asked the Minister for External Affairs if he will state the number of occasions on which diplomatic immunity has been claimed on behalf of the son of the Irish Ambassador to the United States and the nature of the charges, if any, which were waived in each case.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Diplomatic Immunity.
29.
As I explained to the Deputy on 25th November, the traditional rule regarding diplomatic immunity is that heads of diplomatic missions and their families forming part of their households are immune from criminal and civil proceedings in the State to which they are accredited. In the case to which the Deputy refers this rule was automatically applied by the authorities concerned. The latter part of the question does not therefore arise.
The question I put on the Order Paper surely arises—the number of occasions on which diplomatic immunity was claimed.
It was not claimed.
By anybody?
It was automatically applied.
On how many occasions was diplomatic immunity automatically applied?
On several occasions, when the Deputy put down this question, he talked about "claiming". I explained to him on the last occasion —and the Deputy and all Deputies interested in this case should do their best to understand it—that immunity was not claimed. Immunity is not claimed in such cases because it is automatically granted.
Would the Minister not consider that this is a very strange question for a Deputy like Deputy Dr. Browne to put down, a Deputy who was preaching Christian principles in this House two weeks ago?
That is a separate question.
Everybody appreciates that this is a very distressing case but the country's reputation is suffering because of it. It has been alleged that diplomatic immunity has been applied on more than one occasion in respect of this person. If this person has created a position in which diplomatic immunity had to be claimed for him on more than one occasion, surely some action should have been taken by the head of the Ambassadorial Mission concerned? Furthermore if he has put himself in this position on more than one occasion, has he not created an embarrassing position both for the Irish Government and for the American Government and would it not be wise, in all the circumstances, for the Government to recall the Ambassador concerned before the American Government find themselves forced to do it?
That is an entirely separate question.
I should like to reply to the Deputy. The Deputy is aware that the young Irishman in question has returned to Ireland and that should satisfy everybody. I may explain there are all sorts of very minor offences, small breaches of the law that the ordinary individual is prone to commit, parking offences, and so on, in which diplomatic immunity is applied. As I have told the Deputy, as far as the Government is concerned we did not claim diplomatic immunity in this case. It is applied automatically in such cases.
Would the Minister not tell the House that our Ambassador to the United States is a fine public servant with a great record of public service? Would he not also consider that in view of the fact that no family wishes a wild or prodigal son to be visited on them and that we all have our families to rear——
That does not arise.
It should arise because this fine public servant was smeared in the gutter Press of the world and we have a Deputy here joining with that gutter Press.