Deputy Sherwin gave notice that he would raise the subject matter of Question No. 38 on today's Order Paper.
Adjournment Debate. - Dublin Street Incidents.
I put this question down in defence of the ordinary citizen and the Garda and not, by any means, in defence of the teddy boys or the ruffians, as the Minister described them in his reply. It was in order to get a satisfactory explanation of why innocent bystanders were beaten that I sought the information. I asked the Minister to state the reason for the baton charges. I also asked him if he was aware that 40 or 50 persons were injured in those charges, many of them innocent bystanders. I also asked him why no person was charged and his answer was—a funny enough answer: "I am not aware that anyone was injured by a Garda baton on the occasion in question."
I have a feeling that there is an attempt to "cover up" this business. It is common knowledge that fighting was going on for a couple of hours, that there was a shuttle service between Jervis Street hospital and O'Connell Street as a result of the row between the Gardaí and, if you like, the ruffians and the unfortunate people who were also injured. Yet, the Minister states: "I am not aware that anyone was injured by a Garda baton on the occasion in question." The Minister goes on to say that the suggestion that 40 or 50 people, including innocent bystanders, were injured is gross exaggeration. The rest of his reply is only a cover up. The two points I want to deal with are "that no person was injured by a Garda baton," and that my statement that 40 or 50 people were injured, including innocent bystanders, was a gross exaggeration.
The occasion was Christmas Eve and the Irish morning newspapers that came out afterwards reported what happened. The Irish Times, which is quite a conservative paper and does not run amok in its views states that the row started at 11 o'clock. “The police drew their batons with the object of clearing the street”—meaning O'Connell Street. O'Connell Street is a large place and the Sunday Review on the following Sunday said: “There were never so many people in O'Connell Street.” As we know, O'Connell Street could hold 50,000 people. At a conservative estimate, I would say there were from 10,000 to 15,000 people at the time this disturbance began and the paper said that “When the disturbance began, the Guards drew their batons to clear O'Connell Street”; in other words, to clear the people who were causing the trouble—I assume, a couple of hundred I do not know if there were many more —and also the 10,000 or 15,000 people who were then in the street and who had a right to be there as they were innocently celebrating Christmas Eve.
The public houses close at 10 o'clock, but on Christmas Eve, it is nearly half-past ten or 11 o'clock before they are emptied. The cinemas go on until 11 o'clock and, being Christmas Eve, everyone is inebriated. I know that. I used to drink myself; I do not drink now but I know what happens on Christmas Eve. I represent O'Connell Street. I live around the corner, and I suppose I know every newsboy and parking attendant in the area. I know that on Christmas Eve, O'Connell Street was full of innocent people who were "canned" if you like, celebrating the occasion. It is not the practice when friends meet each other on Christmas Eve to offer stout; they drink whiskey and when they come out, they stand about talking and chatting and celebrating the occasion.
Also celebrating the occasion were a number of students throwing "bangers". On an occasion such as Christmas Eve, I should imagine that the older, experienced Gardaí would not give that too much attention. They would hope the students would get rid of their "bangers" and go home. There was always a certain amount of disturbance and slap-bangs on Christmas Eve in O'Connell Street. It is observed like New Year's Eve in New York or Guy Fawkes's Night in London, but nobody pays much attention.
I understand this all began because some students threw squibs and some teddy boys started jeering. One report says: "The teddy boys started to jeer." The three newspapers admit that there were casualties. The Irish Press says: “Twenty persons were injured and taken to Jervis Street hospital”; the Irish Times says: “Seventy persons were injured”; and the Irish Independent says: “Forty people were taken to Jervis Street hospital.” You might as well say that these three newspapers are exaggerating. I am told by the Minister that I am exaggerating but then the newspapers are also exaggerating and if I am a liar, they are liars also.
The fact is that O'Connell Street was full of innocent people. There may have been a few hundred "bowsies" among them and because of this, the Gardaí decided to clear O'Connell Street of 10,000 or 15,000 people. That is my complaint. What caused me to put down the question is that a man from Parnell Street aged about 50 came to me with both eyes blackened and his nose broken. That same man presented himself to the Irish Times and it was the Irish Times office that rang me up and then I investigated the matter. This man's statement was that he had been looking on, as were many others also, and that he got a baton across the face. He said that what did so much damage was that he had both hands in his pockets and he could not take them out in time and fell flat on his face on the ground. Another man who was home from England and had arrived the day before was making for his bus after coming from a picture house at the time and had to take a beaten face back to England with him in the next day or two.
I am prepared to admit that a number of those present deserved what they got but my complaint is that the Gardaí ran amok and decided to clear O'Connell Street and bashed out right left and centre with that object in view, with the result that at least 30 innocent bystanders, I would say, were injured.
All the evidence is there and I ask, in view of these Press reports, why the reports were not denied by the Minister and why did he wait for my question to deny them? In effect, the Minister said I was a liar when I said I was in Jervis Street hospital yesterday. Naturally, when I was making a case—and I have a case—I went into Jervis Street hospital and they were rather reluctant to tell me anything, just as the Minister admits. They said it was not for them to give information but that did not disprove the argument that 40 people were injured. It proves nothing. What the Minister said was that they declined to give information but that does not get away from the fact that 40 people were treated there that night.
I went there yesterday. The nun in charge said: "We do not like giving information." There were two doctors sitting beside her. It was I who put the question. I am probably a little smarter than some of the guards. I asked: "Is it not correct that 40 persons were injured?""Yes, there were 40 treated here on the night and," said she, "the Guards brought many of them here." I made a statement of fact and I object to being told they were not injured.
I have experience of teddy boys and I am not trying to defend them. I object to being misrepresented; I object to people thinking that I am putting in a word for them. I have been in the dance business all my life and I probably know every teddy boy and it was my business to prevent them getting into the dance halls when I ran them. I have no feeling for them at all and I have no objection if the Guards used their boots or drew their batons. I am not objecting to that. I am simply objecting to them running amok and bashing up everybody in O'Connell Street. It is these people who came to me, as their local Deputy, to complain.
I object to this cover up. It is all right for the Minister to make an excuse. Why the innuendo that I am exaggerating? Let him tell all the newspapers that they are exaggerating and telling lies and send the Garda back to Jervis Street to ask the question again, without attempting to deny there were 40 people injured.
I want to make it clear that I am not defending the hooligans. I hate them as much as the Guards hate them. I have the greatest respect for the Guards and have had occasion to send for the Guards many times and was delighted with their help. My point is that they ran amok in O'Connell Street and lashed out at innocent people celebrating the occasion. It was wrong to do that because that kind of action would bring the Guards into discredit with the public, especially with so many of the public there.
If I am defending anyone, it is the innocent bystanders and I shall defend the Guards next. I do not care about the hooligans. I want to vindicate what I said. I was in Jervis Street. I object to being told that I am inventing. I am not a liar.
The Deputy protests too much. He implies by his very question that the Gardaí, on Christmas eve, batoned the public of Dublin. In the course of his statement to-day, he said: "Is the Minister further aware that, on that night, 40 persons were injured as a result of blows from batons? Now, that is the number given to me at Jervis Street Hospital." I do not know which of the reports the Deputy accepts because he himself quoted that one paper said 20 people were injured——
That was the Press trying to cover up.
——and that another said 40 and that another paper said 70 were injured. That gives one some idea of the accuracy of the newspaper reports. What I want to make clear is that when the senior officer of the Garda Síochána made inquiries at the hospital in question, he was informed that information in respect to the treatment of patients is confidential and that, therefore, it would not be given. I do not know from whom Deputy Sherwin got his information. It is quite possible that he got it from some minor official. He certainly did not get it from the Registrar, who is the person who refused to give it to the Garda authorities.
A nun and two doctors.
It may be true that 40 persons were injured, that 40 persons were treated in the hospital, but they were not treated for wounds caused by batons. I want to impress that on the Deputy. In the particular disturbance that took place and which, as the report in the newspaper stated, was caused by students but was taken up later by teddy boys and carried on, whatever injuries were caused to bystanders were caused because of missiles which were used by these scoundrels who were organising this riot and who tried to cash in on what may have been the innocent actions of students who were facing their holidays.
Why do you not charge someone and then you would be able to get the evidence?
Is it not a peculiar situation that not a single complaint has reached the Department of Justice with reference to any damage that was caused to any property in the street on that occasion? Therefore, I am going to suggest that whatever disturbances took place on O'Connell Street on that occasion took place in the centre of the roadway where these people were gathered and that the innocent bystanders who were walking on the paths were competely and entirely out of the disturbance and, therefore, were not caused any injury whatever. Whatever injuries were inflicted on any persons were inflicted in the course of the fracas that took place in the middle of the roadway.
The Deputy not only implied in his question that Gardaí batoned the people but has repeated it on a number of occasions in the course of his speech now, that the Gardaí alone were responsible for these injuries. I want to refute that. I want to say that a number of Guards were injured. Surely the Guards did not injure themselves?
Hold an inquiry.
They were injured in the course of their efforts to restore peace arising out of a disturbance in the street. The Guards are a disciplined body of men who, when they are brought out in a section or group, are under the strictest possible discipline, and the Garda authorities have assured me that the officer in charge of the section in O'Connell Street on that occasion did not have to have recourse to instructing these men to draw their batons and that they did not in actual fact at any period draw their batons.
I said in the course of my reply to the Deputy today that certain individual Gardaí, when they found themselves isolated and attacked by these individuals, may have defended themselves with their batons, but we have not got any proof of that. In other words, we have not got any report from any Garda that he had to do that, and it is to be assumed that, even in that case, they did not draw their batons. What they may have done, and what I certainly would commend them for doing, was to use their fists to defend themselves and to clear these people off the street.
Is it not an extraordinary situation that not a solitary complaint has been made to me in respect to anybody who was injured in the disturbance? If some innocent person were injured, I am pretty certain that that person would have had my attention drawn to the fact. I have had no complaint of any single kind from any such individual and I must assume, therefore, that no innocent bystanders were injured, as suggested by Deputy Sherwin.
I repeat that the Deputy has grossly exaggerated a statement which he saw in the Press. He was not in O'Connell Street and neither was I. He is accepting reports which he read in the newspapers. I am accepting an official report written by a responsible officer, submitted to the Commissioner and submitted to me by the Commissioner. Is the Deputy suggesting that the papers are right and that the police authorities are wrong?
The police might want to cover up, might they not?
That is a still further charge against the Garda Síochána.
The Garda Síochána are an organisation designed to preserve the peace and that is what they were trying to do on this occasion. The Deputy tries to suggest that because there was no arrest, there was something sinister. The reason there were no arrests was the season of the year and I may add that no Garda brought any injured person to the hospital, as suggested by the Deputy. I am not aware that any person was treated in the hospital for injuries caused by batons. They may have been injured by actions of the Gardaí in defending themselves by the use of their fists.
I can assure the Deputy from my own experience of the training the Guards receive for their own defence that they were capable of defending themselves against the gentlemen with whom they were dealing and I am well aware that these gentlemen will get the worst of it. When the ordinary citizen is attacked and beaten up with belts and buckles, he cannot defend himself but the Guard is trained to deal with such matters.
I regret that a Deputy should take up the stand Deputy Sherwin has taken. He has the right, and so has every other citizen, to criticise the Guards, if they deserve it, but to criticise them in the manner in which the Deputy has criticised them is doing something wrong.
It is a cover up.
The Dáil adjourned at 5.25 p.m. until Wednesday, 17th February, 1960, at 3 p.m.