Are we waiting for the Minister for motion No. 11?
Private Members' Business. - Convention on Human Rights: Internment of Persons Without Charge or Trial—Motion.
The following motion appeared on the Order Paper:—
That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that the internment of persons with out charge or trial, in existing circumstances, is contrary to the spirit of the Convention on Human Rights which was ratified by this country, and calls upon the Government to adhere to the full terms of the convention by discontinuing the internment of persons without charge or trial.
Has the Minister gone out and got hidden behind the Wall of China?
It is conventional, Sir, to wait a few seconds, but we have been waiting rather a long time.
Why does I Deputy Kyne not move his motion?
It is customary to wait until the Chair calls it.
It is customary also for Ministers to have the courtesy to be within reasonable call when their motion is next on the Order Paper.
We are all delighted to have the Parliamentary Secretary here.
If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance will undertake to speak on this motion, I am sure Deputy Kyne will be satisfied.
Is that the fear the Deputy has in not moving it—that I might speak?
No, but if we get an undertaking from the Parliamentary Secretary that he will speak, I am sure the Deputy will be quite happy.
Deputy Kyne does not like to move his motion in the absence of the spokesman for the Government. If the Parliamentary Secretary is to be the spokesman that is a different story.
I want to make it clear that this is not an attempt at a defence or an approval of the actions of anyone in this country who decides to invoke——
The Minister has been found.
On a point of order. I have been consulting with the Ceann Comhairle and I heard only a short time ago that he had decided that this motion was in order for discussion here. The Convention on Human Rights was ratified by this country and this motion calls upon the Government to adhere to the full terms of the convention by discontinuing the internment of persons without charge or trial. The case is now before the Commission on Human Rights. This State has been represented at the hearing of the case of one of these internees and has argued in a manner which I think will carry conviction to the Commission on Human Rights and to the Court of Human Rights. If it is decided that the State has not acted in a manner contrary to the spirit of the Convention on Human Rights——
Is this a point of order?
This is an argument.
The Minister is putting forward a point of order.
It is not a point of order. In any case the Ceann Comhairle has ruled that the motion is in order.
In the case of the domestic courts recognised by this Oireachtas, it has been the practice not to allow discussion on cases of which those courts are seized and, according to that precedent, this Commission on Human Rights and the Court on Human Rights, which are recognised by this Oireachtas by virtue of its acceptance and ratification of the Convention on Human Rights, are on all fours with the Irish courts. I would appeal to the members of the Labour Party who have put down this motion, which I did not think for a moment the Ceann Comhairle would accept, to postpone this discussion. I am not trying to curtail any of their rights if the Ceann Comhairle decides that the matter should be discussed, but I think it is important enough to ask the Labour Party to postpone discussion until the question of its appropriateness for discussion is fully threshed out with the Ceann Comhairle.
The Minister, before he made certain statements, should have waited for the decision of the Commission on Human Rights in the Council of Europe. If I heard him correctly he said that as far as he was concerned he did not believe that the Government had contravened the Convention on Human Rights. If that is his considered view and he states it in Dáil Éireann, surely Deputy Kyne and the rest of us are entitled to make arguments against his view?
I made that statement simply because there is a statement to the contrary in this motion on the Order Paper. I do not think it would be doing the Dáil any good to have this discussion until we can finally thresh it out with the Ceann Comhairle.
Is it not correct to say that the Minister conveyed these views to the Ceann Comhairle this day?
Just now. Since this debate started, I have been speaking to him.
I accept the Minister's word but I have been informed by the secretary to his Party that views similar to his, purporting to be his, were conveyed to the Ceann Comhairle this afternoon at about 5 p.m.
It is a fact that I did, when I heard——
I was further informed by the Ceann Comhairle's secretary that the Ceann Comhairle had ruled that the motion was in order, was not sub judice, because it was not before any court in this country at present and that the courts of this country were the terms on which he would consider the question of its being sub judice or not. In view of that, I was quite prepared and the Labour Party were quite prepared to accept the Ceann Comhairle's ruling as, naturally, we would have to. In view of the fact that the ruling has been that our motion is in order, we have no option but to go on with our motion.
Might I make this suggestion? The Minister says now he has discussed this matter with the Ceann Comhairle and he has come in here now and asked the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to rule. We shall be satisfied if the Ceann Comhairle comes here now and decides one way or another. It is not the function of the Labour Party to embarrass the Minister or the Government on this. We merely want to discuss it logically and coolly.
This is something new. The constitution of European institutions is developing. We have recently accepted this Convention on Human Rights. I think we should have a detailed discussion with the Ceann Comhairle before this matter is finally decided.
On a point of order. Is it not a fact that, when this matter came up first, the Government notified the Convention on Human Rights that they were taking certain steps in connection with the setting up of internment camps but did not carry out what the Convention on Human Rights have embodied in a section, namely, that the Government should derogate from the Convention on Human Rights and that that position has yet to be clarified? Therefore, this House is fully entitled at this stage to discuss the matter and there should be no suggestion that there is a supra-court outside this country that would prevent the Irish people from discussing their own internal legislation.
Nobody would attempt to have a matter of this magnitude discussed except at the appropriate time and at full length. If a case were before any of our courts, the Ceann Comhairle would not allow its detailed discussion here until the case was finally decided. I submit to the Ceann Comhairle that the same procedure should be adopted when there is a European court which this Dáil has accepted in the same way as it has accepted the domestic courts. I do not know whether or not I can persuade the Ceann Comhairle that that is a fact but I think the Government should be given a chance. I would appeal to the Labour Party to postpone the matter: it is only a question of half an hour.
Could the Minister give any idea as to when the Convention on Human Rights will hear the case and make a decision?
I do not know.
In the meantime, it is the view of the Labour Party that men are interned in the Curragh without trial.
We can have a debate on that, if the Deputy wants to put it down, unrelated to the Human Rights Convention.
Is it not a fact that it might be 12 months or two years before the court itself might sit?
Do I understand the Minister correctly as suggesting that the matter should be adjourned until 9 p.m. next Wednesday evening?
Yes.
I am not quite clear on the matter. I would be prepared to do this if the House so agrees. I would be prepared to postpone the matter until Private Members' time next Wednesday evening provided I get an assurance that, should the Ceann Comhairle decide that this motion is in order, Private Members' time will be guaranteed by the Government on next Wednesday evening.
Right.
Has the Ceann Comhairle not already decided that the motion is in order?
He has not spoken ex cathedra yet.
Is there no Chinese phrase to cover "loss of face"?
Does the Leas-Cheann Comhairle rule that the motion is in order?
I am informed that the Chair considers that the motion is in order.
Not in the House.
I formally accept Deputy Kyne's proposal that the matter be postponed until Wednesday evening at 9 p.m. and then, if the Ceann Comhairle rules that the matter is in order, the debate can continue.
I would agree to that.
The next motion is motion No. 12 in the names of Deputies Wycherley and Finucane.
In fairness to Deputy Wycherley, he did not know it would be taken this evening and, if he does not want to take it now, I think he ought to be given the option of not taking it.
Yes, surely.
Does the Deputy wish to proceed with the motion now or to postpone it?
I was waiting for the Minister.
I am afraid the Minister did not know that the motion would be taken this evening.
I did not, either.
I suggest we leave it over.
Yes.
I think, in the circumstances, the appropriate thing for the House to do is to adjourn. I do not think it would be right to take motions at short notice like this.
The Dáil adjourned at 10 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 27th November, 1958.