asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the number of incidents alleging brutality by members of the British forces in Northern Ireland which have been drawn to his attention during the past three months by (a) organised bodies and (b) individuals; and the nature of the replies issued by him.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - British Forces In Northern Ireland.
14.
During the period in question incidents of the kind referred to have been drawn to my attention on a number of occasions by various organisations and individuals.
Further to the reply——
The Deputy will resume his seat, please.
In many cases the complaints received were of a general character or were not documented.
The Minister made a statement. I want to ask a supplementary question. It is not sub judice.
I could not, therefore, attempt to estimate the number of particular incidents that were involved.
Further to the reply——
The Deputy will resume his seat.
The information was usually obtained in the course of informal contacts including meetings with delegations from Northern Ireland and the question of issuing formal replies did not arise.
We cannot hear.
The Chair is doing his best.
The Minister is doing his best.
There are supplementary questions being asked and the Minister is proceeding to answer another question. There are supplementary questions being asked in Question No. 13.
I heard the Chair calling Question No. 14.
The Deputy asserts his right to hear the reply.
The Chair is in control of Question Time.
The situation is that I did not even know that Question No. 13 was called.
Nor did I.
If the Chair is not obeyed in seeking to maintain order, it is not his fault.
Could we have a reply?
Could we have a reply to Question No. 13? Could we have some democracy in the House?
I have been listening diligently and I heard no answer to the question.
I did reply in a loud voice.
I called No. 14 for a reply.
We did not hear No. 13 being called.
That is the Deputy's own fault. Talk to your own Deputies about the matter.
I humbly apologise for talking at the time. I should like to hear the answer to Question No. 13.
The answer to Question No. 13 is very brief. It is "No".
Arising from the answer to No. 13, if the Minister is not aware, as he says he is not aware, of any intention to do this, can we take it that this is at the prompting of the Government by way of the policy being enunciated by their Leader, that not only is a declaration of intent not on with the British but apparently it is not on here, since we are asking the Army to stay, which I want to repudiate here.
This is an argument.
They damn well should be got out and asked to be got out.
I lost the thread of that question.
In fact, you are asking them to stay.
May I ask the Minister is it the desire of the Government that such a declaration of intent to withdraw would be made at some future stage by the British Government?
That is a different question altogether. Question No. 14.
They want the Army to stay——
The Deputy asked a question about the British Government. If there is a question about the policy of the Irish Government it would have to be put down separately.
Would the Minister repeat the answer to Question No. 14?
During the period in question incidents of the kind referred to have been drawn to my attention on a number of occasions by various organisations and individuals. In many cases the complaints received were of a general character or were not documented. I could not, therefore, attempt to estimate the number of particular incidents that were involved. The information was usually obtained in the course of informal contacts including meetings with delegations from Northern Ireland and the question of issuing formal replies did not arise.
Do I detect in the Minister's reply a doubt in his mind that any of these incidents that may have been complained of are not well-founded? Do I take it, if that is what is implied in the reply, that he is really not aware that brutalities are continuing in the Six Counties?
The Deputy is developing an argument rather than asking a question.
Nobody reading the papers could be unaware of the brutalities inflicted in the Six Counties by a variety of groups. The question here is one which I have tried to answer fully and the point I have made is that the great majority of the representations that have come to our notice are informal in character and have not provided any basis for a formal complaint. In fact, in three months there was only one incident brought to our attention in formal correspondence.
When the Government had a basis for a formal complaint they withdrew it.
That is an extraordinarily misleading statement to come from Deputy O'Kennedy.
They postponed it.
Nothing has been withdrawn and the Deputy knows it.
Not withdrawn— it was postponed for no good reason.
May I take it from the reply that some complaints have been made that the Minister regards as well-founded? Why, then, is there not a case taken to the European Court on these new cases that have been brought to his notice?
We are talking of different things.
That would seem to be an extension of the question.
The matter came to the attention of the Commission on Human Rights, not just in the original submission but a collection were added subsequently. What happens more commonly is that complaints are raised and the question is raised of taking them up with the British Government because, indeed, you cannot get to the Commission on Human Rights in the first recourse unless all other recourse is ruled out. In fact, we do not have any significant number of such complaints posed formally and in a form in which they could be proceeded with.
We will have to pass on to the next question.
I think I have answered the question pretty fully.
Finally may I say, in view of all this difficulty of establishing and moving on to place these complaints before the Commission on Human Rights, that surely the decision of the Government to agree to the postponement is inexplicable.
The Deputy is seeking to cross the authority of the Chair in this matter.
The Deputy has not understood.
The Minister has not tried to make himself intelligible. He is trying to duck out of this.
If there is a formal complaint giving us facts to go on then in many cases the normal practice would be to take it up with the British authorities and to suggest to the people concerned that they do likewise. If all such recourse fails and it is fully taken to its ultimate conclusion then and then only the Commission on Human Rights comes into play.
Question No. 15.
Arising——
Sorry. The Chair is passing on to No. 15. The Chair has given Deputy Blaney a great deal of latitude and the Deputy is seeking to abuse it.
Arising——
Please, Deputy. The Deputy complained earlier about not hearing a reply.
Arising from the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I wish to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
The Chair will communicate with Deputy Blaney.
This is a matter of grave national importance and we want to have our position clarified.
It cannot be debated here all day. There is a large number of questions on the Order Paper. Question No. 15.
He is trying to dodge the issue.
On a point of order, this is a matter of grave national importance where lives are being taken every day of the week and brutalities are occurring.
The Deputy is not entitled to make a statement or a speech at Question Time.
Surely, as a Government representing a people we must make our protest and make our statement.
Will Deputy Coughlan allow questions to proceed?
When we hear from Deputy Blaney equal complaints about the murders and atrocities of the Provisional IRA we will take him more seriously.