Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 28 Nov 1972

Vol. 264 No. 1

Private Notice Question: - Condition of Prisoner.

asked the Taoiseach whether he intends to have Mr. Seán Mac Stiofáin released in view of his serious condition; and, if not, why.

It is not the normal practice to give public information about the affairs or the health of a particular prisoner but, because of the exceptional circumstances of this present case I propose to reply to this question.

This man was convicted only a few days ago of membership of an unlawful organisation. It is not suggested by anybody that he was not, in fact, a member. On the contrary, in an interview which he gave to Radio Telefís Éireann the substance of which was broadcast on radio on Sunday, 19th November, he himself unmistakably held himself out as a person in a position of authority in that organisation.

Mr. Mac Stiofáin has been given a fair trial before the courts and has been found guilty. It is open to him to serve his sentence or to appeal against it or his conviction. Nothing can be gained by continuing the hunger strike in an attempt to frustrate the course of justice. If a member of such an organisation, and especially a self-confessed leader, could secure his release from prison through resort to a hunger or thirst strike, the inevitable consequence would be that not only he but all his associates would be effectively above the law of the land and free to act as they choose and would be seen to be so. This is so for the obvious reason that other prisoners, now or in the future, need only adopt the same tactics to ensure that they, too, would be released. Accordingly, the issue in the present case is nothing less than whether Parliament, Government, the courts and the law are all to surrender to an unlawful organisation. The challenge to the institutions of the State is direct, deliberate and unmistakable. The Government have no choice but to meet it. The consequences that may ensue are regretted by the members of the Government as they no doubt are regretted by everybody with a normal human concern for human life. The consequences, however, are not of the Government's making.

Would the Taoiseach not agree that because of the condition in which this man is now, the term which he may spend in hospital recovering would be far in excess of the sentence imposed by the courts? Therefore, would the Taoiseach not consider that the removing of the element of custody might be the means of giving this man cause to discontinue his hunger and thirst strike?

It is normal practice that in a case where a prisoner is serving a sentence and suffers a serious form of illness, he is transferred for medical treatment but is still in custody. The normal practice is being followed in this case. If the element of custody, as the Deputy refers to it, had been withdrawn, say, on Sunday last, one could see what the consequences would have been.

On humanitarian grounds may I ask the Taoiseach whether there is any possibility of having this man transferred to an intensive care unit or is the Taoiseach satisfied that the facilities at the hospital where the man is at present are adequate in so far as a proper biochemistry laboratory is concerned in the event of intravenous fluids being necessary or desirable?

I shall not go into the necessity for intravenous feeding or the necessity for giving Mr. Mac Stiofáin intravenous foods in any form or in any manner but I understand that he is being given adequate treatment at present.

Because of the seriousness of this man's condition I do not propose asking irrelevant questions but perhaps I may be permitted to ask one final supplementary. Is the Taoiseach not aware that the public are in a sharp state of alarm and that the consequences of this man's death could be very serious?

The public are in a state of alarm and have been so for a considerable time. Hundreds of people have been killed by bombs and guns and hundreds have been maimed by bombs and guns. Many of these people were innocent women and children. Unfortunately, they had no choice between life and death.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

I want to say, too, that the alarm expressed by Deputy Sherwin on behalf of many people would be alarm in a very much larger way if this Government or any Government were to abdicate their authority on an occasion such as this.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Can the Taoiseach say——

Already I have allowed a number of supplementaries on this question.

There is only one question I wish to ask.

There are other Deputies also who believe they should be allowed ask one supplementary.

My question is to ask the Taoiseach whether it is true that Mr. Mac Stiofáin's wife was refused permission to see him this morning and, if so, why?

I understand that Mrs. Mac Stiofáin presented herself at the military hospital at a late hour last night. Unfortunately, at that time the commanding officer did not consider it his duty to admit her. That has been changed. That decision is regrettable but I can understand the circumstances under which the commanding officer made it.

Arising from the Taoiseach's supplementary reply to Deputy Sherwin, does the Taoiseach not agree that Mr. Mac Stiofáin's closest associates must realise now that any attempt to remove him by force or otherwise would have the effect only of terminating his life? In these circumstances would the Taoiseach not make it possible, as Deputy O'Connell has suggested, for Mr. Mac Stiofáin to have, at the very least, the best possible and most sophisticated medical care?

I believe that those who presume to be his closest associates would have felt that the same circumstances applied on Sunday last, that the manner of the attempt to remove him from the Mater Hospital could have terminated his life and, indeed, very nearly terminated the lives of innocent people.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Top
Share