I wonder, a Cheann Comhairle, whether, in view of the fact that on last Wednesday night, at Private Members' time, I was proceeding to speak on a motion which I informed the House was in order according to your decision, if I might now raise the matter again? At the request of the Minister for External Affairs I agreed, in your absence, to give the Minister's office an opportunity of putting certain points before you which they believed might cause you to alter your decision. Since that time I have had personal communication from you in the matter. I wonder if you would give the House the reasons which motivated you in your decision that the motion standing in my name and in the names of other members of my Party in connection with human rights is out of order and the reason that caused you to decide that the matter is sub judice?
Business of the Dáil.
As a matter of fact I had not decided definitely that the motion was in order. A motion may be ruled on at any time before it is put from the Chair. The Ceann Comhairle may have incorrect or imperfect advice, and I was waiting for certain information so that I could make a firm decision upon the motion to which the Deputy was one of the signatories. It was as to the status of the Court of Human Rights.
I awaited that definite information and I put the information when I received it in the form of a letter to the Deputy. The Deputy knows that any matter which the domestic courts are considering or are about to consider may not be discussed in the Dáil because it may influence decision on questions before the courts. The position is somewhat the same regarding the European Court of Human Rights and I conveyed that information in my letter to the Deputy. On the 29th November, 1958, I wrote to him:—
"I have had under consideration representations made by the Minister for External Affairs to me on your motion dealing with the terms of the Convention on Human Rights and the internment of persons here.
The Minister has stated:—
(1) that in the matter of human rights the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights has been accepted by the State, and
(2) that a process has been commenced from which a case bearing on the subject matter of your motion may come before the court.
You will appreciate that the Minister's statement on the matter must now be accepted, and in such circumstances a debate in the House on the motion should not occur until any judicial hearing and determination of the matter has taken place."
That is the reason I ruled it out of order.
Do I understand that the statement of the Minister to you was that, should the Court of Human Rights uphold the case before it, that decision would be accepted by the Government?
I have nothing to say to that. I have given the Deputy the information that the Court of Human Rights is now on all fours with the domestic courts on matters within its competency.
Is it not a fact that this is the first time that such a case has come before the court from this country? Is the Ceann Comhairle accepting the statement of the Minister for External Affairs——
I cannot allow the Deputy to proceed.
Is the Ceann Comhairle going to accept——
Deputies
Order, order!
The Deputy will resume his seat. I have given the ruling and I cannot allow any further discussion on it.
I suppose we are to assume that as you have ruled that this matter is sub judice, being before this Court in Strasbourg, it means that the Government recognise that court and will have to recognise the decision of that court? It is an important matter because if the Government has any excuse at all they will use it.
I cannot allow this discussion to proceed. The Deputy is proceeding to make a political argument on my ruling and I cannot allow it. I have given a decision that this court is in a similar position to the domestic courts on matters within its competency.
Does the Government recognise the court?
I have given my decision and I canot allow any further discussion on my ruling.
I am not questioning your ruling, Sir. Does the information conveyed in writing to me or to my Party mean that the Government recognises that court?
The Deputy must accept my ruling or he can dispute it by a motion in the House. Does the Deputy think I would give a ruling that I do not myself accept? I shall not allow any further discussion.
Does the information received by you include the information I asked you for?
The Deputy has my letter.
I have it and I shall quote it.
Would it not be better that the information should be made available to the public who are very worried about this matter?
The Deputy will not make a political argument out of my ruling.
Men's lives are at stake.