The Minister for Justice has informed me that he desires to make a statement.
Committee on Finance. - Prisoners on Hunger-Strike—Ministerial Statement.
In connection with the inquest held yesterday into the death of Anthony D'Arcy, I think it necessary to correct any misapprehension which may be caused by some of the evidence given by Father O'Hare. It will be understood that I am speaking of the evidence as reported in the daily papers— the only version which reaches the ordinary citizen. As so reported, there seems to be a clear suggestion that if Father O'Hare had been allowed to visit the prisoners in Mountjoy, whose treatment was put forward as the reason for the hunger-strike, and to report the facts as regards their treatment to the men on hunger-strike, the hunger-strike would have been abandoned. The ordinary reader will infer from this that the men on hunger-strike had a wrong idea about the treatment of the men in Mountjoy and that the authorities deliberately refused to enlighten them on the matter. I want to say that that is not so. The men on hunger-strike had no real right to be informed as to the treatment of other prisoners and if they had in fact gone on strike without knowing the facts then they would have behaved with great folly, but in point of fact they had opportunity after opportunity of knowing what treatment these men were getting in Mountjoy. I am perfectly sure that they did know it and that nothing that Father O'Hare could have seen or reported would have made the slightest difference. I propose to show this in some detail.
In the first place, the strike was commenced at a time when both groups of men were actually in Mountjoy and the document served on the Governor, dated 24th February, formally declaring the starting of the strike, demanded expressly the removal of the convicted men to military custody. In other words, the essential point was not the precise treatment in prison but the fact that the men were in a civil prison at all.
At a comparatively early stage of the strike, on or about the 17th March, the acting Lord Mayor (Deputy Tom Kelly) was approached on this matter by relatives of the men on hunger-strike and he, in turn, approached me with a series of written questions as to the treatment in Mountjoy and I gave him a written reply to these questions so that he might communicate them to the relatives as they had requested, in order, it is understood, to communicate them to the men on strike.
A few days after that I was again approached on the same subject by Deputy Norton and I consented to his proposal that Senator Seán Campbell of the Labour Party, who was a member of the Visiting Committee at Mountjoy and was familiar with the facts, should visit the men on hunger-strike and give them the information which the relatives wished conveyed to them, although I knew that they already had it. Senator Campbell did so on the 22nd March. He duly saw the hunger-strikers and conveyed the facts to them. He took down their reply in writing. It was as follows:—
"Unless all the Republican prisoners tried and convicted by the Military Tribunal are kept in custody by the military authorities the hunger-strike will be carried on."
At a later stage, the Acting Lord Mayor again approached me and permission was given to Miss Fiona Plunkett and another lady to see the prisoners on hunger-strike and tell them of the conditions in Mountjoy. It had no effect.
Finally, ten days ago, Mr. Peadar O'Donnell called on me and suggested that if an official statement in writing as to the conditions in Mountjoy were given to him it might have the desired effect. An official statement outlining the conditions, signed by the secretary of the Department, was accordingly given to him.
On these facts it can hardly be questioned that every reasonable thing was done and every consideration given to ensure that the men knew what the conditions in Mountjoy were. There is, in fact, no doubt that they did know perfectly well, but the position taken up by them was as stated in their letter of the 11th April, handed to Father O'Hare:—
"The men on hunger-strike will continue their fast until the following conditions are granted: that in future all soldiers of the Irish Republican Army who are tried and sentenced by the Military Tribunal, serve their sentence in military custody, and get the same treatment as is being meted out to the men in Arbour Hill Military Prison at present."
It may well be that Father O'Hare believes he would have succeeded where all others had failed, but there do not seem to be any reasonable grounds for such a belief. It is quite clear that the demand of the hunger-strikers is that all prisoners belonging to their organisation, no matter what offence they commit, should be held in military custody and recognised as members of a military force entitled to be treated as men engaged in legitimate warfare.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.35 p.m. until Wednesday, 24th April, at 3 p.m.