not prepared to accept British dictation and who want the British to get out. Armoured cars, the British Army, all sorts of things are used in occupied Ireland to-day to crush the nationalist population. The internment camp, arrest without warrant, jail without trial, midnight raids, intimidations — all sorts of things — are used in the Six-County area to bludgeon and intimidate the nationalist population.
What is happening here? Here, young men who go to the help of the nationalist population in the Six Counties are described as misguided, as fine young courageous men who are misguided. The same type of young men in the Six Counties are called thugs, murderers and are interned in Belfast. Here the same type of young men are described as misguided and courageous and are interned in the Curragh. Work that out for yourself. They are described here as misguided young men, but we are taking the same action as the British Government are taking through their puppet in Stormont. The British Government call them thugs and murderers and lock them up, put them out of action, keep them out of circulation, put the barbed wire on them. Here, we take exactly the same action and, if we do, we must think of them along the very same lines as those on which the British forces think of them in the Six Counties. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot have the idea that they are just misguided young men and yet clamp down on them with the same iron fist and impose the same penalties as the British impose in the Six Counties.
It is worse than that. Not alone are we locking them up, not alone do we call them misguided and intern them, but the nationalists who may from time to time come across here are sent back or handed back across the Border to the British occupation forces. I want the Minister to deny that. I want the Minister to deny that high level conferences have taken place frequently, on the Border and elsewhere, between the Special Branch officers here in the police and their opposite numbers in the Six Counties in connection with the method of apprehending young men on both sides of the Border.
Officially there is no such thing in operation as extradition as far as the Six Counties is concerned but we have extradition going on behind the scenes quietly, persistently and in a sinister manner. I do not know whether it is going on with Government approval or not but it is hard for me to believe that such collaboration could obtain between the occupation forces in the Six Counties and the Special Branch here without the Government knowing it.
Let me give a few examples. I am quoting now from the Irish Independent of September 10th. The heading is: “Gardaí Release Men Detained at Drogheda” and it says:—
"Three men taken into custody by detectives on Sunday during a raid on a farmhouse near Dunleer, County Louth, were released yesterday. The men, believed to have addresses in County Armagh, had been detained at Drogheda Garda Station.
"Earlier it was reported that in a hayshed adjoining the farmhouse the police found four machine guns, a number of rifles and a quantity of assorted ammunition together with a quantity of gelignite and some detonators and coils of fuse."
That was on September 10th, 1957, and in spite of the fact that all that ammunition and rifles and machine guns were found the three young men were released.
That does not seem to have any relevance to the motion, which deals with the internment of certain people.
I am pointing out that so far as the Offences Against the State Act, Part II, is concerned it involves internment, and I am giving reasons why the Government found it necessary to intern these young men and why these young men are interned. On the 11th September, the following day, the Irish Independent states:—
"Three youths who were released by the Gardaí after being captured in a raid on a house in Dunleer, County Louth, were detained by the R.U.C. when they crossed the Border..."
How did it come about that they were released when found on this side of the Border with machine guns and ammunition and were arrested when they crossed the Border? What happened? They were taken to the Border and released at the Border and grabbed at the far side of the Border within two minutes by the representatives of the British armed forces.
The Deputy is getting away from the motion, which deals with the release of those in custody under the Offences Against the State Act.
I am dealing, Sir, with young men who should be, if the Government are sticking to the provisions of Part II of the Offences Against the State Act, interned down here rather than up there and I want to point out that this internment is on the wrong side so far as the Government here is concerned. I shall have to get over the particular problem you have raised.
To treat another aspect of this, we shall have to go back to the Forkhill ambush on July 5th. Mr. C.W. Armstrong, Conservative M.P. for Armagh, asked a question in the House of Commons on July 10th, 1957, in connection with the ambush at Forkhill and the Prime Minister replying said:
"It has been established by the R.U.C. that persons concerned in the ambush escaped into Republican territory. In view of this, the British Ambassador in Dublin has already taken the matter up with the Government of the Republic which equally deplore the incident and are doing all they can to trace the culprits."
Is that not co-operation?
I shall give one final example. I have personally seen the reward notices posted by the forces in the Six Counties acting on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, notices ranging up to £1,000.
Perhaps the Deputy would state how this matter relates to the motion before the House — the question of reward notices.
I think it has a fair connection——
The Chair is pointing out that the Deputy is getting far from the motion which deals specifically with the release from custody of a member of Dáil Éireann and other persons interned under the Offences Against the State Act. The Deputy must keep to the motion and address his remarks to it.
I made that motion as wide as possible——
The Chair has allowed a good deal of latitude but the Deputy is far from the motion at the moment.
I do not suggest that it is your aim to prevent me from discussing the facts of the collaboration which obtains at the present time between our Government and the puppet Government in the Six Counties.
No; the duty of the Chair is to keep the Deputy to the motion which he himself put down.
When the Minister is replying I should like him to deal——
Are you going to let him reply at all?
I shall give him plenty of time so long as he makes a more detailed and practical statement than he made on this matter before. I should like the Minister to tell us in how many other democratic countries are there provisions in operation such as Part II of the Offences Against the State Act, countries which have such provisions that they can intern their citizens without trial and hold them indefinitely at the whim of the Government? We know that the special courts that were set up in Hungary with a great flourish of trumpets were suspended last week and, according to international newsagencies, ordinary law has come back into operation.
Our representatives spent much time both in the Council of Europe and in the United Nations criticising the conditions that obtained in Hungary and the fact that arrest without warrant and detention without trial were possible. These were some of the things that horrified our representatives. They also expressed horror and shock that similar arrangements obtained inside occupied Ireland. Can it be that the same representatives who expressed horror and shock at conditions inside Hungary and at the fact that internment camps were set up by the French in Algeria will stand over internment camps here in Ireland?
It is suggested that many of the young men who are interned — many of them are mature — have shown disrespect towards our law courts and it is suggested they have nothing but contempt for them. These men have not the slightest opportunity of pleading their cases properly, unless they go before this tribunal set up by the Minister. If anybody has disrespect for the law, I would suggest with great respect that it is not the men interned by the Government but the Government themselves. Not alone have they shown disrespect for the law but they have also shown disrespect and disregard for the international conventions they have signed. They even showed disrespect recently when a habeas corpus application in respect of one Gearoid Lawless came up in the High Court. The President of the court, speaking for himself, said he thought the Government, through the Attorney-General, was acting towards the court in a highhanded manner. How then can it be suggested that young men have disrespect for the court when the Government themselves have shown such disrespect for the High Court?
I do not propose to delay the House any longer. There are some matters which I will leave unsaid at this stage and hope that the opportunity to refer to them will arise at a later stage. I will conclude my remarks by again calling on the Government to leave this matter to a free vote of the House. I do not know whether or not my words in this regard are falling on deaf ears. The people outside are becoming very cynical of the fact that many Deputies outside the House have expressed themselves as being in sympathy with certain viewpoints but when they came into the House voted in exactly the opposite way to their former expressed views. This should be left to the conscience of each individual Deputy and the Party Whip should not be put on at this stage. There are Deputies who like to shelter under the Party Whip. I would prefer to leave it to each individual Deputy to stand on his own feet, make up his own mind and say whether he is prepared to prove by his vote that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty.
I wish formally to second the motion and I reserve the right to speak later.
It is obvious that Deputy McQuillan did not want to have a very explicit statement made in regard to the wide, rambling charges he has registered in the course of his speech. He has been talking now for two and a quarter hours. The debate, I understand, continues for only three hours and the Deputy has the right to reply at the conclusion of the debate. He has talked for two and a quarter hours and he expects me in half an hour to discuss all the statements and the wild charges he has levelled against the former Government and this Government.
The Deputy tried to win some sympathy from the inter-Party Government group by telling the House that at least that Government never interned prisoners, that they only imprisoned them after trial. May I point out that on 21st March last the Deputy had this motion down in his name and in the name of Deputy Finucane:—
"That Dáil Éireann is of the opinion that the Government should forthwith release from custody members of Dáil Éireann who are imprisoned and others persons imprisoned under the Offences Against the State Act."
On that occasion, he was as strongly against the imprisonment of these people who had been committing these illegal acts as he is against their internment to-day. It is a measure of the sincerity he has displayed this evening and of the disgusting manner in which he acted here two weeks ago when he came into the House and charged the Ceann Comhairle, the Clerk of the Dáil or myself with interfering with his original motion——
On a point of order, with due respect to the Minister, this position was clarified. There was no attempt made and there is no record that I suggested the Minister tried to interfere with the motion.
I am satisfied that the Ceann Comhairle had to send for the original document in order to prove that it was not interfered with and was in the form in which it was handed in. When the Deputy himself altered his own motion to include internment, I agreed to accept the altered motion and to allow him discuss it as if it were his original motion. It was only when he came into the House and made the charge against the Ceann Comhairle, the Clerk of the Dáil and myself that I refused to continue with the discussion. I then insisted that the motion go down to the bottom of the list. Now, by some other form of intrigue, he has managed to push down six or seven other motions and get this motion brought up to the front in order that he could talk for two and a quarter hours on the subject and prevent me and other members of the House anxious to speak from stating their side of the case.
I shall not follow the Deputy down the maze of intricate passages into which he tried to lead me and lose me, if I were foolish enough to follow him. I propose to deal with this case by the production of cold, hard, unanswerable facts. The Deputy's charges in respect of this Government and the previous Government, with regard to taking orders from an alien Government outside the country, are typical of the Deputy, and are about as crude as his manner of dealing with this altered motion.
To appreciate the reasons for the Government's decision to bring into force the powers of arrest and detention provided for in the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act, 1940 it is necessary to review the sequence of events which led in July last to the Government's action in making the necessary Proclamation.
It will be recalled that on 26th November, 1955, Roslea R.U.C. Barracks was attacked with gunfire and explosives by a number of armed men, one of whom was brought across the Border to die of gunshot wounds. Speaking in the Dáil on the 30th November the then Taoiseach, Deputy Costello, condemned the raid and appealed to those who were engaged in unlawful activities to give them up. He went on to say that if his appeal met with no response, the duty of the Government would be clear and he used these words as reported in Volume 153, columns 1349-1350:—
"We must," he said, "assert and vindicate the people's right to determine national policy and the right of the Oireachtas and the Government to maintain and to uphold the authority that reposes in them ...We are bound to ensure that unlawful activities of a military character shall cease and we are resolved to use, if necessary, all the powers and forces at our disposal to bring such activities effectively to an end."
Speaking on the same occasion the Leader of the Opposition said that his views and the views of his colleagues were well known and he expressed the hope that the appeal of the Taoiseach would be listened to, that his warning would be heeded, and that those "who can influence public opinion will realise fully the direction in which we have been drifting."
For some time after the Taoiseach's speech there was a lull in the unlawful activities but events soon showed that this was not because those concerned had seen the folly of their ways but rather because they thought, it prudent to lie low until public opinion, which had been disturbed and alarmed by the Roslea incident, had had time to settle down.
Early in the new year, 1956, the leaders began again to hold meetings in secret and there was a resumption of the parades and of the drilling in the hills. Towards the end of January there was a pronouncement by the Hierarchy that no private citizen or group of citizens had the right to bear arms or to use them against another State.
Notwithstanding this, illegal meetings, parades, drilling and training with arms and explosives went on frequently throughout 1956 but it was not until November that any serious incident took place involving the use of firearms or explosives. In that month, several British customs huts on the Border were blown up. A month later, a series of armed attacks were made on R.U.C. barracks and military posts in the Six Counties, in the course of which several persons were injured and there was serious destruction of property. On our side of the Border the Gardaí made a number of arrests and seized a quantity of arms. Those arrested were prosecuted and those convicted received prison sentences.
On 6th January, 1957, there was a broadcast by the Taoiseach, Deputy Costello, who referred to the deaths of three young Irishmen in the course of attacks on R.U.C. barracks some days earlier. In the course of his broadcast he said:—
"The consequences that would follow a continuance of these attacks must now be clear to the whole nation. So far as they are directed from within the territory under our jurisdiction, it is the duty of the Government of this State to prevent their continuance. That duty we are resolved to perform.
No Irish Government could permit the rich achievements of past generations to be squandered in the hands of ruthless or reckless men."
Still, the cross-Border campaign of violence continued. In addition, the explosives magazine at Moortown, Co. Dublin, was forcibly entered and a large quantity of explosives was stolen. Whenever possible, the Gardai made arrests, preferred charges in court and secured convictions, but it was not found possible to identify individual members of the organisation with the acts of violence and any charges preferred were necessarily limited to offences such as refusing to answer police questions as to their movements, which carry sentences of imprisonment not exceeding six months. Documents, which were produced in evidence in court, reveal the very widespread nature of the conspiracy. Efforts have been made to intimidate the courts and, as my predecessor will recall, one of the justices has been threatened.
When the present Government came into office on 20th March there were 53 offences-against-the-State prisoners under sentence in Mountjoy Prison. Six days later, as Minister for Justice, I replied in the Dáil to a speech of Deputy McQuillan who had urged the release of all the offences-against-the-State prisoners, and said in the course of my reply as reported in Volume 161, columns 98-102:—
"There can be only one Army in the State and that shall be the Army established by this Parliament."
I asked:—
"Does the Deputy want this Government or any Government to sit down and do nothing?"
I then appealed to the Deputy to use his influence to convince the people on behalf of whom he was speaking of the futility of these actions they were taking at the present time. And I went on to say:—
"As far as this Government is concerned, it will be our task to see that peace is preserved and I will endeavour to share in the responsibility of ensuring that that is done."
From December, 1956, to 1st July, 103 men had been committed by the courts to serve terms of imprisonment ranging from 14 days up to six months, for offences against the State or the unlawful possession of firearms. Forty-one of these men had served their sentences, however, and were again at large and most of them were known to be engaged in preparations to resume their activities. The 62 men still in prison were due for release within a comparatively short period.
On 4th July an armed attack was made on an R.U.C. patrol in South Armagh and a police constable was killed and another wounded. On the same night a number of police huts in Tyrone and Fermanagh were destroyed by explosives. In this week, too, a number of men who had been returned for trial on charges of armed robbery from an explosives store in County Laois were acquitted in the Dublin Circuit Court, several witnesses who had identified them both to the police and at the preliminary hearing in the District Court, having gone back on their identification when the case came for trial.
These civilian witnesses were intimidated from giving evidence: during the District Court proceedings an organised mob demonstrated outside the court precincts and when the court recessed for lunch the witnesses asked the Gardaí to have food brought into them as they said they were afraid to leave the building; some time later, before the case came for trial, these witnesses were visited in their homes by members of the organisation and were given "friendly" advice.
It was in these circumstances that, on 5th July, the Government made a Proclamation bringing into force the powers of arrest and detention provided in the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act, 1940. On the following day the Gardaí arrested 11 leaders of the so-called I.R.A., including the so-called Chief of Staff, the so-called Adjutant-General and members of what they themselves describe as the "Army Council" who were assembled in a Dublin premises under cover of a meeting of the executive of Sinn Féin, a movement which while professing to be constitutional, describes itself as the "civil arm" to the military body of the "Republican Movement".
On 25th July, the Taoiseach made a Press statement as to the reasons for the Government action. He stated once more, clearly and unequivocally, that there could be no tolerance in the community of groups which arrogated to themselves the right to make war at will in defiance of the legitimate Government and the basic law. He went on:—
"Those against whom the Irish Government have had recently to take action were leading members of such groups, the activities of which had already led to loss of life and were likely, if continued, to embroil our people not only in war with another country but in a hateful civil war as well..."
In August, a printed document, in poster size, headed "I.R.A. Manifesto" was issued by, as it said, the "Army Council Irish Republican Army." It denied the right of the elected representatives of Dáil Éireann to proceed against them and said that their activities would go on. In August, also, in a case involving the use of firearms, two civilian witnesses who were in a position to identify those concerned informed the police that they were afraid to get involved with any member of the organisation and the criminal proceedings would have failed were it not for the evidence of a police witness. By September close on 200 outrages involving the use of firearms or explosives had occurred across the Border.
The motion before the Dáil asks that all those persons interned under the Offences Against the State Act be released forthwith.
There are 125 persons in custody in the Curragh Detention Camp and of them 73 were convicted by the courts and imprisoned earlier in the year. The motion makes a specific reference to the release of the Sinn Féin Deputy in detention. I see no reason for singling him out. He is in detention, as are all the others, because it is necessary in the interests of the security of the State. As it happens he was one of a group arrested near the Border last December and his detention took place at the expiration of sentences of imprisonment for offences which included possession of incriminating documents and ammunition.
There is no doubt in the minds of the police that if these men in detention were set free they would resume their activities. Are we to release them and stand idly by while they plan and carry out armed raids resulting in loss of life and destruction of property and in activities likely to embroil our people not only in war with another country but in a possible civil war as well?
The position is that the limited measures which could be taken under ordinary law did not succeed in stopping the armed conspiracies, the use of explosives, the widespread destruction of property, and the injury to and loss of life. Proceedings in the courts were held in an atmosphere of tension, and, as I have already mentioned, civilian witnesses were intimidated from giving evidence. The warnings by the Government and the pronouncement of the Hierarchy had not the desired effect. The short sentences of imprisonment did not appear to be a deterrent as, on release, most of those concerned resumed their plotting and their training in arms preparatory to a new offensive in the fall of the year. They made no secret of their intentions: they went so far as to publish in August what they describe as an "I.R.A. Manifesto" in which they pledged themselves to continue their activities.
In case any Deputy is not aware of the safeguards against error in the issue of detention orders, the position is that every detained person has the right of appeal to a commission which consists of a judge of the Circuit Court, a justice of the District Court and a senior Army officer. And if the commission decides that there are no reasonable grounds for his continued detention he is set free. Moreover, the Government have already made it known to each interned person, and in public statements, that no person will be kept in detention who undertakes to respect the Constitution and the laws and to refrain from being a member of or assisting any unlawful organisation.
In view of what I have said, does Deputy McQuillan, or any other Deputy, think that these men should be released from internment to carry on a so-called war which might well end in the loss of liberty that exists in this part of the country to-day? Will Deputy McQuillan not realise that these men refuse to recognise the Parliament and the Constitution which he himself accepts? Surely, he realises that over 1,000,000 voters acting as the freest possible agents elected 143 Deputies who were prepared to legislate for the people through the medium of the Oireachtas. Such a vote of the electorate in favour of constitutional methods ought to be a convincing argument and worthy of recognition. The persons on whose behalf the Deputy speaks refuse to recognise the fact that the people by their votes have clearly shown that they wish to live in peace and harmony and that they are not in favour of waging illicit war on our fellow countrymen. These men are pledged to destroy the institutions which govern this State. They describe this Parliament as a puppet Parliament taking its orders from a foreign source. I need hardly say that only people whose minds are completely warped would give thought to such an idea.
This Government, as well as this Parliament, has been elected in accordance with the Constitution which is the fundamental law of this State. And speaking for the Government, I can say that as long as we hold the responsibility of office we will govern with firmness and in the full knowledge that we are acting in the best interest of the vast majority of our people who are not prepared to give sanction to the methods which are being used by this illegal organisation at the present time. As everybody knows the Government and the Members of this House are every bit as anxious for the reunification of our nation as those who are referred to in the Deputy's motion.
In concluding, I wish to say that there is no question, of course, of using the powers of detention as a substitute for trial by court. In any case in which the police can get evidence court proceedings will follow. But as everyone knows it is in the nature of a conspiracy of this kind that evidence is very difficult to get.
The names of the leaders are known to many, but legal proof that they are the leaders is impossible to obtain. It is no doubt a pity that internment should be necessary at all, but the only way in which individual liberty can be defended in the long run is by defending the institutions of the State and, if these institutions can be defended in no other way than by internment of those who attack them with violence, then we have no choice but to take that way. I can promise that the Gardaí will continue their efforts to eliminate the dangers which these activities, if not checked, are likely to produce. I wish to assure the House that the policy which operates at the moment will continue until those people allow reason and understanding to replace hatred and violence.
Before I conclude, I should like to refute some of the statements which the Deputy has made with regard to the conditions which he says exist in the internment camp at the Curragh. The conditions in the internment camp at the Curragh are such that the cubic footage allowed to the ordinary soldier is exceeded by the cubic feet allowance given to the prisoners in respect to the huts within which they live, so that from that point of view there is no question, good, bad or indifferent, of overcrowded conditions or of conditions which would not meet with the requirements of any health authority. Adequate supplies of fuel are made available for the heating of the huts which are equipped with stoves.
Since the camp was opened in July List many improvements have been effected. The three huts in which the men are housed have been reroofed and the walls sheeted internally. Porches have been erected inside doors where considered necessary to prevent draughts. Lighting has been improved by the provision of additional lamps and the repositioning of the existing ones to meet the requirements of the prisoners. Electric plugs have been installed in each hut to facilitate the boiling of water and such things within the huts and the men have provided themselves with the necessary equipment. All three huts have flush toilets installed within the precincts of the huts so as to avoid any question of the men having to go out in inclement weather or at night. Lignatex tops have been provided for the dining tables.
In regard to sleeping conditions, for security reasons cubicles cannot be piovided and the men sleep in dormitory-like conditions similar to those in which serving soldiers sleep. They have the same sleeping accommodation as that provided for the serving soldiers of this country. Each bed is equipped with three blankets — four in the winter period—two sheets and one pillow. Each man is supplied with a wooden locker. Under the detention regulations the commandant is required to pay attention to the ventilation, drainage and sanitary condition of the camp and to take such measures as may be necessary for their being maintained. It is the custom that detention camps should be kept clean by the detained persons themselves. The necessary brushes and materials are supplied and the men are maintaining a high standard of cleanliness in their huts. Apart from the toilets attached to the huts, outdoor toilets are also available.
In regard to ablution and laundering facilities, separate huts are provided in the camp for washing and laundering. The soap ration for laundering was recently increased. Several defects reported were rectified and some improvements effected. Hot pipes were installed in the laundry and extra mirrors supplied for the washroom. Three sets of hair-cutting equipment have been supplied and the men wash their own clothing and do their own haircutting.
As prescribed in the detention regulations, the diet is as laid down for men of the permanent forces with the addition of a supper ration of bread, butter, tea, sugar and milk. The food which is inspected regularly by the medical officer is cooked by Army cooks and there have not been any complaints as regards the quality of the food or the way it is cooked. A mobile canteen at which the men may purchase an assortment of foods visits the camp each day. They also receive food parcels from outside.
On a point of order, what time is the debate to conclude?
Has the Deputy no shame?
The food is inspected frequently.
How long is the seconder of the motion to get?
In ordinary circumstances the seconder of the motion would be entitled to a quarter of an hour, but in view of the fact that the proposer spoke for two hours 11 minutes in introducing the motion out of a total of three hours allowed for the motion under Standing Orders, it does not seem fair to other Deputies who might wish to intervene that the Deputy should insist on this quarter of an hour.
I am prepared to forgo portion of that in order to allow some Deputies with other viewpoints to get in.
The Deputy took jolly good care that nobody but himself would get in.
The Minister for Justice.
Additional foodstuffs may be issued for health reasons on medical certificates. In regard to clothing and footwear, the detention regulations provide that the detained persons shall be allowed to wear their own clothing and that supplies of necessary clothing by friends shall be permitted. The men's needs in clothing and footwear are under constant review by Army medical officers and are met as they arise.
In regard to recreational facilities, the men are permitted to associate and to take exercise daily from 9 a.m. to sundown. Apart from the outside space where they play netball, a recreation hut is available for reading and for indoor games such as cards, chess, draughts, darts and rings. Blackboards and chalk are supplied and classes are held by the men in Irish, journalism and electricity. Hobbies, such as rug-making, are conducted individually and it is understood that a dramatic class is being organised. Leather work classes are in operation and steps are being taken to provide facilities for wood working classes. The men are at present considering the conditions on which they would be prepared to operate a sub-library if that could be arranged. The detention regulations permit the supply from outside of books, newspapers and stationery.
The health of the men is under constant supervision by Army medical officers. Facilities are provided for medical, dental and optical treatment and, where necessary, for hospitalisation. An Army medical officer, who is an eye specialist, has visited the camp and dealt with any urgent cases. His recommendations in the case of others are under consideration. The question of the provision of dentures, spectacles and surgical appliances where recommended by the medical officer as being necessary is receiving consideration.
About time.
The detention regulations require the commandant to carry into effect, as far as practicable, the written recommendations of the medical officer for the alteration of the discipline or treatment of any detained person or for the supply of any additional articles to any detained person on medical grounds. The number who have been admitted to hospital and received treatment is seven.
Religious welfare is looked after in a manner which meets all the necessary requirements. The men are allowed to write one letter per week and the commandant has discretion to allow more. There is no limitation on the number of letters received. Under the Detention Regulations, a detained person may (a) receive one visit per month from relatives, (b) at the discretion of the Adjutant-General receive additional visits from relatives and may also receive visits from legal practitioners, and (c) at the discretion of the Minister for Defence receive visits from other persons. These provisions are being generously applied. No application for additional visits from relatives has been turned down. All applications for visits from legal practitioners have been granted except two applications for visits from a particular solicitor which, for security reasons, were not allowed. Subject to security considerations no genuine and reasonable case under category (c) is refused.
I want to say, in reply to the Deputy, that a hut has been erected outside the outer gate where intending visitors can wait their turn to see internees. This hut is newly painted, is heated by a stove and provided with forms. It accommodates 20 people approximately. There are two permanent visitors' rooms which have been redecorated and fitted with tables, lignatex topped, and chairs. In addition when there is a rush of visitors the C.O.'s office and detail room are used for the purpose. The duration of visits varies from a half hour to an hour according to the numbers waiting.
Again I do not like to interrupt the Minister, but I insist that I get the right to speak. The issue is being evaded.
I shall let the Deputy in.
There are other Deputies in the House entitled to speak. It is essential that the second biggest Party in the House get an opportunity to speak. I appreciate that the Minister has been curtailed in his reply, but for Deputy McQuillan to get up and ask for more time is unfair. I think it is an abuse of the rules.
The Labour Party had a very definite contribution to make on this motion. We have 11 members and we have not had any opportunity to express our views.
Standing Orders provide three hours for a Private Deputy's motion——
I am not blaming the Chair.
——and of the three hours the proposer took two hours and 11 minutes. I feel the proposer of the motion should not insist on his 15 minutes to reply but should give an opportunity to the other members of the House who wish to speak.
The Minister has had an opportunity of replying for about 40 minutes——
Half an hour.
All right then, half an hour, and the Fine Gael speakers and those of this Party are expected to make their contribution in 11 minutes.
I would expect that the three full hours be given to dealing with this discussion.
It is three full hours.
The three hours are practically up now.
I insist I am entitled to reply.
I shall give way to allow the Deputy to finish.
I insist on my right to make the position clear on a motion which I regard as being of fundamental importance to the country.
I have no objection at all. I should like to hear the views of the Opposition in view of the fact that Deputy Costello did not think it worth while to speak on the United Nations motion last week.
That is rather cheap.
It would be quite impossible for me, in the five minutes left before the Adjournment, to explain the attitude of my Party, which I am authorised by them to give to the House. I regard this motion of Deputy McQuillan as one highly dangerous to the national interest, not so much from the point of view of its form or what it seeks to achieve as from some of the extremely dangerous doctrines which the Deputy has expressed and the strange phrases he made use of.
Deputy McQuillan asked for a free vote of the House. I am authorised by the Fine Gael Party to tell the House that they are voting against this motion. That is not being done by Party Whip; it is being done as a united Party giving expression to an opinion that they feel absolutely essential in the national interest. One of the most urgent requirements in the present state of affairs of the country is that public opinion should be properly educated to the issue involved in the maintenance of order by whatsoever Government has the responsibility for maintaining law and order. I suppose it could be said, in the ultimate and last analysis, that we, certainly the Fine Gael and Labour Parties and those Independent Deputies who supported us, are on this side of the House in opposition because of the manner in which we treated the matter of the I.R.A.
I make no apology for anything done by me and my colleagues during our term of office, the duties of which we fulfilled in accordance with our consciences and in accordance with what we believed right, proper and just. The present Government sought for and obtained in the last general election, a clear and unmistakable mandate to deal with the problem of the I.R.A. There was no doubt that was one of the issues put forward strongly in the course of the general election. We were deprived of our position as Government by the Clann na Poblachta Party because of our treatment of the I.R.A. We were criticised by members of the present Government because we had not been "tough" enough with the I.R.A. One of the members of the present Government, at present occupying a very responsible position in the Government, criticised me in my own constituency for the manner in which we had dealt with the problem of the I.R.A.
The present Government has received a clear mandate from the people; it is their responsibility, their full responsibility, and we certainly feel that we should take no action which would give comfort to the men whom we regard as engaged in illegal activities, contrary to the law of God and of man. Whether we agree or disagree with the policy of internment, as followed by the Government, we feel we are bound to give them the support necessary for them in the interests of order in present circumstances.
Deputy McQuillan in the course of his observations did say that these men were interned because the only crime that they committed was that they wanted to unite this country. It is essential that the people realise to the full that the crime they are committing is not that of uniting the country but something contrary to the law of God and of man and has so been declared by the authoritative voice of the Church and of the people and of this Parliament. Deputy McQuillan said we were intimidated by something he called an ultimatum by the British Government. I made it clear, in the speech referred to by the Minister, on the 30th November, 1955, that we were not going to be intimidated by the I.R.A., as they called themselves at that time. But I did give them the opportunity, having explained the issue at stake for the country, of mending their ways.
We were accused of flabbiness and of treating them with kid gloves. There was the most solemn announcement by me in the Dáil at that time that we were appealing to them in the interests of the country to cease their activities. Then, in the course of the few sentences immediately preceding the quotation given by the Minister for Justice, I said that if my appeal to the members of the organisation concerned met with no response, then the duty of the Government was clear, but I did give them that opportunity and they did not take it.
Debate adjourned.