Deputy Dowling gave notice of his intention to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of Question No. 58 on today's Order Paper.
Committee on Finance. - Adjournment Debate: International Sporting Events.
Early last month there was considerable TV and press comment in relation to the statement attributed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs in connection with his veto on special leave for a member of the Defence Forces because of our country's attitude to the South African situation. The leading articles in several papers commented on the fact that the Minister had vetoed the request for special leave for Lieutenant Shanahan.
It has become extremely difficult for the ordinary public to assess a situation and, indeed, it has become very difficult for the Members of this House to assess a situation. I want to know now from the Minister whether there is any degree of collective responsibility whatsoever in the National Coalition Government because it appears to me that the Minister, Deputy Donegan, did not know what he was talking about today. It appears that for over a month the Government Information Bureau failed to repudiate in any way the press reports and the television coverage given to this serious matter.
Today we had the Minister's reply and his reply to one of the supplementary questions in which he said:
I had a very sad decision to take. I examined all the circumstances and I was extremely sorry that Lieutenant Shanahan had no leave left. In fact, since then another State employee has gone to other games on his own leave and at his own expense. I would have been delighted to send Lieutenant Shanahan but I just could not do it.
He did not have to send him because I understand that the team he would be representing would be paying his way. However, it gives us an insight into the Minister's thinking on this situation, that this man had no leave left and, in fact, applied for special leave. This is conveyed in different replies to supplementary questions today.
On the question of collective responsibility I should like to know how far the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Garret FitzGerald, has been meddling in the affairs of the Department of Defence, and to what degree he has been meddling. This is a serious situation. In the past we have seen a confusion of effort between a variety of Ministers—between the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Finance—on another issue.
The Deputy must confine himself to the subject matter of the question.
I am speaking about the question of collective responsibility. I am very confused by the fact that on this occasion the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Government Information Bureau did not repudiate these reports. Surely if a statement is made by a Minister of State and it is incorrectly attributed to another Minister it is corrected to remove an incorrect impression in the minds of the people. The Minister's reply today boils down to the fact that this man had no special leave left. I wonder what the position would be in the event of a member of a jumping team going to Australia or some other country if he had no annual leave left. I wonder what would be the position of another member of the armed services who was picked for a football team, or a GAA team going to the United States, if he had no special leave left. Would the Minister deal in the same way with all the members of the Defence Forces if they had no special leave left? If so, it is time the Minister changed his attitude.
On the one hand, the Minister indicated that this man had no annual leave left and on the other that another State employee, a garda, went to the games on his own leave and at his own expense, and that he would have been delighted to send Lieutenant Shanahan. This is a serious matter. Was it because of the South African situation or was it because he had no special leave left? A young man who engaged in sporting activities in the Army was chosen to represent his country and then there was confusion of thought between two Ministers. The sooner the National Coalition Government give us a clear indication that there will be collective responsibility, and that one Minister only will speak for the Department of Defence, the better.
Yesterday I intended to put down a question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs on this matter because I believed he was the man who vetoed the request. That is the type of comment which was made previously. The Minister indicated today that the press reported the matter inaccurately. Of course, the press is always blamed when someone wants to get out of a corner. Because the reports were not denied over a period of a month I accept that Deputy FitzGerald meddled in this affair as Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence, Deputy Donegan, was only the small boy who did what he was told. The order was made by another Minister.
This matter will have to be clarified. The Minister will probably repeat what he said today, that he made the order. In fact, he probably signed the order because he was told to sign it. He was probably told to sign it by Deputy FitzGerald. It would then be a factual statement that he made the order because he signed it. There is no doubt that the meddling of another Minister and the interference of another Minister in this affair has caused grave concern. I hope the Minister will be fully responsible for his own Department and that other Ministers will not dictate to him in any way.
On the question of special leave, will the Minister tell us if he will deny a member of a jumping team, a football team playing in the States, or a rugby team playing in Australia, the opportunity to represent his country as he did Lieutenant Shanahan? We all know that politics must be kept out of sport if possible, rather than causing the sores that are there to fester. The youth of the world must be allowed to communicate with each other. Contacts made through sports have probably contributed more to an understanding between peoples than all the summit meetings ever held. It was a great sham if Lieutenant Shanahan was denied this opportunity because of the reason stated by Deputy Donegan who participates in sports himself and attends sporting activities.
The Minister.
The Minister for Defence attends sporting activities and participates to a large degree. I did not think he would take that line. I am quite certain that the row which followed at the Government meeting was the same as the row that followed at the other Government meeting when the other two Ministers were in conflict. Apparently he has to carry the can now for the interference of Deputy Garret FitzGerald.
Deputy Garret FitzGerald is also a Minister.
He is not very interested in sports.
Deputy Garret FitzGerald, the meddling Minister for Foreign Affairs——
The Deputy may not refer to a Minister in a derogatory fashion.
He is a meddling Minister if this is right. It was stated in the press and it was not denied——
It is not in order to refer to a Minister in a derogatory fashion.
It is a statement of fact.
I heard Ministers referred to in peculiar terms in the House. As a matter of fact, when you were over here you were one of the most abusive men in the House.
Is not that an imputation against the Chair?
I asked the Minister today "the policy of the Government in regard to participation by members of the Defence Forces or other Irish nationals in international sporting events". The last sentence of the Minister's reply was: "If the State employee were a member of the permanent Defence Force, I would normally be disposed to grant him such leave." This man is a member of the permanent Defence Force. We know that Deputy Donegan turned him down because he had no leave left.
The Minister.
The Minister for Defence turned down this request because the unfortunate man had no leave left. I would also like the Minister to tell us, and the sportsmen in the armed services to whom he referred in the brief today, the people he wants to participate in sport, why he should tell them, "Hold a few days annual leave in case you are selected to play for your country because you will get no go here on special leave". A man must decide that he is going to hold four days in the prospect of being chosen for his country. I wonder would this apply to boxers and other personnel who have distinguished themselves in Army sport in many fields. Perhaps the Minister would tell us that when he tells us about collective responsibility, and about the Minister for Foreign Affairs and to what degree he meddled, how the row ended and who paid for the breakages.
The most serious aspect of this whole matter is the fact that an injustice has been done to a citizen, and not alone that but that in future if the Minister for Foreign Affairs feels like it, he can assume the role of Big Brother and decide that a citizen shall not leave the country. I cast no reflection on the Minister for Defence but I do cast a reflection and aspersions on the whole principle of collective responsibility in the Cabinet when, according to the Irish Independent of April 3rd last:
Last week the 23 year old lieutenant was told that he could not play for the hockey team. Foreign Affairs Minister, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, said he had vetoed the request for special leave because of the country's attitude to apartheid.
It was not because the man had no leave but because of the attitude to apartheid. Next week or so, the Irish soccer team are going to Russia to play in the World Cup. Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs going to take it upon himself to say, because Russia is not a democratic state and it persecutes Jews and other people, to the team, "You cannot go to Russia; because of our attitude to the Russians, who have apartheid, you cannot play there"? Is it not the truth that Deputy FitzGerald——
The Minister.
I am sorry—the Minister. Is it not the truth that in his desire, his absolute anxiety and his passion for publicity he had to rush in to usurp the powers of the Minister for Defence? We have to bring it home to the Government that a Minister has no such power, that Big Brother has not a right here yet, and that no Minister of this Government is going to get away in a fortnight's time or a week's time with saying to members of the Association football team, "You cannot go to Russia because of our attitude to that country".
That is what was said to the RTE people.
I am speaking about the present case. Here we have a Minister with full responsibility——
You were responsible for RTE and that was said.
If this is hurting I cannot help it. Here is a Minister of Government who usurps the powers of another to step in and deprive a citizen of his due rights to travel outside this country. We may well have the Minister for Justice withdrawing the passports of people going to represent their country. The Dreyfus case shook France many years ago and it probably started very simply too, like this, and in this case we have to watch and be vigilant when we have a mixed Government, a Coalition Government, because I am sure that very few Ministers agree with Deputy FitzGerald in this matter.
The Minister.
The Minister—I am sorry.
They have not got used to it yet.
I am trying to show that this man has taken on responsibilities in an audacious manner in deciding that this young lieutenant will not travel. I know that the Minister for Defence would have let him travel —he has said so—but here, not because he has no leave but because of our attitude to apartheid, the Minister for Foreign Affairs stepped in and took a fundamental right away from this young Army officer. I want to put on record here my abhorrence of the dictatorial attitude of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. As long as I am in this House and he is Minister, I am going to watch his every activity in matters like this and I would advise the Minister for Defence to watch him also, because he has usurped his powers. That is not the most serious thing; the fact is that he has done an injury to this young Army officer in depriving him of the honour of representing his country. I expect the Minister to apologise for Deputy FitzGerald. Not alone does this young lieutenant deserve an apology but the House deserves an apology for the action the Minister for Foreign Affairs has taken; for the honour of democracy and, indeed, of the Government, the Minister for Defence ought to tender an apology to the lieutenant, to the House and to the people. I shall watch to see, when the soccer team are leaving, if the Minister has again stepped in, but he will not do it with a soccer team.
I want to be put on record how shocked and dismayed I was by the decision of the Coalition Government in refusing to grant special leave to Danny Shanahan who is a personal friend of mine, with whom I played hockey and who was reared in my native city, a man whose talents at this game were quite remarkable and developed while an officer in the Army. I am expressing the dismay of all Irish sportsmen at the attitude of this Government in refusing special leave because that, as we now know from what was said today, is all that was involved. Deputy Donegan is on record as saying that in principle he has no objection to Lieutenant Shanahan, or any other member of the armed force, I take it, going to South Africa and playing hockey, rugby or any other sport there, but because special leave was necessary, he decided to refuse it. It would have been the most elementary thing, the simplest thing, for the Minister to have granted special leave on this occasion. I am disgusted at what he did.
The Deputy's time is almost up.
He is introducing politics into sport and has done the Irish people and Irish sportsmen a great disservice.
The first thing I want to say is that nobody in this House knows better the difference between leave and special leave than Deputy Dowling. He told us on the Defence Estimate that he had served in five barracks so I accept that he knows the difference. I quote what I said myself today:
I had a very sad decision to take. I examined all the circumstances and was extremely sorry that Lieutenant Shanahan had no leave left.
But Deputy Dowling chooses for the past 20 minutes, or most of that period, to misrepresent me and say that the question was one of special leave. Special leave is given on an occasion when a man, perhaps, gets his place on an international sporting team and he gets special leave which does not interfere with his annual leave and he gets paid. That is exactly what I would have liked to have done in a personal way, and again Deputy Molloy misquoted me and said that I would have wanted to send him. What I said was a very personal and a very honest thing: I would have been delighted to send Lieutenant Shanahan but I just could not do it. Why could I not do it? Because the previous Government in their wisdom adhered to a resolution of the United Nations deciding that nations should not co-operate with those nations which brough apartheid into sport, I was faced with that on the one hand and with my personal desire—I want to make sure that I am not misquoted again—my intense personal desire as a sportsman to send Lieutenant Shanahan.
That is a very mean interpretation—a small-minded interpretation.
I let the Deputy speak. Deputy Molloy has been a Minister of State and he knows perfectly well the difference between a personal desire and a ministerial decision. He has been a Minister and he knows and I want to be quite clear about it.
It is a mean interpretation. The Minister was put on the spot by Deputy FitzGerald.
I am entitled to speak.
He was put on the spot by another Minister.
Deputy Molloy must desist from interrupting.
I am entitled to speak, I hope. Is that the way Fianna Fáil treat free speech?
The Minister was put on the spot by another Minister.
I would ask Deputy Molloy to desist from further interruption. The Minister has less than ten minutes in which to reply and he ought to be able to do so without interruption of this kind.
I want to protest against the deliberate act of Deputy Molloy in trying to confuse my expression of what I would have liked to do if I could have adopted a friendly and personal approach with my ministerial decision. The ministerial decision was based entirely and absolutely on the decision of the previous Government not to co-operate with people who had introduced apartheid into sport.
We never did anything like what you have done.
The Minister must be allowed to reply.
It was a mean thing to do.
That was my difficulty. If the Deputy wishes he can have the reference number from the records of the resolution to which his Government bound this country.
It was a mean, small-minded interpretation.
It was not a mean, small-minded interpretation. It was a most difficult decision and I had the guts to take it.
Deputy FitzGerald had made it for you. The Minister for Foreign Affairs had made it for you.
The responsibility in this matter is entirely mine.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs——
I would ask the Deputy to allow the Minister to conclude.
The decision was mine. My Department, naturally, sought clarification from the Department of Foreign Affairs on the nature of our country's obligations and commitments. In the light of the advice received by my Department and in all the circumstances that I was faced with in relation to the resolution which had been adhered to by the previous Government, I had no choice except to do what I did. I want now to make another few remarks.
You disgraced yourself.
I did not disgrace myself. I performed an unpleasant duty and the Deputy is now trying to twist things. If an Irish soccer team is going to Russia next week and if they pick an Army man on it I will give him special leave and will send him. Apartheid is not involved. I am involved in a difficult situation in relation to one tiny part of the world. If a person is picked on an Irish golf team to go to America, I will send him. I will take Deputy Moore's example: if a player is picked on a rugby team going to Australia I will give him special leave and it does not matter whether or not he will go. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy FitzGerald, had nothing to do with it and will have nothing to do with it. The decision was mine. I should be allowed to finish and will finish and will not be interrupted again.
He says it was his decision.
Collective responsibility has been mentioned. This Cabinet accept full collective responsibility but the ex-Minister over there and every other Deputy here who has had some experience knows perfectly well that decisions are taken every morning and every afternoon in every Ministry of State and for these decisions taken by individual Ministers the Cabinet accept collective responsibility. This Cabinet accept collective responsibility for my individual decision.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs decision.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs had nothing to do with it.
He claims he had.
I am not responsible for press reports I want now to clarify something else—the disgraceful suggestion that anybody would stop any Irish citizen from travelling abroad. There never was such a proposition. There never could be. Thanks be to God, this is a free country——
It has been done now.
——after some doubt for some considerable time. A Garda Síochána detective-sergeant was invited to participate in an athletic event in the recent Pan-African Games in Pretoria, South Africa. He applied for annual leave which was granted by the Garda authorities. The question of special leave did not arise in this case. Since the Conroy Commission reported, a member of the Garda Síochána does not require permission to leave the State, and he went. All that happened was that a most difficult decision was arrived at because the previous Government, in their wisdom—and I do not disagree with it—had decided to subscribe to this resolution.
A mean interpretation.
There is only one person being mean here today.
(Interruptions.)
Deputies must allow the Minister the few remaining minutes he has to reply.
If Lieutenant Shanahan had annual leave left which he of his own volition could have taken, I would not have stopped him under any circumstances.
The Minister could not have stopped him.
Nor would any other member of the Government.
That makes a liar of the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
I would not have stopped him under any circumstances. The sad fact was that the double circumstances arose: one, that the previous Government—and I do not disagree with it—had subscribed to the resolution; and the second was that Lieutenant Shanahan had no annual leave left. This is nothing but a disgraceful attempt to discredit us in regard to a decision which we had to take, which was most unpleasant. Some of the statements made by Deputy Molloy have been quite untruthful.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Molloy will please desist.
Deputy Haughey rose.
The Dáil is adjourned until 10.30 tomorrow morning.
Níl an t-am istigh.
The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 3rd May, 1973.