asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the number of Irish citizens being held in custody in England under the Prevention of Terrorism Act; and if he is aware that a number of these have been held in custody for a long period, despite the fact that they have no connection with any illegal organisations and that the matter is now one of serious concern for the families of these people.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Irish Citizens in Custody in Britain.
2.
Figures for persons detained under the PTA are issued quarterly. The most recent figures available are for the last quarter of 1985. As records are not available for the citizenship of persons detained, it is not possible to indicate how many Irish citizens were detained in that period. However, I can say that between October and December 1985, 66 persons were detained under the PTA in connection with Northern Ireland. A further 25 persons were detained in connection with international terrorism.
Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act there is provision for the arrest and detention of persons, initially for a period of 48 hours extendable with the approval of the Home Secretary up to a maximum of seven days before charges have to be brought or the person released. Where a person has been detained or charged under the PTA, the Embassy can and do help his or her family in ascertaining where the person is being held, whether a detention order has been extended or what charges, if any, are being brought. The Embassy also seek to ensure that the person detained has access to a solicitor, can communicate with his family, has no medical problems and is being treated correctly. Where complaints are made to the Department or the Embassy by relatives of those who have been detained about the treatment of persons in detention, the Embassy raise these complaints with the British authorities.
The Embassy act in PTA detention cases at the request of families, legal counsel, or public representatives or where the Embassy are otherwise aware that there are grounds for concern. In some cases persons do not wish the Embassy to intervene. Such wishes are at all times respected as is the privacy of the persons concerned.
I am conscious that the possibility of abuse of powers and of discrimination against Irish citizens is inherent in the PTA legislation and, in consequence, I make representations concerning the scope and method of operation of the Act to members of the British Government on a regular and ongoing basis.
If the Deputy has specific cases in mind, I will have the matter investigated if he will let me have the details.
Is the Minister aware that two of my constituents have been held since last June? I have been in touch with the Department about the people concerned. Is he also aware that these people are completely innocent but are not being given an opportunity to prove their innocence? They have been told by a solicitor that he will take up their defence if they pay him £7,000. Is he further aware that as a result of this, those people have lost their jobs and the wife of one of them is seriously ill in hospital? Is it not a very serious matter when our Government, on behalf of these people, seem to take no interest but come in here and make bland statements? I brought this matter to the notice of the Minister's office on 25 August last.
I guessed that was the case to which the Deputy was referring but I was not aware of some of the facts he gave. As he said correctly, he brought this matter to the attention of my office on 25 August last and he was informed of the position at the time. The two people in question have been charged under section 11 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act with failure to disclose information which might be of material assistance to the police. That is a matter for the judicial process in Britain and we could not interfere in that process. They are not being detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act now; they have actually been charged. There is a difference.
Would the Minister accept that it is most unjust to have people detained in this fashion over a long period? In that period they have lost everything. One man was a small contractor and he has lost everything, his wife's health as well, as a result of this. Would the Minister not try to ensure that our people in England are protected against this kind of so-called British justice?
I do, of course and, as I said in my reply, I have made frequent representations about the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The number of people who are being detained under its provisions, as distinct from being charged, has dropped considerably in recent years. Likewise, the detentions appear to be more selective because the percentage of people who are being charged has risen. Amongst those who have been charged are the two people about whom Deputy Gallagher speaks. I do not know the facts even though I have no doubt that what the Deputy says is correct about the personal circumstances of the individuals involved. But they are now being charged under an Act of another country and it would not be proper for me to interfere in that case until it has been disposed of.
Would the Minister agree that there appears to be a parallel here with what we see happening in the North of Ireland where people are held in custody over a period? This seems to be what we are dealing with here. Would the Minister make strong representations, even at this late stage, to try to ensure that these people, who are completely innocent and are not involved in any way with illegal organisations, would at least have a chance of defending themselves without being held in this way?
I have a great deal of sympathy with what Deputy Gallagher has said. I presume, even though I do not know, that the men's solicitors applied for bail when they were charged initially. Whether that was refused, I am not sure, and that is another factor in the case. What I will try to do — and there is a limit to the influence any foreign Government have in another country in matters like this — is to ensure that they are brought to trial as quickly as possible.
Would the Minister accept that in these cases the authorities in Britain appear to try to justify themselves in relation to the Brighton bombings in that they can say they are detaining people in relation to these bombings and that some poor Irish people are the innocent victims of police actions on these matters?
I do not think it would be appropriate that I should go into the motivation of anything that happens in the judicial processes in another country. As I said to the Deputy, these people were detained originally under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. They were subsequently charged and there is a difference in that step — they were subsequently charged. They had either not applied for or had been refused bail — I do not know which is correct in that regard. As the Deputy says, they have been in detention awaiting trial for a number of months. That is not uncommon in many of the judicial systems around the world, including ours. My ability to influence events is very marginal but I will see if anything can be done to speed it up.
Deputy Lenihan, a final question.
I am anxious to help here. Would the Minister not agree that the whole operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act in Britain is on a par with what might be called institutional breaches of the rule of law we have seen in regard to the judicial and legal system in Northern Ireland? Looking at the whole area — where there is a common pattern — would the Minister not agree that it represents, along with the breaches of the judicial and legal system in Northern Ireland, an area for discussion within the Inter-Governmental Conference, if that conference is really concerned about the basic trouble in Northern Ireland, which has spilled over into mainland Britain and which constitutes gross breaches of the rule of law by the governing authority both in Britain and Northern Ireland as far as Irish people are concerned?
I have made my views on the Prevention of Terrorism Act quite clear in this House on a number of occasions. As I said, in my reply, I have made these views known to the British Government. I do not think it is necessary for the setting up of the Anglo-Irish Conference for that to happen. It has been happening not just under this Government but under previous Governments as well, and the views about this Act are made known each time its provisions come up for renewal. But the difference in the case to which Deputy Gallagher was referring is the point I am trying to make, that even though these people were detained initially under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, they have been charged under a different Act. I think Deputy Lenihan, as a lawyer, will see the difference there.
Just briefly——
I am sorry, Deputy. The Chair is under pressure to make progress at Question Time from all sides of the House. Because Deputy D. Gallagher had a personal interest in the question I allowed him a number of supplementaries. I have allowed their party spokesman a question. I am sorry but I am now moving on.
As I understand it, this Act comes up for review about this time.
Deputy Woods is being disorderly.
I have heard what Deputy Woods has said.