andMr. O'Kennedy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the present position concerning the imprisonment of Bishop Lamont in Rhodesia.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Imprisonment of Bishop Lamont.
18.
Dr. Donal Lamont, Bishop of Umtali, is at present at liberty pending the outcome of his appeal against the ten-year sentence imposed on him on 1st October last when he pleaded guilty to charges arising out of the failure to report the presence of terrorists at a mission to the illegal Rhodesian authorities. It is expected that his appeal will be heard early next year.
As to what action the Government might take on the matter, we of course abide by the United Nations Security Council resolutions on Rhodesia and therefore do not recognise or have diplomatic relations with the present Rhodesian regime. It is not, therefore, possible for us to raise the matter directly with that regime.
As the Minister indicated on 1st October however, the Government have made representations on Dr. Lamont's behalf to the Governments involved in the current negotiations on Rhodesia's future and we hope that every effort will be made to ensure that he will not have to serve a prison sentence but will be free to carry on the good work which he has long carried out for all the people of his diocese.
Arising out of the Parliamentary Secretary's reply may I ask him when was the first representation made? I did not quite get his answer on that.
I have explained that no representations were made or can be made to the Rhodesian authorities directly.
At that time?
Yes. I am not sure if I have the exact date. I have some information here. The Minister issued a statement on the 1st October, the date on which the Bishop was sentenced and he said in that statement that representations would be made on Dr. Lamont's behalf. I have information here that appeals were made to the Governments of Britain, the USA, Mozambique, Botswana, Zambia and Tanzania. We were then informed that Britain had raised the matter of Dr. Lamont with Salisbury in Rhodesia and had got a noncommittal reply. A tentative approach was made also to the Angola delegation to the United Nations in New York but it was not possible to contact them. I am sorry I cannot tell the Deputy the date that this happened. If it is important to him, I will try to find out.
Britain does not recognise the Government of Rhodesia. Was any attempt made to approach any of the African people in Rhodesia? Their influence may not be great but it might be helpful.
I do not think any such attempt was made.
In view of the obvious standing of Bishop Lamont, particularly with the Black African leaders, will the Parliamentary Secretary ensure that communication would be made with them also?
I would sooner not give any undertaking about that. The Minister would like to think about it. It may be that there are some reasons against direct contact with anybody except the Government. I would sooner not tease these reasons out on my feet, but they may exist.
I am not asking the Parliamentary Secretary to tease these reasons out on his feet, but he will recognise that we are in an unique position because of the standing of this man and because of the obligation we have to the people concerned. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell me if we have any guarantee from the conference in Geneva that we will have a response?
No.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary seek such a guarantee, at least that we would be entitled to a definite response for the concern we have, not only on our own behalf but on behalf of the Black African leaders who share our concern?
The Deputy will appreciate the consequences of a boycott policy on Rhodesia. Some of the consequences must be borne by the countries that impose it. One of the consequences for us is that we have no formal contact and may not under the Security Council resolutions take up any formal contact with the very authorities who are in a position to be able to let Dr. Lamont out. This is the same kind of problem as I handled here last week in regard to Argentina. It has been dealt with expeditiously there, I hope. Certainly in that case formal approaches can be made through an established diplomatic mission. That cannot be done with Rhodesia. The Minister's judgment of the best way to do it was to indicate concern and make representations to the countries that are involved in the negotiations about Rhodesia's future. I will mention the Deputy's idea to the Minister.
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary, in view of the obvious need for goodwill and understanding at these talks in Geneva to convey the goodwill and understanding that could be promoted even better if there was a proper response to Bishop Lamont's case. Will he convey, as a matter of urgency, that a proper reaction on the part of that illegal Government could help the interests of all concerned to find the common ground that the world is hoping they will find at that conference?
I will do that. On the other hand—and I would not like to guess at this—it may equally be that it will be counter-productive from Dr. Lamont's point of view if the approaches were made to anybody within Rhodesia other than the Government there, be it legal or otherwise.