asked the Minister for Justice whether prosecutions referred to by him in his reply to Question No. 13 on March 31st, 1949, were instituted upon information obtained from a person who had himself been previously charged with, or convicted either of breaches of the petrol rationing Orders or other offences; and, if so, to state the offences involved and, in each case, the finding of the court in regard thereto and the penalty inflicted therefor.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Petrol Rationing Orders—Prosecutions.
The man who furnished the information which led to these prosecutions was charged on two occasions with offences.
On 26th September, 1946, he and the firm by whom he was employed were charged with knowingly furnishing false information for the purpose of obtaining petrol coupons. The firm was fined £10. The charges against the man in question were dismissed under the Probation of Offenders Act.
On 28th April, 1947, he was charged under Article 12 of Emergency Powers (Motor Spirit Rationing) Order, 1941, (Amendment) (No. 3) Order, 1941, with having in his possession documents so closely resembling petrol coupons as to be calculated to deceive. He was convicted and a fine of £5 was imposed.
Am I correct in asserting that the information upon which the Minister for External Affairs based his allegations on the 2nd January, 1948, was procured from a man who was a forger?
And who, subsequently, when giving evidence before the court, was accepted, and a conviction was secured on his evidence.
He was convicted of forgery—a convicted forger.
A point of order, arising out of Deputy MacEntee's statement. Is it in order for Deputy MacEntee to say the man was a forger when, in fact, on the information disclosed, he was not convicted of forgery?
Having forged documents.
He was not convicted at all.
Was he not convicted and fined £5?
That is a misrepresentation.
He was not convicted of forgery.
Of having forged documents.
In reply to the point of order, it is not proper in this House to label a man with an offence of which he was not convicted. That is a general observation, applying to this and other like accusations.
The public outside know the facts.
Should not the Deputy now withdraw his statement?
I am afraid things like that have often been said, and it is to be hoped that they do not recur.
They have often been said by that Deputy.
I ask the Deputy to withdraw his statement with reference to the Minister for External Affairs.
Was not the man convicted several times? Did not the Minister know that when he took his word?
The Minister for External Affairs did not base his information on evidence supplied by a forger. That statement was made by Deputy MacEntee. It is untrue, and he should withdraw it.
asked the Minister for Justice to state (i) the date on which the papers relating to alleged breaches of petrol rationing Orders by a member of the Oireachtas and by a person holding a public appointment were submitted to the Attorney-General; (ii) the date or dates on which the Attorney-General gave his decision as to whether or not a prosecution against any one or both of the persons referred to should be instituted; (iii) whether any such prosecution was in fact brought; and (iv) the terms of the Attorney-General's decision in each case.
(i) The papers were referred to the Attorney-General by the Chief State Solicitor on 2nd March, 1948, for consideration and directions as to prosecutions.
(ii) The Attorney-General gave his decision on 22nd March, 1948.
(iii) No prosecution was brought against the two persons referred to.
(iv) It is not the practice to disclose the advice received by the Attorney-General or the reason for his decision in relation to criminal prosecutions. I do not propose to depart from this practice unless the Deputy satisfies me that he has the authority of the persons concerned for asking for this information. If the Deputy has or obtains such authority and repeats his question I shall give him a full and comprehensive answer.
Will the Minister say if I am correct in asserting that there was avoidable delay in placing these papers in the hands of the Attorney-General?
That does not arise.
Mr. Boland
In case it does, I am anxious——
That is an allegation against the police again.
It is an allegation against the Minister's predecessor.
It is moral assassination. It is an allegation against the police.
Which will be persisted in.
Moral assassination.
Is it not a fact that, notwithstanding the answer which the Minister has given me to part 4 of the question, he himself in the House disclosed the terms of the Attorney-General's decision?
No. Do you want the full facts?
I have asked the Minister a supplementary question.
Do you want the full facts?
Or are you running away from it?
If there is time given for a discussion——
If you want to know the facts you know where to get them.
Some Deputies will deprive themselves of participating in the debate if they are not careful.
The Ceann Comhairle should not look at this side of the House. May I draw attention to the fact that no Deputy on this side can rise to ask a supplementary question without several Ministers interrupting?
I have not got a reply to my supplementary question.
asked the Minister for Justice whether the officer of the Department of Industry and Commerce who, according to his reply to Question No. 10 on March 31st last, had fallen under suspicion in relation to breaches of rationing Orders was in any way involved in the specific prosecutions for breaches of the petrol rationing Orders which were referred to in his reply to Question No. 13 on the same date.
The investigations did not reveal that this officer was in any way involved in the offences referred to.
Will the Minister say why he suggested, in the discussions which have taken place on this matter in the Dáil, that he was?
I did not say any such thing, but I put that in as one of the reasons why there was no report from him of his investigations. There is a report from the officer appointed by the Office of Public Works.