asked the Minister for Justice if he will make a statement concerning the allegation contained in a newspaper report in The Irish Times, 22 February 1986 that relatives of a hunger striker (details supplied) first learned of his hunger strike 35 days after it had begun; and the normal procedure in such cases.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Hunger Strike Allegation.
7.
The general prison regulations specify that relatives should be informed when the condition of a prisoner on hunger strike "has assumed an aspect of danger". Because the circumstances of hunger strikes can vary substantially, there is not and cannot properly be a fixed procedure on the question of informing relatives at an earlier stage. Much can depend on the attitude of the prisoner and the degree of contact, if any, he may have with particular relatives or relatives in general.
In the case in question the relatives of the prisoner had become aware of the hunger strike well before his condition had become dangerous. The prison authorities had not contacted the prisoner's relatives earlier to inform them of the hunger strike. They were not asked to do so and they were well aware that it was at all times open to the prisoner himself to write to any of his relatives to the effect that he was on hunger strike but that he did not do so — despite that fact that, during the course of the hunger strike, he wrote to a number of people, one of them a Member of this House.
If a prisoner chooses not to communicate with his relatives, that is a matter for him. A review of a list of this prisoner's visitors while in Portlaoise showed that he had not apparently for some time, received visits from any of his relatives.
In this context, I should mention specifically a sister of the prisoner who is referred to in the newspaper report to which the question relates and who, in another newspaper report, was reported as claiming that my Department had issued an incorrect Christian name to conceal the hunger strike.
I should make it clear that the woman in question is not the next-of-kin specified by the prisoner to the authorities as the person to whom any important urgent communication should be sent and, in fact, there is no record of her ever having visited her brother while he was in Portlaoise. Her reported claim about my Department issuing an incorrect name is untrue. My Department gave the correct name and had no responsibility for the fact that one particular newspaper used and continued to use an incorrect name, one only; the others got it right.
There has also been some criticism during the course of this hunger strike to the effect that my Department should have issued a public statement about it at an earlier stage. I cannot accept that criticism as valid. If a hunger strike takes place, that fact is not and cannot be kept secret — it is known about within days by scores of people. But it is no part of the business of the prison authorities to encourage publicity about it, and in most cases, such publicity simply adds to the likelihood of the hunger strike continuing.
The fact that a prisoner was on hunger strike was confirmed through a written Dáil question and answer on 30 January last. The Deputy who put down the question was aware of the prisoner's name but, of course, was perfectly entitled not to put it on the records of the House. Some time afterwards when my Department were asked to confirm details of the hunger strike to a particular newspaper, this was done.
The question asks the Minister only, in relation to the allegations made, what exactly is the position; apparently in accordance with the details supplied in the newspaper report the relatives of the hunger striker first learned 35 days after the hunger strike had begun. What is the normal procedure? I gather what the Minister has said is that when danger to the health of the prisoner arises, that is the stage at which the relatives would be informed — that they might learn otherwise — but by that stage an obligation to inform the relatives would be recognised. What stage would that be? Obviously that is a very open question. On humanitarian grounds would the Minister let us know when that stage might be, say, in terms of a 35 or 40 day period? Would it be roughly after a week, or does it mean that one has to be almost in extremis before one's relatives would be informed? What is the normal practice in that respect?
As I pointed out at the beginning of my reply, the general prison regulations specify that relatives should be informed, that is, without any specific request by the prisoner, when the condition of a prisoner on hunger strike — and again I quote —"has assumed an aspect of danger". That is a matter for judgment in each case. As I have pointed out also, there is nothing to prevent a prisoner himself from informing relatives. The person in question wrote a number of letters——
I am not so much concerned with the prisoner himself as with the State's obligation. That is what the question is about.
I am trying to be as informative as possible to the House, which is the reason for the rather lengthy reply. I am endeavouring to answer the specific question Deputy Woods put to me. In the case in point the hunger strike was known about outside of the prison within a relatively short time and before the case has assumed an aspect of danger in the view of the prison authorities on medical advice. It was open to the prisoner himself to inform his relatives, or anybody else he wanted at any point during the hunger strike. During the course of the hunger strike he wrote to a number of people, not including his relatives.
Would the Minister confirm that there was no attempt at concealment of the hunger strike in the course of this case?
Yes.
Would the Minister not agree that any hunger strike is a very serious matter in that it involves the health and possibly the life of the prisoner in question? If that is the case would he not accept that, in this instance, there was failure on the part of the Minister's Department to treat this matter with the degree of seriousness it warranted in so far as not only were the relatives not informed — though I accept much of what the Minister has said on that aspect — but that the hunger strike was permitted to go on to the 43rd day, to the best of my knowledge, on issues which could very easily have been sorted out by any departmental official treating the matter—
That is a separate question which does not arise on this one.
The question refers to the length of time of the hunger strike. The hunger strike related to very simple requests on the part of this prisoner.
The substance of the question is about giving notice to the man's relatives; that is clear.
I accept that, a Cheann Comhairle, but I have to say that the point I am making is that I feel that the Department did not treat this matter seriously in so far as, on the one hand, they did not inform the relatives and on the other hand, they allowed a situation to develop to a very dangerous stage on two issues which could have been resolved in a simple way.
I cannot allow a discussion on all aspects of the matter on this question which is confined to notification of relatives.
I have to repeat that I am referring to the question Deputy Woods asked, which is the failure——
The Chair is satisfied that the Deputy is enlarging the question much beyond its scope as it appears on the Order Paper.
I can, of course, agree with Deputy Gregory that any hunger strike is serious. I cannot at all agree with his allegation that my Department did not treat this matter seriously. It was taken very seriously. I do not intend to go into the rest of the issues Deputy Gregory raises except to say that there is food for thought in them, in the other direction also. I have already dealt with the question of information to the relatives.
As it is now 3.30 p.m. I am moving to questions nominated for priority.
On a point of order, might I register a protest that Question Time in this House for backbenchers is becoming an irrelevance when we see that after one hour we have got through about seven questions. Backbenchers submit questions, then must go through a draw arrangement and more often than not their questions are not drawn. If we are to be realistic and have an orderly conduct of the affairs of the House it must be open to back benchers to have their questions taken. Something will have to be done about this and I ask the Chair for his agreement on that.
I know that the Deputy does not intend to give the Chair a lecture and, indeed, if he did such a lecture would not be justified because the Chair daily appeals to Members and, in some cases Ministers, to make their questions, and answers, short and not to get into discussions or debates at Question Time, which are not in order. I should like to suggest to Deputy Taylor, one of the Whips, that he bring this matter up at a meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. The weight of an expression of opinion by that committee would assist me in doing what I want to do, to make reasonable progress at Question Time.
I will certainly take the matter up with my own Deputies but, as the Chair has seen, my own Deputies were very well behaved today.
(Dublin North-West): I should like to support Deputy Taylor's protest. This is the second occasion a question I have had down was not reached. The Chair is chairman of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and I appeal to him to have some type of order brought into this matter. A Deputy should be permitted to ask a supplementary question only on the question he has on the Order Paper. The whole thing has got out of order and Question Time is meaningless.
Deputy Barrett often acts as assistant Whip of his party and Deputy Taylor is the Whip of his party and I should like to ask both of them to take this matter up at party meetings and get co-operation for the Chair. If I get co-operation we will make progress. We cannot waste any more time on this.
I should like to ask the Chair to permit me to say a word about this. I am inclined, as the Chair is aware, to give rather full answers to questions trying to anticipate supplementaries that may be asked so that we will not have to go through the bother of supplementaries. Deputies who feel aggrieved, as I know some of them do, should co-operate with their colleagues to prevent them asking the same supplementary three times round. Incidentally, we have got through 11 questions today because I took a number of them together.
I remember the time — it was not yesterday or the day before — when 38 or 40 questions were dealt with daily and the Order Paper was cleared every day.