asked the Taoiseach if any communication has been received from the Council of Europe arising from the notification to the Council of the threatened Government introduction of internment without trial.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Internment without Trial.
2.
The Secretary-General of the Council of Europe has acknowledged the receipt of the letter handed to him by our Permanent Representative and has indicated that while our letter does not constitute a notice of derogation under Article 15 (3) of the Convention and does not therefore warrant communication to the other parties to the Convention, he has arranged to put the letter in the archives relating to the Convention.
Why, before taking this unprecedented step of notifying the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 15, of the threatened Government introduction of internment without trial, was there not at least notification given to Dáil Éireann and at least consultation with the Leaders of the Opposition Parties?
I gave the reasons yesterday in my statement.
Article 15 provides explicitly: "...in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation..." Why did the Taoiseach take this major step of notifying the Council of Europe of Ireland's possible derogation from this Convention to which Ireland is a signatory? Is the Taoiseach submitting to the House that there existed a state of national extremity whereby there was a state of war, whereby the life of the nation or a public emergency was threatened and therefore he was obliged to communicate on 4th December, 1970, this particular notification to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, that the situation was of such extreme urgency that he could only do so without consulting Parliament or Opposition leaders and without clarifying to the nation what precisely this rumpus is all about?
The letter sent to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe was not a notice of derogation.
Would the Taoiseach explain the apparent contradiction in his statement yesterday when he said he had hoped to bring the matter before the Dáil but that the information needed to be acted on quickly—this is what he said in the statement—when in fact he did not act until that Friday, the day after the Dáil sat? He said he had hoped to bring it up in the Dáil but that it called for action quickly. The only action that was apparent was the statement to the Press on the Friday. This appears to me to be a contradiction. Could the Taoiseach explain this?
The expedition to which I referred was to anticipate any action of a serious nature. The other matter, the fact that I did not come here on Thursday, although I had hoped I would, was because the close examination to which I referred was still going on on Thursday.
The Taoiseach said yesterday that he knew some days previously of the existence of this threat. Yet he pleads lack of time in dealing with the matter. Why did he not avail of the knowledge some time previously to come to the Dáil? Has he any explanation for this?
I told the House already that we were examining these matters very closely and continued to do so.
The Taoiseach knew of the existence of this threat some days before. What extra information exactly came into his possession or to his knowledge on the Friday? Did any extra information reach him?
I am not going to give any indication of this.
The Taoiseach will not explain?
I have just explained it for the Deputy.
You know what that adds up to—a very peculiar conclusion about your veracity.
The Deputy is an ignoramus.