asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of reports that agencies of the United States Government have been involved in the mining of ports in Nicaragua; if the Government approve of this action; if any representations have been made to the United States Government on this matter; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

10.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government have made representations to the United States Government concerning the mining of Nicaraguan ports.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 and 10 together.

The Government are concerned about the mining of waters around Nicaragua, which can only serve to exacerbate the already tense situation in the region and constitute a threat to the safety of shipping in international waters. I am glad that recent reports indicate that the mining operation may have ceased. Deputies will have noted the provisional decision by the International Court of Justice at The Hague on 10 May calling on the United States to cease and refrain from any action restricting access to Nicaraguan ports and in particular the laying of mines, calling for the sovereignty and political independence of Nicaragua to be fully respected and calling on the Governments of the United States and Nicaragua to ensure that no action of any kind is taken which might aggravate or extend the dispute submitted to the Court. The US State Department in response have said that nothing contained in the court's decision is inconsistent with US policies or activities.

All parties involved in the tragic situation in Central America are aware of the Government's views and concerns on the matter. They were most recently set out in an address by my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, to a conference on Central America held in University College, Cork, on 27 April when he said that a solution to the problems of Central America must be political, not military, and that such a solution must be based on reform and moderation and on a strict application of the principles of non-interference and inviolability of frontiers.

Does the Minister of State believe that the US administration have the right to harass Nicaragua militarily in the way they have been doing? Does the Minister for Foreign Affairs support Nicaragua's right to self-determination and does he deplore external attempts to change its Government?

I can say on behalf of my colleague and of the Government that we oppose outside interference in the affairs of Nicaragua or of any other country in that region or elsewhere.

The Minister did not answer my first supplementary question. Does he believe that the US administration have the right to harass Nicaragua as they are doing at present?

With respect to Deputy Collins, to some extent that is a loaded question. I do not believe that any country has the right to harass any other country militarily or otherwise.

The question asked the Minister if the Government had made representations concerning the mining of the ports of Nicaragua and the Minister has not indicated yet whether those representations were made. Will he at this point tell us if the Government, in view of their stated position in relation to Latin America, have made representations to the US or to the UN concerning the mining of the ports in Nicaragua?

The Government have made their views very clear on this and other issues affecting Nicaragua and other countries in that region.

The Minister of State is still not answering the question. Has he made specific representations to the US concerning its action in placing mines in international waters surrounding the ports of Nicaragua? The Minister of State has not replied to that question.

I have not control over the Minister's reply.

I feel that I have covered the situation by making it clear that the Government have made their views on this issue very clear indeed.

Can the Minister of State say whether the Minister for Foreign Affairs has protested to the American Ambassador in this country on the question of the mining of the ports, whether the Irish Ambassador in Washington has protested to the State Department there on behalf of the Government, whether the Ambassador was even requested to do so, or does he propose to do it?

I am not so aware. All I can say is that the views of this Government in relation to this issue have been made very clear.

The Deputy reminds me of the Skibbereen Eagle. When the mouse roars everyone hears him. Would the Minister of State consider that it would be wise for us to have our Ambassador in Washington express the views of our Government to the State Department there or would he consider it wise that his colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, would talk to the American Ambassador here so that there may not be any misunderstanding of our position?

I am convinced that there is no misunderstanding whatever as to our position. In relation to the suggestion from Deputy Collins, let me recall and point out — I am not saying because of the Skibbereen Eagle or as a result of our making our views known; most probably it is related to the court decision at the Hague — that the latest reports indicate that the mining operations have ceased.

They should never have started.

An apologia for the mining of the ports.

I must insist on order and that applies to every Deputy.

We do not have to subsume ourselves entirely to the——

Deputy D. Andrews will behave himself.

As I was saying in relation to the mining of the Nicaraguan ports, we made our views very clear. The objective of so doing must be principally to try to ensure that the activity of which we disapprove strongly is discontinued. As I mentioned, without in any way claiming that it was related to our views in this matter being made known, the latest reports indicate that this activity has ceased.

Three cheers.

Why the apparent reluctance on the part of the Government and the foreign service to communicate our view on the mining of the Nicaraguan ports to the American administration? Why have we not done it? Do we propse to do it officially? Is the Minister of State aware that, after all, we maintain a very expensive diplomatic mission in Washington for doing this sort of business on our behalf?

I do not know why this question has been pursued when I have made it very clear to the House that our views——

As clear as mud.

—— on this issue are absolutely clear and the US State Department are fully aware of our views.

We have not told them.

I am calling the next question.

I have been trying to get in to ask a supplementary question.

It is an interchange between bureaucrats.

I want to put it to the Minister——

The Deputy should not get cross.

It is difficult not to get cross with the kind of insipid answers we are getting. The Minister has failed in the past but from now on he might consider pursuing an independent foreign policy on behalf of our neutral nation. In view of his reply, could he make some kind of arrangement with the Government so that the number of concerned backbenchers from all sides of the House would have an opportunity of meeting——

That is a separate question.

It is in relation to the mining of Nicaraguan ports. We should be provided with an opportunity of meeting President Reagan so that we can pursue this matter in a courteous and parliamentary way.

I am calling Question No. 11. Will the Minister please answer?

It is a legitimate question requiring a legitimate answer.

We are moving to the next question.

No, Sir. I am trying to behave myself.

At least you have seen fit to stand up, which is an improvement.

I want to pursue this matter.

You will have to find an orderly way of pursuing it. I have called question No. 11.

You are protecting the Ministers in a disgraceful fashion at the expense of our country's moral position as a neutral nation.

Deputy David Andrews will withdraw that remark.

I will not.

Deputy Andrews will leave the House.

I certainly will.

Deputy D. Andrews withdrew from the Chamber.

Order in the Gallery, please. Young people are very welcome and we are glad to see them there, but we have a rule that we do not have either applause or the contrary from the Gallery.

Question No. 9 in my name asks a specific question about Government representations concerning the mining of the ports in Nicaragua. The Minister has refused to answer. This question is important in relation to Ireland as well as Nicaragua since it is not unrelated to the question of submarines in the Irish Sea.

The Chair has control over questions. In particular he has a discretion as to the number of supplementary questions that may be allowed. A generous number of supplementaries were allowed on this question. Maybe Deputy De Rossa who put down the question did not get as many as he would like, but that is not the Chair's fault. As disorder tended to creep into this question, I called the next question.

I am calling a point of order. I am entitled to do so.

Points of order are rarely in order at Question Time.

That may or may not be so but you have not heard the point of order. A very important and vital question has been put down regarding the situation in Nicaragua and Central America and you seem to have restricted the number of supplementary questions.

We have been on this question for about ten minutes.

We have had no answer from the Minister. It is quite correct that we should pursue this matter democratically within the House. You are not giving us an opportunity. It is disgraceful.

I am asking Deputy Niall Andrews to withdraw the allegation against the Chair.

I will not.

Deputy Andrews will leave the House.

Deputy Andrews will go. It is a disgraceful business.

Deputy N. Andrews withdrew from the Chamber.