asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he had any response from the British authorities regarding the detention of a County Sligo man in County Fermanagh on Tuesday 5 February.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Detention of County Sligo Man.
5.
On 6 February the Minister for Foreign Affairs spoke personally to the individual concerned about his complaint and told him that in the Minister's opinion he appeared to have been treated very wrongly.
On the Minister's instructions, the British authorities were asked to give an explanation for the actions of the security forces complained of by the individual concerned, to take appropriate disciplinary action and to ensure that there is no repetition of such activity by the security forces. They were also told that such actions are totally unacceptable.
I understand that the individual concerned has, through his solicitors, made a formal complaint in Northern Ireland and that this is being investigated by the RUC. The Department of Foreign Affairs have repeatedly pressed the British authorities for further information on this extremely serious complaint. I reserve further comment until the British authorities have advised us of the outcome of their investigation. However, I take the opportunity to point out at this stage that the complaint in question illustrates the major concern felt by nationalists about both the UDR and the RUC.
Is the Minister telling us that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Barry, made a formal protest to the British Government on 6 February in connection with this incident and that the British Government have not replied to him since that time, five months ago?
Immediately this incident was recorded, the British authorities were contacted and asked to give an explanation, to take appropriate disciplinary action and to ensure there would be no repetition. They were also told that these actions complained of were totally unacceptable. It is not correct to say that there has been no further action in the meantime. There has been considerable contact between the British authorities and my Department in the meantime.
Will the Minister give a clear answer — yes or no — as to whether a formal reply has been received by the Minister for Foreign Affairs as a result of a complaint made by him on this issue five months ago? Yes or no, please.
We have repeatedly pressed the British authorities for further information on this complaint. We await further information from the British authorities as we have not yet been advised as to the outcome of their investigation.
Is it a fact that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has been callously treated by the British authorities with regard to this formal complaint made over five months ago? If, in future, we want greater co-operation between the two administrations, surely we are starting off on the wrong foot when we cannot get simple co-operation on a matter such as this?
The information given to us by the British authorities is that their investigations have not yet been completed.
Would the Minister not be manly enough to say that he, too, regrets the fact that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has been treated in the way he has on this important matter? This is a disgraceful way to treat the Minister for Foreign Affairs and would he please do something about it immediately?
I assure the House that the Minister and the Department of Foreign Affairs will continue their efforts to have the matter satisfactorily resolved.
I cannot accept what the Minister of State said——
We are now having an argument.
The Minister should do something positive and definite as five months have elapsed without progress being made.
That is a speech, not a question. Question No. 6.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 14 together.
On a point of order, what is the position regarding this question and mine?
I understand, from information at my disposal, that the Minister proposes to take Deputy Haughey's question with Question No. 14. Supplementaries may then be asked by Deputy McGahon and Deputy Haughey.
I want to put down a marker at this stage. As my colleague, Deputy Collins, said earlier, we are not prepared to accept this as a precedent and perhaps there could be further discussion between the Whips and your office——
It is a matter for the Whips. I am carrying out instructions given to me by order of the House.
I am not sure that you are because my priority questions have a certain status and, by the Minister in all good faith adopting this procedure, he could be seen as taking away from the status and importance of the priority questions. I do not want to make an issue of it at this stage but it is a matter which should be discussed further between the Whips and your office.
I respectfully suggest to Deputy Haughey that perhaps his Whip would get in touch with the Government Whip in regard to this matter.
On a point of order, do you not agree that the way you are conducting business now as far as grouping questions——
I am not grouping questions.
Well, you are allowing questions to be answered in groups. Do you agree that because of the way questions are grouped and answered that this new procedure is totally defeating the system of priority questions?
This is specifically provided for in an order of the House. This should have been dealt with then although of course it can be amended or rescinded.
With regard to priority and balloted questions, yesterday you allowed a question tabled by us to be taken with a priority question which had not been reached——
I explained all that yesterday.
I am simply asking if the Ceann Comhairle will request the Whips to review Standing Orders and also to consult us about them?
I will not request the Whips to do anything. I suggested to Deputy Haughey that if he had a point to make, his Whip should take it up with the Government Whip.