Vol. 314 No. 2
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the judgment of the Court of Human Rights in the case which the Irish Government brought against the United Kingdom and the undertaking then given by the British Government, the Minister proposes to make any protest regarding the grave substantiated allegations of continued brutal treatment of persons in custody in Castlereagh interrogation centre by the RUC made recently.
7.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs to make a statement on the Bennett Report and to outline what action is being taken by the Government in relation to the clear breaches of human rights in certain police stations in Northern Ireland.
With the permission, of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 7 together.
The Government consider it of fundamental importance that interrogations by the security forces in Northern Ireland should be carried out with full respect at all times for the human and legal rights of the person held and avail of the contacts which take place with the British authorities both at political and official level to ensure that they are fully aware of the concern of the Government in this regard. In the course of these contacts we have been repeatedly assured that the British Government stand by the undertaking given by the British Attorney General before the European Court of Human Rights in February 1977 and that they do not authorise or condone any maltreatment of suspects. In the light of the recent and disquieting disclosures we have again raised the matter to reiterate our grave concern to the British Government. We have in particular asked what action will be taken by them in the context of the recently published Bennett Report to ensure that the conduct of the police and particularly those engaged in interrogation centres will be in accordance with the undertakings given to the European Court of Human Rights, and to the Irish Government, by the British Attorney General.
We have also expressed the view that it is only by such action that the entire community in Northern Ireland can be expected to increase their confidence in the process of law, something which the Government consider an essential precondition for normality in Northern Ireland and the evolution of political ideas towards reconciliation and peace.
I met some of those people and there seemed to be a prima facie case at the time for their claims that they were brutalised in those interrogation centres. Is there any established process whereby an Irish citizen who claims to have been brutally treated in an interrogation centre and who chooses to look for the help of the Southern Government can make that claim, have it examined to establish its validity and, if it is a valid case, have action taken by the Government or the Minister's Department?
I assure the Deputy that there is a process. Any Irish citizen who has a complaint in respect of ill-treatment here or elsewhere—my responsibility is in relation to Foreign Affairs—can, and it would be welcomed by my Department, make a formal complaint. Obviously we can rely only on the facts which he presents to us. We are not, either here or in relation to international consultations, a competent court of law. We cannot make decisions, but I assure the Deputy that we will pursue those complaints very diligently to try to represent the best interests of our citizens in the hope of bringing normality and peace about in Northern Ireland.
Does the Minister agree that in the light of the Bennett Report we cannot now accept the undertakings given by the British Attorney General to which he referred in his reply?
While the undertakings given at Strasbourg related to particular techniques it is right to say that in the spirit, if not in the letter, they would, and were so understood by the Government, apply to all forms of ill-treatment and not just those specifically under question. As I said in my reply, we are concerned about the continuing ill-treatment as disclosed in the Bennett Report and we are maintaining the most active contacts in the case.
Does the Minister accept that the failure to implement the Ó Briain Report is to some extent tying the hands of the Government in this matter and diminishing the credibility of the Government in making representations in relation to the matters dealt with in the Bennett Report?
I do not so accept. The Deputy will appreciate that our Garda enjoy the support of our people and any implication that they do not enjoy the support of the people, although the Deputy does not intend that, is very dangerous. The other questions are for another Minister.
Arising out of——
The Deputy said he was asking his final question.
——the unsatisfactory reply, I want to make it clear that there is no question of the Garda not enjoying the support of our people. With respect, the Minister seemed to evade the point I made. Does he not accept that the fact that we have not implemented the Ó Briain report is, to some extent, damaging our credibility in making complaints and representations arising out of the dreadful occurrences in Castlereagh and elsewhere?
I do not accept that. I have responsibility to make representations on matters of international relations. I felt in no way inhibited and have pursued my representations on the lines I indicated.
I cannot accept that.
Since it is evident from the Bennett report and the supporting evidence of the two doctors, Irwin and Elliot, that there is a breach of the undertaking given before the European Court, we must be hypocritical in our attitude when we continue to deal with these people and co-operate with them. Surely we should make a protest, other than a verbal protest, to show that we will not tolerate it and that the European Court's decisions cannot be flouted?
I am sure the Deputy will agree that we should try to bring about a situation where the security forces in the North, as here, have the support of the majority of the people they are there to protect against violence. We intend to co-operate as much as possible to bring about that situation.
Is the Minister serious when he compares the two, despite all the faults there might be in our own security forces? Surely he is not serious in comparing the two security forces as if they were one and the same, protecting the rights of all? For God's sake wake up.
I want to say quite clearly that I do not believe in the principle of universal condemnation because——
I do not either.
The Deputy appears to be adopting that principle.
I would not compare the Northern security forces with our own.
I did not compare them in any sense because the same principles apply in the North as here.
It is scandalous to compare them with our own.
Question No. 8.
In connection with people who are brutalised, who have a genuine case and want to bring it before the courts, either in Northern Ireland or in Europe, the Minister said that if they make reports to his Department he will help them. Would he or his Department be in a position to provide legal, medical and financial assistance to help these people to obtain damages and compensation because they were brutalised by the security forces?
That is a separate question.
No. It has never been the——
The Chair is ruling that that is a separate question.
If the Deputy puts down a question I will deal with it in detail. I have to accept the Chair's ruling.
I think the question is in order.
It is obvious that we could have unlimited questions on this matter.
I will be prepared to answer if the Deputy puts down a question.
8.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to a speech by the Irish Ambassador to Washington, reported in The Irish Press on 17 March, in which the ambassador “warned about the effects on American opinion of the Judge Bennett Report which found that persons under interrogation at RUC stations in the six counties had been beaten and ill-treated”; if this speech by the ambassador was approved by the Minister and if the ambassador's statement represents Government reaction to the Bennett Report.
On the question of the Government's reaction to the report of the Committee of Inquiry headed by Judge Bennett on Police Interrogation Procedures in Northern Ireland, I would refer the Deputy to the answers I have given to Questions Nos. 6 and 7. Abuses in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland are, as I have indicated, a source of serious concern in themselves. In addition to our concern for the human rights aspects the Government are concerned that such abuses should not be exploited by the Provisional IRA and their propagandists abroad to justify a campaign of terrorism and violence. Such abuses are therefore a cause of concern not only in themselves but also because of the ambiguous exploitation of the suffering involved.
The ambassador in Washington gave expression to these views, which are central to our policy vis-à-vis the IRA propaganda campaign overseas. He was not making a speech but was replying, and in words other than those quoted by the Deputy, to a journalist's question which specifically asked about the sympathy for the IRA which the Bennett Report disclosures might generate in the United States of America.
May I be pardoned if I ask the Minister whether he answered my question in any respect? Is it Government policy? Was it cleared by the Minister or the Department before it was issued? Those were the questions I asked.
The Deputy asked if the speech by the ambassador was approved by the Minister—I am quoting from the Deputy's question. I said in my reply that the ambassador was not making a speech but was replying to a question.
He did say it?
He did not. I do not know if the Deputy listened to my reply. I clearly stated——
The Minister does not seem to know what he replied.
I do, but if the Deputy does not listen I cannot communicate with him.
I have been listening but it is difficult to hear the Minister and his reply is incomprehensible——
I will repeat it more slowly and hope it will be intelligible.
I am trying to find out what the Minister means because he does not seem to know himself.
He was not making a speech——
Did he say it?
If the Deputy listens he will hear. He was replying——
I know he was not making a speech, but did he say it?
If the Deputy listens he will hear it for the third time. I said: "He was not making a speech but was replying, and in words other than those quoted by the Deputy, to a journalist's question...". He did not say what the Deputy said.
It would have been much simpler to have given that reply. I could have asked then why these unfounded reports, published widely, were not corrected. The words I used are taken from published reports.
I do not want to make a particular comment on this, but if a Minister were to make a public statement each time a newspaper report misunderstood or misrepresented the Government position, he would be busily engaged making public statements.
The Tánaiste and the Taoiseach do little else at times.
Why were the words attributed to our ambassador, who was purportedly speaking in our name, not corrected at the earliest opportunity, and not by a statement from the Minister?
Perhaps because the Deputy's question has been down for some time. If I had made a statement the Deputy might, understandably, have been the first person to say that I had somehow abused the privileges of the House by stating in public what I should have disclosed in answer to his question.
Is it true that such implication, as was contained in the words published and quoted by me in my question, was never uttered by the ambassador either with or without the Minister's approval and never was intended to be conveyed to the public?
Those words were not uttered by the ambassador. I understand that the Deputy was relying on various newspaper reports but they do not represent accurately what the ambassador said in reply to a journalist's question.
He did not say it, he did not mean it, and it was not intended that it should be so.
Does the Minister not agree that the failure to find consensus politics in Northern Ireland is more the problem of Northern Ireland than the brutality of the police whose eruption of human feelings is only a symptom of what is happening there, matched only by the para-military violence? Instead of accusing policemen for over-reacting or finding fault with young men whose pastime is to plant bombs, this Government should be spelling out clearly to the British Government that because they have prorogued Stormont, because it is their responsibility to find——
I am listening to a speech.
——political solutions to the——
Question No. 10.
Could I take it that——
Is this a question or a speech?
Would the Minister not agree that the failure to find political agreement in the North is the real problem and that the other things are only symptoms? Finally, let me say——
This is a speech. The Deputy may not make a speech on foreign policy at this stage.
I want to ask the Minister one final question. Does he agree that the person whose name is now being bandied about the House, the Ambassador to Washington, is most able, most knowledgeable and one civil servant who has done more to heal the division in the North of Ireland than any Deputy, particularly Deputy Blaney? He is a man who has gone into the Protestant community of Belfast, a man who has worked along with the Catholic community in Belfast——
The Deputy is well aware that there is no question of making a speech here. He will please resume his seat. I am calling Question No. 9.
Is this one of Deputy Harte's butties?
He is no butty of mine but a man who did a service to that community.
I appreciate the Deputy's words of appreciation in respect of my Ambassador.
