asked the Minister for External Affairs whether he has been advised that the bringing into operation of certain sections of the Offences Against the State Acts constitutes a violation of Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; and whether there has been any communication with the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe under Article 15 of the Convention, and, if so, if he will state the terms of such communication.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Offences Against the State Acts.
I have not been advised that the bringing into operation of certain sections of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act, 1940, constitutes a violation of Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. However, lest it might be thought that any of the provisions of the Act were in conflict with Article 5, the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe was informed by letter dated 20th July last of the bringing into force of Part II of the Act.
The notice is in the following terms:—
"I have the honour to inform you that Part II of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act, 1940, was brought into force on the 8th July, 1957, when a proclamation made by the Government of Ireland on the 5th July, 1957, under Section 3 of the Act was published in the Iris Oifigiúil, the official gazette. A copy of the proclamation, together with a copy of the Act, is attached to this letter.
2. In so far as the bringing into operation of Part II of the Act, which confers special powers of arrest and detention, may involve any derogation from the obligations imposed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, I have the honour to request you to be good enough to regard this letter as informing you accordingly, in compliance with Article 15 (3) of the Convention.
3. The detention of persons under the Act is considered necessary to prevent the commission of offences against public peace and order and to prevent the maintaining of military or armed forces other than those authorised by the Constitution.
4. I have the honour also to invite your attention to Section 8 of the Act, which provides for the establishment by the Government of Ireland of a commission to inquire into the grounds of detention of any person who applies to have his detention investigated. The commission envisaged by the section was established on the 16th July, 1957."
Am I to understand that the Minister has been advised that the Offences Against the State Acts do not involve a derogation of human rights?
Yes.
Is the Minister aware that the Standing Committee of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe reported to the Council of Europe that the letter which the Minister has just read out, dated 20th July last, was in fact a letter announcing that there had been a derogation by the Government of Ireland from the Convention?
As the Deputy is aware, submissions are at the present time being made to the Supreme Court concerning this Convention. I think it would be altogether undesirable at this time to expand on what I have said on this matter.
Would the Minister state whether the Secretary-General was informed that the step taken by the Government of the Irish Republic was an instrument of derogation or was it merely a notification that Part II of the Offences Against the State Acts was brought into operation?
I have read the letter in full to the Deputy and he can study it.
Is it a fact that the British Government lodged an instrument of derogation in so far as the Six Counties is concerned and in so far as Algeria and Cyprus are concerned? Is it a fact that the Irish Government have merely notified the Secretary-General that they propose to put into operation circumstances similar to those which now obtain in the Six Counties, and hope to get away with it because they do not formally lodge an instrument of derogation?
The Deputy will appreciate that I cannot discuss this matter under present circumstances. I should be very glad if the Deputy would raise it at a more appropriate time.
Would the Minister say whether the Government regards a public emergency threatening the life of the nation as existing at the present time or at the time Part II of the Offences Against the State Acts was brought into operation?
In present circumstances, I do not propose to add to what I have already said.
Would the Minister say what circumstances would stop his replying?
The Deputy must be aware, as everybody else in the country who reads the papers is aware, that submissions are presently being made to the Supreme Court about this Convention. I do not think it is desirable to have a debate on the matter in this House at present.
I am not asking for a debate. I am asking a supplementary question, that is, whether the Government considered a public emergency was threatening the life of this nation and existing at the time when Part II of the Offences Against the State Acts was brought into operation?
Will the Minister say, if the matter which is at present before the court is regarded as being so important as to stop its discussion here, why the Attorney-General is not allowed to go to the Supreme Court to deal with the matter in the most effective way?
The Deputy knows that the Attorney-General decides his own policy in these matters.
He was represented.
Are we to understand that it was not a decision by the Government that the Attorney-General would not appear at the Supreme Court?
The Attorney-General is represented. He is represented by the same counsel as represented Commandant O'Sullivan.
How was it that it was not found out until yesterday that he was not represented?
You want to make as much trouble as you can.
You made a lot in your day.