asked the Taoiseach if any efforts are being made by the Government to ascertain the circumstances surrounding the detention in Crumlin Road Jail, Belfast, of a citizen of this State, Mr. Michael Murphy, 11 Loreto Road, Cork Street, Dublin on October 16th last; whether allegations of torture on him which appeared in recent press statements were investigated by the Government; if so, with what result; and what efforts are being made to secure his release in view of the continuing hardship to himself and his family.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Treatment of Internee.
1.
The case mentioned by the Deputy is one of those which have been under investigation. As I said in reply to a question on 9th November evidence is being closely examined with a view to considering recourse to the European Commission on Human Rights. So far as securing the release of internees and detainees is concerned, the objective of policy is to end internment without trial, other repressive activities and violence in the North and to promote a political solution.
Could the Taoiseach say how this case could be one of those under investigation when no contact was made either with Mr. Murphy or with any member of his family by the Government or by any of their agencies? How were these facts ascertained?
The Department of Foreign Affairs have been in touch with the solicitor involved. They have written to him and also they have sent a representative to Belfast to interview people.
Could the Taoiseach say when the representative from the Department of Foreign Affairs went to Belfast and also when the Department of Foreign Affairs contacted Mr. Murphy's solicitor?
An officer of the Department was in Belfast on the 12th. I have not got the dates of the correspondence.
The 12th of November?
Yes.
That was since my question was put down.
I accept that.
Question No. 2.
Is the Taoiseach aware that Mr. Murphy's solicitor, Mr. Napier, wrote to the Department of Foreign Affairs on 2nd November giving the circumstances surrounding the detention of Mr. Murphy and the torture inflicted on him and that the Department of Foreign Affairs in reply told him that he should secure a sworn affidavit from Mr. Murphy? I fail to see how this could have been secured in the circumstances.
I have not got the dates of the correspondence but I accept the Deputy's word for the date he has given. All the information I have here is that the Department have been in contact with Mr. Napier and also, as I have indicated, they sent a representative to Belfast.
Is the Taoiseach satisfied that the action being taken by his Department and by the Department of Foreign Affairs in this particular case is sufficient?
I am satisfied that the overall action being taken is the kind of action that is necessary in the circumstances.
A citizen of this country is being detained by the British Army.
So far as I know, all the detainees are Irishmen.
I accept that but at the same time I am sure the Taoiseach will appreciate that since this man is a constituent of mine I have a special responsibility in the matter. Would the Taoiseach not agree that when a citizen is detained by a foreign army and when there are serious allegations concerning the infliction of torture during that detention, it is, to say the least, a serious neglect of duty on the part of the Government not to make even initial inquiries as to the circumstances in which the person is detained? Surely such inaction on the part of the Government must appear not only to condone but to encourage the detention and torture of citizens by those who can be described only as licensed sadists?
Would the Taoiseach agree——
We cannot discuss this question all evening. I have called Question No. 2.
——that it is an unhappy situation that Government action in a case like this should follow only after a Deputy has raised the matter here? Would the Taoiseach not agree that since it was necessary for this method of questioning in the House before any Government action was taken, there must be grave disquiet at such inactivity on the part of the Government? Further, would it be fair to describe the Government's neglect of this matter as inactivity and to say that it needs prodding in this House to get any move on it? How can we have any confidence that the whole question of internment without trial is being dealt with as an urgent matter by the Government if this appears to be their lackadaisical attitude in this case?
The Deputy can take it from me that the matter of internment is being dealt with seriously and as a matter of urgency. I can only accept what Deputy Cluskey says about the date of the letter notifying this man's detention as being 2nd November. I take it that was the first indication the Department got and that since then they have been in contact with the solicitor who wrote that letter.
No.
Question No. 2. We cannot debate this. I have allowed the Deputy four supplementaries.
In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I propose, with your permission, to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.