asked the Taoiseach if he will state the circumstances in which it was decided to employ the powers contained in Part II of the Offences Against the State Act; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Private Notice Questions : - Government Statement.
asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the circumstances which led to the Government's announcement last Friday on the possible reintroduction of internment without trial; if he will indicate why the Government's statement was not made in the Dáil in the first instance; whether he has taken into account the repercussions of the Government's statement on the northern situation; and if he will name the illegal organisation, or organisations, engaged in the secret armed conspiracy referred to in the statement.
asked the Taoiseach if he will give details of the information that he received from the Garda authorities that warranted the announcement by him of his intention to bring into operation Part II of the Offences Against the State Act.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take the three Private Notice Questions together.
Let it be perfectly clear at the outset that the Government have interned nobody. The statement issued by the Government on Friday last did not say that the Government had decided to introduce Part II of the Offences Against the State Act, 1940, or to use powers of internment. The statement, the text of which, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, will be included in the Official Report, referred to the gravity of the situation that had arisen and went on to say that, unless the Government become satisfied that the threat is removed, internment will be introduced. The purpose of the statement was not to give advance notice of a decision to use internment but, on the contrary, to ensure that, by removing any doubt as to the Government's determination to act, those concerned would have a final opportunity of drawing back and thereby obviating the need for internment. The Government hope that the statement will have that effect.
After the fullest consideration and the strictest possible examination the Government believe that the reports from the Garda are absolutely reliable. Details of these reports will not be given. If the information available could be used as a basis for criminal prosecutions, such prosecutions would be brought. As matters stand the information cannot be so used because:—
(a) the persons giving the information cannot be compelled to come forward and give evidence since so to compel them would expose them to grave personal danger. The courts have always recognised the privilege of a witness to refuse to give evidence which would expose him or his informant to the risk of such danger;
(b) the evidence of these persons could not of course be given otherwise than by themselves directly, under the law of evidence in this country. It could not be given in court by members of the Garda who received it.
To give details of such information in the Dáil would be gravely improper for the following reasons :—
(a) to give details of information or any information which might identify source would be open to the same objections of exposing persons to grave personal danger which the courts would hold to warrant privilege.
(b) to name or identify a person as a suspect for an offence would be likely to be held to prejudice the fair trial of such a person should evidence become available subsequently which would warrant his being charged and could be presented in court.
(c) To give details in the Dáil would prejudice the work of the security forces of the State and achieve no desirable end.
I might add that the European Convention on Human Rights clearly acknowledge the right of a State to arrest a person suspected of being about to commit a crime and bring him before a competent legal authority with a view to detention in order to prevent the committing of crime. We do not have such legislation and I am advised that it would be contrary to our Constitution.
The only course open to the Government in the circumstances in order to ensure safety of life and property was therefore to adopt the course we did. To fail to take action in the light of the reports received would have been a dereliction of duty.
While there is no obligation on the Government to make in the Dáil a statement such as that referred to in the questions, it was hoped to do so last Thursday but this did not prove possible because of the need to give the matter careful and extended consideration and to take appropriate action quickly.
The Government considered all the repercussions, north and south, that might flow from the warning given. The Government have set their face against violence either north or south and have made this clear on every suitable occasion. The warning should have no repercussions in terms of similar action in the north as it is directed against a specific plot here. I would take this opportunity once again of stating the Government's abhorrence of violence in any part of this country and of their intention to confront it. Those who would engage in violence against the stated views of the Government will be responsible themselves for the consequences.
Here I wish to state unequivocally that neither the Government nor any member of it had any consultations whatever with any other government or with members of any other government on the subject matter of last Friday's statement prior to or since its issue.
The Fianna Fáil Government got a mandate from the people of Ireland in June, 1969, to pursue their progressive policy of economic, social and cultural development and for the peaceful reunification of our country. We do not intend to put these objectives into jeopardy. Neither do we intend to allow the trust reposed in the Government to be delegated to or arrogated by any minority group who think they have the right to take the law into their own hands and to act without respect for life or property. While the voices of such people may be heard in the outcry against the Government's warning a certain amount of responsible reaction is understandable as the possibility of internment is not a pleasant prospect but the Government's statement was made only after deep and mature consideration. We were conscious, on the other hand, that it would provide an opportunity for some militant groups to raise their voices in support of civil rights and against the Government for, as they allege, suppressing those rights. But what is conveniently forgotten by such groups is that they themselves are the cause of the Government having to contemplate taking action of this nature. The Government intend to protect and defend the lawful rights and liberty of our people no matter how unpopular we may become in doing so. This is the least that any government worthy of the name can do.
Following is the statement:—
The Garda authorities have informed the Government that reliable information has come into their possession to the effect that a secret armed conspiracy exists in the country to kidnap one or more prominent persons. Connected with this conspiracy are plans to carry out armed bank robberies which the police believe may well involve murders or attempted murders.
The Government view with deep gravity the situation arising from this information which has been carefully checked. They have given the fullest consideration to the problems that this gives rise to and they have decided that, unless they become satisfied that this threat is removed, they will bring into operation, without further notice, Part II of the Offences Against the State Act, 1940, which provides for internment.
The Government have given instructions that places of detention be prepared immediately and the Secretary-General, Council of Europe, is now being informed of the Government's proposals as these proposals will involve derogation from certain provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights.
This is a serious situation. The Government trust that those who are most directly involved will appreciate just how serious it is and just how determined the Government are to take effective action when they have already gone to the stage of informing the Council of Europe that derogation from an international Convention is in prospect notwithstanding the gravity of that step.
Arising out of the Taoiseach's reply and in view of the gravity of the matter referred to in the announcement of Friday last and in the statement made today by the Taoiseach, would he consider affording time for discussion of the position? I should make it clear to the House that, since the establishment of the State, this party have been opposed strenuously to crime of any sort, including crimes described as political activities. No one can expect support from me for illegal activities in any form. At the same time, can the Taoiseach inform the House if the ordinary courts have been found inadequate to deal with the situation and, if so, can he give instances; and secondly, if in those circumstances, it was decided to give advance notice of the intention to reintroduce Part II of the Offences Against the State Act?
While the Taoiseach talks in his reply about a specific plot and, I assume, particular people, does he not realise that if Part II of the Offences against the State Act of 1940 is brought in by regulation, it can be applied to any single citizen of this State? The Taoiseach may have an intention in regard to a certain group which he regards as illegal, but is it not a fact that if any Minister, without consultation with the Taoiseach or the Government or any of his colleagues, takes it into his head to sign a warrant, this can be applied to a farmer, a shopkeeper or a trade unionist?
In regard to Deputy Cosgrave's supplementary question, I appreciate his concern for the maintenance of law and order and I assure the House that I share it with him. As for the giving of time to debate this matter, the time available to the House between now and the Christmas Recess will be barely sufficient, if it will be sufficient, to enact the necessary legislation which is at present before the House.
Will there not be an Adjournment Debate?
On a point of order, I have a motion down about this.
That is not a point of order, I hope. As for the ordinary process of law, I think the House will be aware that when it comes to plots of this nature there is great difficulty in producing evidence and I have indicated already we do not have the means whereby persons can be brought before a legal authority with a view to detention for the purposes of avoiding the committing of a crime. The Government's statement of last Friday was directed specifically against people who have these acts in contemplation, for the purpose of avoiding these acts and therefore avoiding the necessity to introduce Part II of the Offences Against the State Act. The statements in some newspapers about a more widespread application of that part of the Offences Against the State Act are purely speculation and completely unfounded.
Would the Taoiseach say whether there is a shadow of suspicion or definite evidence about this plot?
We have it on the very best evidence available through the senior Garda authorities that there is such a plot, and I want to say that if the Government failed to act on that information and advice then we would be clearly in dereliction of our duty.
Would the Taoiseach say why quasi-armed parades were allowed to take place in a number of instances; what action, if any, was taken by the gardaí; what directions the gardaí sought and what directions were given to the gardaí by the Government in relation to these matters?
The Garda Síochána have been informed at all times by the Government to carry out their duties and the Government will support them in doing that. There have been recent incidents where, on investigation the type of evidence required to bring a successful prosecution was not available.
May I ask the Taoiseach when this information came into his possession? Was it just immediately before he announced it or was it some weeks before? Secondly, would he not agree it is very wrong for us to talk about human rights when we are trying to deprive people of them here?
There is nobody being denied human rights. If people want to take up arms to perpetrate crime in this country then they will have legitimate fear as to their personal liberty, but not otherwise.
The Taoiseach did not answer my question as to when he got his information.
Some days before. I cannot say exactly when but it was being carefully examined in the meantime, the specific information on which we acted.
Was it some days before the election?
(Interruptions.)
I did not quite hear what the Taoiseach said.
The specific information on which we acted was given some days before and in subsequent days, right up to the time we took the action——
It is very important to hear exactly what the Taoiseach says.
Will the Taoiseach accept that this matter has caused the gravest possible concern to people outside this House whom this House represents, that it is a matter of the utmost relevance to the functioning of our democracy and to the functioning of this House? In these circumstances may I make the very sincere appeal and suggestion to the Taoiseach that this House, if it is to function at all, should debate this matter fully? The Taoiseach has mentioned the business before the House, but there is nothing more important to this House than the proper functioning of this State and of our democracy and I would urge therefore that time should be made available for a debate.
May I ask the Taoiseach why he has refused to use the privilege of this House to name the persons or organisations allegedly responsible for plotting armed conspiracy in this State? Why, if as he has suggested, the best evidence is available, such persons have not been named by him and why such persons have not been involved in the normal processes of the law, and why he should adopt such an ambiguous attitude to a public debate on this matter?
I have already indicated that I cannot give any more information than I have done and for the reasons I have stated. I think it is well known that our legal system as operated in normal conditions is based on the requirement that the prosecution must discharge strictly the onus of proving beyond reasonable doubt that an offence has been committed under the ordinary rules of evidence, and the rules of evidence in this country are more strict than those in many other countries in this respect.
Long may it last.
If that is so, can the Taoiseach say why a person who was convicted recently and sentenced was recently released, and is he aware that in another case a person was released because of a defective warrant, both of these people being involved in the organisation of which the Taoiseach is aware?
I cannot dictate to the courts the course of action they will take.
The Minister for Justice did it.
In any event, that is a specific question of which I should like to get notice.
(Cavan): Will the Taoiseach concede that the provisions of Part II of the Offences Against the State Act were made available to the Government to be used in exceptional and extreme circumstances, as a last resort and when the ordinary machinery for enforcing law and order had broken down? If the Taoiseach concedes that, will he indicate to the House in what instances and in what respects it was attempted to deal with the situation by the ordinary machinery available for that purpose and in what respect that machinery broke down?
I have allowed nine supplementaries. The matter cannot be debated all day.
In reply to the suggestion that special time be given to debate this motion——
Is the Taoiseach able to state the approximate number of people involved in the plot? Is one group involved or are a number of groups involved?
I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
Will the Taoiseach agree that this country has one of the finest and most efficient police forces in the world?
Will the Deputy please resume his seat?
Will this not affect the morale of the Garda?
It is a matter for the Chair to decide the number of supplementaries it will allow. Will the Deputy resume his seat and allow business to continue?
I want a reply. I have not asked a supplementary.
If the Deputy has any respect, will he resume his seat?
Mr. J. Lenehan
Give the Deputy a match box and tell him to get into it.
(Interruptions.)
(Cavan): The Chair has allowed me to ask a supplementary question and with all due respect the Chair did not give the Taoiseach an opportunity to reply to that supplementary question.
It got lost amongst all the others. Will the Deputy repeat it?
(Cavan): Will the Taoiseach concede that these powers were made available to the Government to be used in exceptional circumstances when the ordinary machinery had broken down? If he concedes that, will he point out when and in what respect the ordinary machinery for enforcing law and order, such as the Garda Síochána and the courts, has broken down?
I have indicated the difficulty, first of all, of procuring legal evidence that would justify the bringing in of a prosecution in cases like this. The Deputy will appreciate that as well as I do. It is because of that difficulty we took what action we thought necessary in the circumstances. We did not want to wait until some person was kidnapped and perhaps subjected to danger because it would then have been too late. We do not want to see that happening in this country. Already some of the militant organisations have said they do not propose to carry out kidnappings or the other matters to which I have referred and if this is evidence of the success of the Government's warning I welcome it.
(Cavan): My difficulty is——
We cannot have a speech on this. The Deputy is monopolising this matter. I shall allow a final supplementary from Deputy O'Connell.
On a point of order, the Chair refused me the right to ask a supplementary question, but the Chair is now calling on someone else to ask a supplementary question. The Chair is being most unfair.
Deputy O'Connell asked one of the questions.
Is the Taoiseach not aware that an ex-Minister stated that members of the Special Branch were dreaming up plots to justify their existence? What comment will he make about that?
My comment is that the Government have information from senior, responsible members of the Garda Síochána on which we felt it our duty to act. If we had not done so we would be in dereliction of our duty. We would have failed in our duty to the people of this country and their safety.
Why was the matter not brought before the courts?
Will the Taoiseach give time for a debate?
I cannot give any more information than I have already given.
(Interruptions.)
Deputies seem to forget that no one has been interned yet.
(Interruptions.)
We hope that as a result of the warning given it will not be necessary to invoke Part II of the Offences Against the State Act.
The House has a right to debate a matter as serious as this.
Will Deputy Blaney be the first man in the glasshouse?
Will the Taoiseach give time for a debate?
I cannot give the House any more information than I have already given.
Can we have a debate on it?
Can we have a debate on it so that we can express our views?
I am calling the next business.
The Taoiseach has panicked again. They will be locked up and they will die on hunger strike.
Can we have time for a debate? The Taoiseach has not answered my question.
I have answered that question already.
The Taoiseach has said he has no more information to give the House. We want time to express our views. Will the Taoiseach give time for a debate?
Will the Deputy resume his seat and allow business to continue?
Are we going to get an answer?
Are we going to get an answer?
On a point of order——
There can be no point of order at this stage.
On a point of order——
The Deputy had better sit down before he is interned.
(Interruptions.)
The reason I am rising is because I want to know why I am not allowed to put down a Private Notice Question about the dismissal of 278 workers.
The Deputy may not discuss the matter. The Chair has informed the Deputy of its decision. The Deputy may not get up in this disorderly fashion and debate something which he wants to debate. Will the Deputy please resume his seat?
On a point of order, in this particular case 278 people are going to lose their jobs and I demand a reply from the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
(Interruptions.)
I feel the Chair has treated me very shabbily.