asked the Minister for Justice whether his attention has been drawn to a reported press conference given by the Chief of Staff of the IRA in Dublin on 6th July, 1970; whether he has investigated the matter; and if he will make a statement.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - IRA Press Conference.
36.
I have seen the newspaper reports to which, no doubt, the question relates.
The Deputy will appreciate that newspaper reports do not of themselves constitute legally admissible evidence except against the publishers and others involved in the publication.
The form that the reports take, both in relation to the persons who are alleged to have made certain statements and in relation to the newspapers which published these statements and associated material, are being studied and, because of the legal implications involved, I do not feel free to make any comment.
Surely the Minister is aware that this meeting did, in fact, take place and that since then there has been an increased incidence of the activities of subversive elements on the streets of this country? Further, will the Minister not agree that Dáil Éireann is, or at least should be, the supreme authority; that all authority should come from the Dáil and that in this Dáil all basic national decisions should be made? Can the Minister say what action the Government intend to take, even at this late stage, against the subversive elements which have been so active in our community for the past few years and which seem to go unhindered by the law?
As I informed the Deputy, the reports in question are being studied but, because of the legal implications involved, I do not wish to make any comment at this stage.
Will the Minister admit that, on the Monday after the Bodenstown ceremonies, there appeared a report of a particular gentleman in Cork inviting money for the purchase of arms?
The question relates to a specific case and we cannot discuss any other case on this question.
Surely the Minister will agree that members of this body have appeared on television carrying arms; that the people concerned are well known and that, when the files were sent to the police, no action was taken?
I have been seeking advice regarding the legal implications of this matter and certain other matters which are similar to it. When I receive that advice I will be in a position to comment further.
May we take it that the Minister, as Minister for Justice, will do what other Ministers for Justice have not done over the past few years, that he will do his duty?
That does not arise.
It is not the function of the Minister for Justice to introduce prosecutions, if that is what the Deputy has in mind.
I am calling Question No. 37.
Surely the Minister will agree it is not the duty of a Minister for Justice to stop prosecutions as other people have done in the past when certain thugs appeared dressed in green supposedly looking after the national interests?
The question relates to a press conference.
Does the Minister's reply suggest there is legal doubt on this point and that there is uncertainty as to whether it may be perfectly legal for an illegal organisation to give a press conference in this way?
I am not suggesting that. I sought advice on the question of what steps can be taken as a result of some matters which appear to have happened. As the Deputy will note from my original reply newspaper reports do not of themselves constitute legally admissible evidence except against the publishers and others involved in the publication.
Will the Minister not admit it is a well-known fact there is more than one army in this country?
The question relates to a press conference.
The Constitution states that there can be only one army.
The question relates to a press conference.
It purports to come from another army.
That does not arise on Question No. 36.
The Constitution states there can be only one army in this country.