On the motion for the Adjournment Deputy McQuillan gave notice that he would raise the subject matter of two questions on to-day's Order Paper. I want to make the position clear in respect of raising two matters on the Adjournment. I have refused to allow two before, but in this instance they are two incidents arising from the one source. That is the reason I am allowing them.
Adjournment Debate. - Curragh Incidents.
As the Ceann Comhairle has pointed out, the subject matters of both questions are interrelated. I want to make it clear at the outset that the public mind is deeply disturbed as a result of two events which were the subject matter of questions in the Dáil to-day. In raising these two questions, I want to make it clear that although the majority of the people in this country do not subscribe to the political views of the individuals who are at present in the internment camp, at the same time the general public feel deeply disturbed at the manner in which the events which took place on last Tuesday week were handled.
The fact that the people do not agree with the political views of these young men gives no excuse to any Government to act in the callous manner in which they have acted in connection with the events of last Tuesday week. I intend to deal with the two questions separately at this stage.
In the first question the Minister for Defence was asked whether he would state (a) number and names of detainees injured at the Curragh on Tuesday, 2nd December, (b) the nature and extent of their injuries, and (c) when their next-of-kin were notified. The answer given to that question was:—
"Five detaines received minor injuries caused by tear gas grenades. Their names are Brian Boylan, Patrick O'Sullivan, James Columb, Liam Fagan and Patrick McGuirl. They were advised to notify their next-of-kin, this being the normal practice in the case of detainces who are not seriously ill."
We all know that on Tuesday week there was a break out from the Curragh Camp. That night the Government Information Bureau issued a statement in connection with the break out. That statement was published on Wednesday, 3rd December and I propose to give just a short extract from that statement with reference to this question. The Government Information Bureau stated that tear gas grenades were also used as a result of which two detainees received minor injuries in the leg.
That statement was made on behalf of the Government on Tuesday night after the occurrence. One would expect that a statement from a Government Department would be a realistic and true one and would be accurate especially in view of the serious nature of the occurrence earlier in the evening but we find that the statement by the Government on Tuesday was completely inaccurate and misleading because on December 5th, three days afterwards, a further Government Information Bureau statement was issued which stated that a total of five detainees were treated for minor injuries caused by gas grenades which were used to check the break out. Here we have a Department giving on two different occasions two different reports in connection with this event. Can we rely upon the Government Information Bureau or, shall I say, the Department of Defence and the Minister who gave the information to the Bureau, for accuracy and can we rely on the Minister and on the Department for an honest statement in connection with the matter? I say we cannot because the two statements are in complete conflict.
On Tuesday night after the occurrence the evening papers had it, the wireless had it. The relations of the young man who are interned, naturally enough, were frantic with anxiety as to the welfare of their relations. Relations of those young men tried all possible sources of information at their disposal. The mothers of a number of the internees contacted various Government Departments. They contacted high political officials and public representatives and in one particular, specific instance a mother rang the President of Ireland to find out whether her son was injured or not in the break out from the Curragh that evening. Believe it or not in this civilised or so-called civilised Christian State we have a Government that refused point blank to make known to the relatives of these young men whether or not they were injured in the escape.
I asked the Minister to-day if he would state when the next-of-kin were notified that these five men were injured and the Minister, Deputy Kevin Boland, said he understood that four of the detainees concerned notified their next-of-kin. That is the reply given by a Minister of State in connection with the injuries received by detainees in the camp and that was the sole means of allaying the anxiety of the relations, mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters. The Minister understood that four of the detainees had notified their relations. I know of no civilised country where an individual who was under restraint and where that individual was injured that his relations were not notified officially afterwards by the responsible authority as to the nature and extent of the injuries received by the individual.
Here we have the case where, although the relations of the people concerned tried every possible means at their disposal, they were met with a point blank refusal and no information could be made available to them as to whether their son had been injured or not. Imagine a Minister coming into this House and telling the Dáil seriously, that the detainees were told in the Curragh Hospital by a military policeman: "You can notify your relatives that you were injured." That is how this Department of Defence treats people who are injured.
I do not think we can rely on the accuracy of the statements issued by the Minister and his Department. That is one of the reasons why the public are perturbed, because rumours are flying around the Curragh and elsewhere at the moment that some of these internees received more than minor injuries. But we have no way of finding that out. No Deputy will be allowed down to satisfy himself as to whether or not the internees were seriously injured. All we get is a statement from the Government Information Bureau—a Bureau which has proved itself completely inaccurate, even as far as giving the numbers injured.
I can challenge the Minister now as to whether 11 other internees received treatment for minor injuries as a result of the fracas that occurred on Tuesday, 2nd December. Will he deny that 11 other individual in the camp were treated for injuries, apart from the five who are still in hospital with alleged minor injuries? Some of the injuries, we are told, were received because tear gas grenades exploded. Anybody who knows what these grenades are like will realise that they could blind a man for life and that it is a dastardly thing to throw a grenade among a group of unarmed men. It was luck which saved them from more serious injuries, if they have not received more serious injury.
I raised that matter because the Irish people, irrespective of whether or not they approve the policy of these men, consider that these men should not be treated like animals and that their relatives should be notified as to whether or not they were injured. We have not reached the stage yet where a man can disappear as he can behind the Iron Curtain.
The second question I want to raise is in connection with an event that took place on the following evening, Wednesday evening. I asked the Minister if his attention had been drawn to the fact that a military patrol had opened fire on an E.S.B. truck at Ballymanny, on December 3rd, and if so, what instructions were issued to the military on this occasion and if he would make a statement on the matter to allay public uneasiness and to ensure a similar incident did not occur in the future. The Minister went on to tell me that the report on this incident showed that on being signalled to halt, by means of a red lamp, the truck slowed down, then swerved towards one of the soldiers and accelerated. He said that the soldier had to jump out of the way to avoid being run down. His life was thus in danger and he and a companion soldier reacted to this highly dangerous and suspicious manoeuvre by firing at the tyres of the truck in an effort to halt it. The Minister went on to say that the soldiers had not acted improperly in the circumstances and, therefore, as far as the troops were concerned there was no question of ensuring that a similar incident did not occur in the future.
In other words, it is left to the judgment of a private soldier, perhaps an untrained private soldier, to decide, if he thinks his life is in danger, whether or not he can fire on a vehicle that passes and refuses to halt. There is no state of emergency declared in this country and it is a disgraceful situation as has happened, that soldiers with only three weeks' training, raw recruits, were brought out on duty with bandoleers and put searching for escaped internees. These soldiers, according to the Minister's reply, had no instructions as to whether they could or could not fire at vehicles.
Let us suppose that a car load of people left Dublin to go to Shannon Airport and that it was speeding along that road to get down to the airport in time. Suppose that on the road they saw a man waving a red light in front of him and if those people decided that it was somebody looking for a lift and swerved past that man then, according to the Minister, if it was soldiers who were there with the red lamp they would be entitled to fire on that car. That could mean that a tragedy could occur and a number of peoples' lives could be lost. It was only by the grace of God that the driver of that E.S.B. truck was not killed. Let us look at it this way. As we know the driver of and E.S.B. truck is not entitled to carry passengers. On the road between here and Naas and Kildare from six o'clock in the evening onwards you will meet private soldiers along the road signalling with their hands for a lift. Has it come to the stage now that the general public cannot travel on the road in safety, that if they pass a man with a red lamp on the road without halting they can be fired on? We will have to get this matter clarified, because, as I said, only a miracle prevented a tragedy that Wednesday evening. We know that young, raw recruits were brought out and put on this job.
Let me make quite clear that I am not in any sense criticising the military in this matter. I could not criticise the military in a matter concerning which they have no strict instructions issued to them as to what action they are to take. There is grave dissatisfaction among military personnel, from the top to the bottom, at the moment, about their instructions. The Minister and his Department have failed to issue proper instructions because they cannot give instructions to fire at individuals as there is no state of emergency declared and consequently the military may, in the eyes of the public, be blamed for something for which the Government and the Minister must be blamed. I want to make it clear that the Minister will have to let the public know now whether they are to be safe on the roads; whether, as he said, the position exists that if a soldier or a group of soldiers, wants to halt an individual whether he is driving a truck, a car or a bus——
The Minister is now entitled to reply.
There is a minute to go yet.
I do not see it.
If a group of private soldiers are entitled to call on a truck, or a car, or a bus to halt and if that vehicle fails to halt, the soldiers are entitled to fire on it because allegedly it is endangering the lives of the soldiers. To bring it down to brass tacks the Minister's statement means, that if a person is at a pedestrian crossing here in Dublin and a motorist comes along, and if in the opinion of that pedestrian the motorist is going to run him down, he is entitled, if he has a permit to carry a gun, to fire on him. The military should not have permission, unless an emergency exists, to fire on a single civilian in this country.
I suppose I had better deal with these two questions in the order in which the Deputy has dealt with them. He dealt first with Question No. 81, the question in connection with the injuries received by some of the detainees in this affair. The main point about that is that they were very minor injuries indeed, and therefore, there was no need to depart from the normal procedure in the case of detainees suffering from any minor illness. That procedure is that the detainees notify their next-of-kin to that effect. That is the procedure adopted here. The injuries were very slight and so the normal procedure was adopted.
As to the announcements made, I am sure Deputies will understand, that in the early stages of this occurrence, conditions were somewhat confused, and the injuries received were of such a minor nature that only two were discovered immediately. As a matter of fact two of those who were subsequently found to have been slightly injured, had succeeded in making their escape and were subsequently recaptured, so that there was no great cause for surprise in the fact that the injuries to three others were not discovered immediately.
With regard to his allegation that 11 others were treated, Deputy McQuillan announced in advance that he would not accept any denial of mine of that statement of his. However, for what it may be worth to other people, I can say there is no truth whatever in Deputy McQuillan's allegation. Five people received injuries and five were treated. I cannot help it if certain newspapers appear to employ correspondents, more because of their abilities in the field of fiction, rather than for their qualities as accurate reporters of actual occurrences. If people like Deputy McQuillan prefer to believe the false report that appear in those newspapers rather than the official version of the facts, there is nothing I can do to convince them that they are wrong.
Would the Minister let us go down to see? Would he allow us to see for ourselves?
So that question, I think, was adequately dealt with by the reply I gave in the House and any other points the Deputy has raised have now been covered.
To the other question the Deputy raised the reply I gave was:—
"The reports on this incident show that on being signalled to halt by means of a red lamp, the truck slowed down, then swerved towards one of the soldiers and accelerated. The soldier had to jump out of the way to avoid being run down. His life was thus endangered and he had a companion soldier reacted to this highly dangerous and suspicious manoeuvre by firing at the tyres of the truck in an effort to halt it. I cannot find that the soldiers acted improperly in the circumstances and, therefore, as far as the troops are concerned, there is no question of ensuring that a similar incident does not occur in future.
I do not accept the Deputy's statement that public uneasiness has been caused by this incident."
That is a comprehensive reply to the question, and I cannot see that there is anything more I can add to it. As I said in reply to a supplementary question by Deputy McQuillan, far from public uneasiness being caused by any action of the military personnel who were involved in this affair, the public have, in fact, been impressed by the discipline and restraint exercised by every unit of the Army engaged in the affair.
Deputy McQuillan, of course, never loses an opportunity of pursuing his private vendetta against the Army, and the mere fact that at the conclusion of his speech he disavows any such intention, after devoting the main part of his speech to an attack on the military personnel, does not change that fact. As I say, the whole incident does nothing whatever to lessen my confidence in the officers and men of the Army. In fact, as I say, it showed that they realise their duties——
What are their duties?
——and carry them out in a reasonable way. There is nothing I can do to ensure that an attempt will not be made to run down a soldier in the performance of his duty so there is nothing I can do to provide against such an incident taking place again. I am quite satisfied that the officers and men of the Army knew their duty.
Deputy McQuillan alleges that the Army have no instructions as to whether or not to fire on vehicles. Nobody knows better than he that that is not so. The firing of ammunition is covered by Defence Force regulations and I am quite satisfied——
Will the Minister state them to the House?
——that the officers and men of the Army are acquainted with these regulations and know how to perform their duties.
The general public are not acquainted with those regulations.
Deputy McQuillan took 20 minutes of the time allotted.
I want to keep the Minister from misrepresenting the position.
The Deputy need not bother.
I know it is nearly impossible.
As I say, in my opinion, there is no public uneasiness. In fact, the public have been impressed by the way in which the troops exercised dicipline and restraint, and my confidence in the Army has certainly not been shaken by any of the allegations made in this House by Deputy McQuillan.
The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 11th December, 1958.