asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if immediate action will be taken by the Government in the case of an Irish priest arrested in Rhodesia, especially in view of the fact that he is suffering from coeliac disease; and if he will ensure that arrangements are made for adequate medical attention and treatment for him while he is in custody.
Private Notice Question. - Detention of Priest in Rhodesia.
The Minister has learnt with concern of the detention in Rhodesia of the priest to whom reference is made in the Deputy's question. As Deputies will be aware from previous replies to questions regarding Bishop Lamont it is not possible for the Government to raise the matter directly with the Rhodesian regime. In accordance with United Nations Security Council resolutions with which we are obliged to comply we are not permitted to recognise or have diplomatic or consular relations with the regime.
As regards the priest's medical condition it is understood from his Order here in Ireland that special dietary arrangements are being made for him appropriate to his medical condition.
In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer and the manner in which similar cases were dealt with—the one referred to by the Minister, that of Father Rice and the case of Mr. Creegan—by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and the Government, it is sad if this is the only assurance we can get from the Government in this case. We have no assurance that this case will be dealt with and treated properly from a medical point of view. It is more serious because of the fact that a large number of Irish priests are in Rhodesia and it is likely, unfortunately, that we will have similar cases in the near future. It is about time some mechanism was set up to deal with a situation which is almost certain to recur in the near future.
(Cavan): Arising out of the statement by the Deputy, I should like to put it on record again that the Government are prohibited from making direct representations to the Rhodesian authorities by the terms of resolutions 253 of 1968, and 277 of 1977, of the United Nations Security Council. These resolutions contain mandatory decisions which are binding on member states under article 41 of the Charter. We are, therefore, unable to extend consular protection in the normal way to citizens in Rhodesia either ourselves or through friendly countries who are not represented. I am sure the Deputy will be glad to hear that from inquiries made from the priest's Order I am satisfied that up to last Monday evening the priest in question was receiving adequate medical attention for his condition and was allowed two visits per day. I should like the House to know that I am as concerned, as is the Minister and the Government, about the fact that we are unable to make representations to the Rhodesian regime but we must face up to the facts and realities of the case. The reality of the case is that as members of the United Nations we are bound by a resolution passed by them not to have any diplomatic or consular representations or relations with the Rhodesian regime. We are precluded from having such relations. There is no way in which we, as a Government, can approach or communicate with the regime in question.
I am more concerned about the human aspect of the matter. My colleague, Deputy O'Kennedy, does not accept what the Minister has stated.
This must not lead to argument or debate. We should proceed by way of question and answer; there can be no argument or debate.
Has the Minister any information as to whether or not the detainee, Father Lynch, has applied for and received bail?
(Cavan): I should like to repeat what I said earlier——
There is no need for the Minister to repeat anything.
The Minister has been asked a precise question.
(Cavan): With respect, there is no necessity for anybody to lose his temper. It is unfortunate that this priest is detained in Rhodesia. It is also unfortunate that, due to the type of the Rhodesian regime, we are precluded by a resolution of the United Nations, which is binding on us and the United Nations, from making representations or approaches to the regime. From inquiries made to the priest's Order in Ireland I am satisfied that up to the time of the latest contact the Order had with Rhodesia the priest was having proper medical attention and two visits daily. My inquiries suggest that to date he has not been given bail.
I asked the Minister a specific question about bail but he has not addressed himself to it.
Would the Minister agree that it is slightly ludicrous that he pleads this United Nations resolution to prevent humanitarian inquiries about the plight of an Irish citizen when at the same time Britain who, presumably, is a member in good standing of the United Nations, has a conference in progress with the Rhodesian Government in Geneva?
(Cavan): I am not in a position to deal with that. There may be special circumstances prevailing in relation to that conference of which I am not aware. We are bound by resolutions of the United Nations and I am sure Deputy Haughey fully appreciates this and that the United Nations are also bound by such resolutions. On a previous occasion it was suggested by Deputy O'Kennedy that inquiries, representations or protests could be conducted through the United Nations but the fact is that the United Nations have precluded themselves, as an organisation, from making representations or approaches to this regime.
This is the second occasion on which an Irish cleric has found himself in this position for precisely the same offence. In view of the likelihood that there will be other Irish missionaries in a similar position for similar offences, does the Minister not recognise that it is vitally important that our Government should find a way to bring pressure—note, not make representations; note, not consult—on this illegal regime through the Geneva conference or through world opinion or otherwise? They should bring pressure to ensure that our citizens, doing the job they are committed to do because of their vocation or otherwise, will not be imprisoned, as two of them have been. Surely the Minister will recognise that we cannot sit back and confer an immunity from any protest on an illegal regime. This is what the Government is now, in effect, doing.
We must come to finality on this matter.
(Cavan): Deputy O'Kennedy must accept that we are members of the United Nations and abide by their rules and regulations. I believe that we should continue to be members of the United Nations and that we should obey their rules and regulations. I deplore any unjust or harsh treatment of Irish citizens in Rhodesia. I believe that the ventilating of this matter as it has been ventilated here is a good thing. Further, I believe that world pressure——
What about Geneva?
(Cavan): I am unable to say, Deputy. I believe that world pressure will be brought to bear.
We could talk to the British Government.
(Cavan): The British Government are also bound by the United Nations resolution.
Order.
A British minister is presiding over the Geneva conference.
The remaining questions will appear on the Order Paper for the next sitting day of An Dáil, 19th April, 1977. Any Deputy who wishes to have a written reply to his question today should notify the general office.
Before taking the next business I should like to inquire why it was found necessary to refuse a Special Notice Question of mine dealing with an urgent and important matter.
The Deputy has been informed why his question was not in order for Special Notice treatment and I will not allow the matter to be raised in this fashion.
This matter would have given the opportunity——
Order. The Deputy is being disorderly. The fact is that he could have put down a question for ordinary notice in respect of this matter and he failed to do so. Next business——
On a point of order——
I can have no point of order arising out of a ruling. The Deputy submitted another question on the subject for Private Notice last Thursday but did not proceed with it this week on ordinary notice. He could have done so.
You will appreciate the matter to which the Deputy now refers——
I will not hear any argument.
This is not argument. The matter to which the Deputy refers arose on Tuesday night last.
I am sorry, Deputy O'Kennedy. The matter is out of order now.
If your ruling is based on what happened on last Thursday——
Deputy O'Kennedy, please. I will not allow my ruling to be questioned in this fashion. If the Deputy seriously wishes to challenge my ruling he may do so in the prescribed manner laid down in the rules of this House.
A Cheann Comhairle——
I will entertain no further questioning of my ruling.
The Minister misled the House last Thursday.
The Deputy is being disorderly and he knows he is being disorderly.
Under the guise of order an awful lot of things are being allowed to happen in this House which will come to the ruin of this House.
The Deputy is making a point of it now.
This is happening every day.
A Cheann Comhairle, apart from your ruling on this matter you stated just now—and this was quite separate, apparently, from your ruling—that Deputy Gallagher had an opportunity of raising this matter in the ordinary way on an ordinary question. Is it not a fact that you were misinformed as to that statement? Is it not a fact that Deputy Gallagher could not raise the subject matter of that question because the matter did not occur within the time laid down under Standing Orders to put down an ordinary question?
I am informed the Deputy submitted another question on the subject for Private Notice last Thursday but did not proceed with it in the ordinary way.
May I ask a question about the Adjournment? Does the House adjourn at 5 o'clock today?
Yes.
Is it possible at this stage to give you notice of my intention to raise a question on the Adjournment?
I am afraid, subject to correction, the Deputy is too late now. However, I will consider it.
I had hoped to give you notice of my intention to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of a question which was addressed to the Minister for Defence yesterday about illegal fishing off the west coast. In his answer to this question the Minister for Defence seriously and grievously misled this House as to the position and his answer was subsequently contradicted in the daily Press. With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I should like to raise this question on the Adjournment because of the manner in which the Minister for Defence misled the House.
Under Standing Orders I should have notice before 3.30 p.m. of an intention to raise a matter on the Adjournment.
Then the position is that this serious misleading of the House by the Minister for Defence has to go unanswered until after the Easter recess.
On a point of information, was it in order for a Minister to come into the House on Tuesday and give a reply to a question which he refused to take last Thursday and to mislead the House with the reply he gave?
That is not a matter for the Chair.