Deputy Blaney has received permission to raise on the adjournment matters arising out of four parliamentary questions concerning the treatment of political prisoners in the Six Countries and in Britain.
Adjournment Debate: Treatment of Prisoners.
A few weeks ago I had the satisfaction, if one can call it that, of getting replies to questions in regard to the urgent and important matter of the treatment of prisoners generally and, in particular, in regard to Long Kesh prisoners, women prisoners in Armagh, Irish prisoners in British jails and remand prisoners from south of the Border being held on what can only be regarded as internment in Six County jails.
After endeavouring for weeks from 11 October to have these matters answered by the Taoiseach, who I think is the person most immediately responsible for the Government's lack of action in regard to these very serious matters, I did not succeed until the Minister for Foreign Affairs endeavoured to reply to these long outstanding questions which are of such vital importance to those who are suffering as a result of the scandalous treatment being meted out to them in Long Kesh, in Armagh and in British jails.
Citizens from this side of the Border were taken in questionable circumstances as long as 19 months ago and are still on remand without any charges having been preferred. If that is not sufficient to raise the hackles on our Ministers, our Government and our Taoiseach, I do not know what should. We are completely ignoring the safeguards we should be insisting upon for any citizen of this country but, in particular, citizens from this side of the Border for whom as a State we claim to have not only responsibility but also jurisdiction. The jurisdiction part has been removed by hauling them out of Carlingford Lough and by stopping them on their way back from a commemoration in Derry to their homes in Donegal. A dozen or so of this category are on remand—in the case of the Carlingford Lough people, from January 1977. Still no charges have been preferred against them. Nothing can justify holding people on remand in this manner. Even the most draconian laws, even the emergency powers, could not envisage or justify this unwarranted interference with the freedom and liberty of a number of citizens of this country.
As the Minister said in reply to some of my questions, we have to leave it to him to do it his way. The interests of these people should be looked after, and the only way to do that is to see that they are released or charged. They should not be allowed to be held until by their treatment they are brought to a point where "confessions" are secured from them which, when put in evidence before the so-called courts in the Six Counties, are sufficient to justify putting them away for half a lifetime. The Minister must be alive to this aspect. He can only feel ashamed of doing nothing in such circumstances to rectify the situation after the passage of all this time.
On the question of Long Kesh I do not think there is any better way to describe the appalling conditions there at the moment, and which have existed without a break for the past two years and more, than to use the words of Archbishop Ó Fiaich who visited Long Kesh on Sunday, July 30 and issued a statement afterwards. Having spent the whole Sunday in the prison, he said he was shocked by the inhuman conditions prevailing in H Blocks 3, 4 and 5 where over 300 prisoners are now incarcerated. He said one would hardly allow an animal to remain in such conditions, let alone a human being. Nothing has changed since then except a deterioration in the conditions of the prisoners.
The archbishop also said that the nearest he could get in his effort to describe the appalling conditions in Long Kesh was to compare it with the spectacle of hundreds of homeless people living in sewer pipes in the slums in Calcutta. Those are his own words. Those are his impressions indelibly imprinted on his mind and indelibly imprinted in the publications which carried his report after 30 July. The stench and filth last July—and I am sure they are no less today because nothing has been done to remedy the situation——
I have indicated to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle that I was informed by the Ceann Comhairle's office that the only question being raised on the adjournment was the question of the H Blocks. I appreciate the Deputy has only dealt with that question so far. I had no notice that the other issues to which the Leas-Cheann Comhairle referred would be raised on the adjournment. There are three other issues. I have now got confirmation from my private secretary that the Ceann Comhairle understood only the question of the H Blocks would be raised on the adjournment. That is what was conveyed to me.
Before the Chair are four questions, Nos. 2,3,4 and 11.
I want to explain to the Deputy that I understood the other issues would not be raised. I appreciate that so far he has spoken about the H Blocks only. I do not want to take up his time.
I appreciate the difficulty.
Apparently the Ceann Comhairle gave some direction that only one matter should be discussed on this adjournment debate, the question of the treatment of prisoners in Long Kesh.
I will not run counter to that for the simple reason that what one has to say about Long Kesh is sufficient to be digested in any one evening without feeling sick. I appreciate that the Minister did not have notice of any question other than the question of the H Blocks. If it is clearly understood that only the subject matter of Question No. 2 on the Order Paper for 23 November is before the House, I presume Questions Nos. 3, 4 and 11 may be raised on the adjournment at a later date.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle.
I just want to know that I will not be debarred from raising them.
We are dealing with one question at the moment.
With regard to Long Kesh, the words I have used are not mine. They were in a statement by Archbishop Ó Fiaich after he spent the day there on 30 July last. He described the stench and filth in some of the cells. He described the remains of rotten food and human excreta scattered around the walls. He said it was unbearable to the point where he was almost unable to speak lest he might vomit.
In the face of that, how can the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who took responsibility for answering this question when it eventually reached the House, justify his inaction in not going to the greatest possible extremes diplomatically or through the Court of Human Rights? How can he ignore what has been said? How can he hope to hear anything more affirmative, more clear, more damaging, than the words in the Archbishop's statement? How can he possibly give the impression, against that background and much more, that he is almost afraid to condemn what he knows deserves to be condemned by any person with any humanity? How can he possibly appear to run away from this situation on the basis—quoting roughly what he said himself—that the real obstacles to doing something to relieve the terrible situation in Long Kesh are people outside who make propaganda out of the deplorable conditions in Long Kesh? This came through time and again in the various supplementary questions. The Minister has given this impression and if it is not a true impression it is only fair to everyone that he should get away from the impression, that what people are doing outside justifies the dreadful conditions and the inhuman treatment meted out to prisoners inside. The Minister talked about cynical people. There is nothing more cynical than to make the suggestion in this or any other Parliament that there is any justification for the treatment that I have indicated in the words of the Archbishop. The people inside, suffering under these conditions, are not responsible for the actions of the people outside. If there was no cause for this alleged propaganda it could not be made. If these conditions did not exist no matter how cynical was the approach of people outside, they would have no grounds for making that propaganda. It is only because of the conditions that the crying out to Heaven for vengeance, that there is a basis for propaganda. Propaganda, generally speaking is taken as something that has been dressed up to appear as what it is not. There is no propaganda and no publicity of the conditions in Long Kesh sufficiently clear to give anyone the fullest impression of the dreadful and horrible conditions that obtain in that hell hole. How can the Minister talk about propaganda when it is beyond the knowledge and wisdom of any human person who comes to realise what is going on in Long Kesh, to fully describe it in all its colour, cruelty and inhumanity, never mind talking about cynical persons using it for propaganda purposes.
I am not trying to perpetrate propaganda, I am trying to jog the Minister and the Government into a realisation of what they hold in custody in so far as the protection of any of our people anywhere are concerned, or indeed any human being that we can do anything about to relieve them of the tragedy that is being perpetrated in Long Kesh. The only comparison that our learned friend who visited Calcutta could conceive of as being capable of being parallel to the dreadful conditions in Long Kesh, were the sewer pipes of Calcutta.
The Minister should wipe from his mind what seems to be the in thing in 1978. In the years 1972, 1974 and 1976 so many public speakers were anxious to speak in defence of the defenceless who are being degraded in an inhuman way that one would not be able to stand up but it is no longer the in thing to do. That situation has been brought about not by the propaganda of the cynical people the Minister referred to but by the greatest propaganda machine that ever existed so far as we are concerned. God knows, we have suffered some propaganda from across the Channel for many generations, but the last few years has seen such a deluge of propaganda, of brain washing, that we now contribute to it. It is to be abhorred to speak of Long Kesh because a person might in some way be tainted with the suggestion that he sympathised with the ideals of the people in Long Kesh and those who support them. Is this not what it is all about? Is this not the cynicism which really exists in regard to Long Kesh, the prisoners and their inhuman treatment? We just cannot ignore the situation as we are doing. Surely, we cannot allow these weeks approaching Christmas to go by, perhaps with the unfortunate result that we may have some funerals emerging from the cells of Long Kesh. It is inconceivable. If I, by anything that I say, help to jerk the Government into some positive action, in time they will thank me for doing that rather than regard me as a nuisance for persisting in trying to bring this intolerable situation to light. The prisoners' cells there are without beds, chairs and tables and the prisoners have not reading except the bible. All periodicals, books and newspapers have been taken away.
The Deputy has one minute left.
These people are crying to Heaven for vengeance. I am not looking for vengeance; I just want the Minister to effectively get stuck into this situation and to relieve this dreadful tragedy that has been unfolded before our eyes before we begin to bury the evidence. What I say is not for cynical propaganda or for any purpose other than to relieve the position of these people who are being so dreadfully treated. The only recourse that I and others have is to our Minister and the Government to do something about this terrible blot on humanity, and it cannot be regarded as other than that. I again appeal to the Minister to do something about this before it is too late.
I accept that the Deputy, or any other Deputy's only recourse is to the Minister and the Government and I accept my own and the Government's obligation to ensure to the greatest possible extent that the matters of concern here are looked into. For one reason or another the Deputy does not seem to be aware that something has been done. I acknowledge that I did not have the opportunity to put all of this on the record on the last occasion. The Deputy mentioned, and I accept that it may be his clear impression, that as far as the physical conditions are concerned they are now as they were when Archbishop Ó Fiach made his statement in July. From the knowledge available to me. I can say that this is not quite correct. I say that on the basis of information from people whom I know both he and I would trust, and who have been in contact—one of them, the reverend gentleman to whom the Deputy referred on the last occasion, had not been in H Block since September but made his acknowledgment—the position had improved since Archbishop Ó Fiach's statement. Obviously he could not have personal information on that basis.
In reply to one of my communications with Mr. Mason on this matter, I received a letter from him indicating the new cleaning arrangements that had been introduced in the cells by way of special pressure water and steam cleaners which are used to clean at least the excrement off the walls, the ceilings and the floors. I do not know whether the Deputy was aware of that or whether he should have been aware of it. I may have mentioned it to him on the last occasion. Of course there are factors one would take into account to ensure that the conditions are the best possible and only because of some lack of understanding as to what we might not have been doing, as the Deputy seems to have suggested, do I feel obliged to say this now.
Let me assure the Deputy that any evidence in relation to this or other issues of ill-treatment of any prisoner will certainly be examined. There have been suggestions recently that there may be some further cause for concern and I want to assure the Deputy that, as soon as evidence is made available to me, I will pursue the matter. If there is any indication, there or here, that people are being mistrated by those in authority, then, as I said recently at a seminar on human rights, in my view, despite what may be done by others, if the agencies of any State abuse their powers in the context of H Blocks, or otherwise, then human rights are being undermined because the abuse is done with the authority of the State as distinct from individual organisations who have no concern for standards or human rights. They have their own insane ways and unfortunately we have to live or die with the consequences but those who act under the authority of the State have a different obligation and they should not be allowed to ignore it.
On any and every occasion on which complaints or evidence from a reliable source are brought to me I will pursue them at every appropriate level, as I said on the last occasion. What I meant by "every appropriate level" may not have been understood, but let me now clearly put it on record. It means Ministers to Secretary of State, where appropriate and where possible, and that has been more than once. It means Ambassador to Secretary of State; Ambassador to Ambassador; Minister to Ambassador. It means constant communication between my officials on this and other issues. That is the way in which these matters have been pursued.
I do not have authority for anything that happens in Northern Ireland, though the Deputy did say that all he was asking was that it be done. I think the Deputy knows that I do not have authority to do the things that may be necessary. I do not even have all the information. To the extent that I have reliable information, the more reliable the information the more I can do to help in trying to guarantee humanitarian conditions.
The Deputy referred to what was said last July. I have great respect for Archbishop Ó Fiaich because I have known him for a long time. When others have spoken—and I have some respect for some of them, such as Bishop Daly, who is a person of humanitarian concern as are some of the people who visited us in this House—they have been slandered by people who have, among other things, shot dead the Deputy Governor of Long Kesh before the eyes of his family. That has happened since the previous occasion on which Deputy Blaney referred to this matter. Irrespective of our feelings—and we must be concerned with proper prison conditions—it is proper to take into account that a wife and family are entitled to expect the life of the husband of that family to be secured for their sake. He, too, is entitled to that right. Even those who are concerned with fundamental rights in Northern Ireland—and there are many—have felt that that killing has made the job almost impossible for them.
The Deputy used the expression "alleged propaganda". I say without doubt that the Provisional IRA are using this for propaganda purposes. The Sinn Fein spokesmen of the so-called Republican movement are using this for propaganda purposes. Anyone who has an idea of what the essence of Republicanism means knows that anything they have been doing or saying shows that they do not have a notion of what true Republicanism means. They are propagandising the situation. They are making it difficult, if not impossible, as Bishop Daly has said, to——
Is the publication of the truth propaganda?
The publication of the truth, to the extent that we can get it, is not propaganda. If the Deputy has private information I would welcome it from him. The details that one would need to try to alleviate the conditions of any one prisoner are the details that I would respond to.
We have been in regular contact. We do get responses which, to the best of my knowledge and information, I act on. I cannot guarantee that all the information given to me is accurate. I want to assure the House that reliable information from a bona fide source which enables me to continue to pursue my interest in humanitarian interests in Northern Ireland will be welcomed and readily accepted.
The Dáil adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 12 December 1978.