asked the Taoiseach if he will give an assurance that internment without trial will not be reintroduced without the consent of Dáil Éireann.

I hope that internment will not have to be introduced at all but the Government could not agree to tie their own hands in the manner suggested in the question.

Is the Taoiseach aware that a precedent exists for the introduction of internment without trial immediately after the House rises, and is he aware that there is genuine concern that this may happen again, particularly in view of the suppressive legislation which is before the House in the form of the Prohibition of Forcible Entry and Occupation Bill?

Would the Taoiseach not admit that if the Constitutional institutions of this State were allowed to function properly there would be no need for internment? Would the Taoiseach not go on radio as he did a few years ago when he told the farmers that he would use the full forces of the Army and the Garda——

That does not arise. That is a different matter.

Would he not go on radio now and appeal to those people to hand in their arms before we have a further drift to anarchy and a takeover as they had in Cuba at one time?

The Prohibition of Forcible Entry and Occupation Bill has nothing whatever to do with the question. It is a separate matter altogether. So far as Deputy L'Estrange's question is concerned, the law is being enforced, and it is being enforced in relation to the recent complaint made by the Deputy about the speech made in respect of bullets and bombs. It was on my express instructions, immediately after that speech was made in Cork, that the Attorney General examined the law and brought charges to the full extent of the law as it exists against the person involved.

I am not talking about speeches. I am talking about action. I am talking about burnings and explosions and the carrying of arms and other things that have gone on for the past five years while you sat idly by and witnessed this drift to anarchy.

Arising out of the Taoiseach's reply in which he said he would not give an assurance that internment without trial would not be reintroduced without the consent of the Dáil, in view of the seriousness of this step, does the Taoiseach not consider that it would be far more important, or at least equally as important, to have the Dáil deliberate on this sort of proposal in view of the haste with which the Fianna Fáil Government convened a special meeting of the Dáil to recognise the abdication of a British King and the accession of another and, on another occasion, the Fianna Fáil Government, in the month of September, introduced a Bill into this House at a specially convened meeting in order to put ESB workers in jail?

And paid their taxi fares when they got out.

In the first place there is no such proposal and, in the second place, if there were such, under the law it is a matter for the Government to take action. The Dáil has power under section 3 of the Offences Against the State Act at any time by resolution to annul a Government proclamation.

If such a motion is tabled, will the Taoiseach now say that it will be considered immediately after a decision by the Government to introduce internment without trial?

I am not going to talk about hypotheses.

It is the only policy you have.

In view of what is happening in this country, North and South, would the Taoiseach not think that the post of Attorney General should now be a full-time one and not just a part-time one?

That does not arise on the question.

The Taoiseach introduced the name of the Attorney General into this discussion. He said the Attorney General was examining and instructing. How in the world can he examine——

He is examining the law and he brought the prosecution in the light of the law that he examined.

Question No. 6.

Would the Taoiseach consider making the post of Attorney General a full-time one?

It was the practice that the post of Attorney General was a full-time position until the time that an inter-party Government, which the Deputy supported, got in here and changed the practice.

And you never got a chance to change it back again.

The Taoiseach referred to his having activated the Attorney General on this matter. Would the Taoiseach state why the Attorney General of this country requires to be prompted by the Taoiseach before doing his duty in a case like this? Would he not do it if he were not prompted?

He was doing his duty, but I made sure that no time would be lost before the prosecution was brought.