asked the Minister for Justice whether in the month prior to the escape of 31st October, 1973 there was any reduction in the numbers of gardaí on duty in or around Mountjoy Prison; the number of members of the Special Detective Unit of the Garda Síochána who were on duty at Mountjoy Prison on 31st October, 1973; and the times on that day when they commenced and ceased duty.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Garda Duty at Mountjoy.
28.
As this is a security matter, I am not prepared to give the information sought in the question.
Could I ask the Minister if he still contends that this is a security matter on which he cannot give information to the House, having regard to the fact that the question relates to matters and arrangements made some time ago, and that announcements were made by and on behalf of the Government that changes have been made in those arrangements and that, therefore, this question relates to matters of historical interest and not to the current security situation?
I do not accept the Deputy's contention that these are matters of historical interest. Security is an on-going thing and it would, possibly, lead to breaches of security to give the information sought in this question now. The question seeks, if you like, the statistical or factual information regarding the actual security arrangements around Mountjoy Prison and I am not prepared to give away information which might be open to a particular interpretation, or which might unwittingly reveal information of assistance to parties who are not entitled to it or who are ill-disposed towards the State.
As I tried to point out to the Minister, having regard to the fact that the question relates to matters which are past and not to the current security situation in Mountjoy, I feel entitled to ask the Minister is it not a fact that the number of gardaí on duty at Mountjoy was reduced some days prior to the helicopter escape and is it not a fact that at the time of the escape there was on duty one Special Branch man who was locked between the outer and inner gates and was not in a position to do anything whatever about the escape?
I am not prepared to comment on the alleged facts which the Deputy puts forward in his supplementary or to comment on whether or not they are accurate. If he has all this information, I do not see much point in asking the question.
The Minister will appreciate that his function as Minister for Justice is to answer questions in regard to matters such as this. It is the function of the Opposition, I submit, Sir, if they receive information——
The Deputy is making a statement.
I am submitting to you, Sir, that, in response to the Minister's reply, I am entitled to point out that it is the duty of the Opposition, if they come into possession of information of public importance, to bring it to the notice of this House and to allow the Minister to refute it if that information is not correct. I want to point out that in this case the Minister has refused to comment and has refused to answer a question.
I am afraid the Deputy is embarking on a long statement.
May I conclude on this? The fact is that all the questions, including the questions put by me, relate to matters which are past, and the Minister has said that security arrangements have been changed. There could not, therefore, be any breach of security in answering these questions. It is only a cover up.
I have not commented on whether or not there were any changes. What I have said is that I am not prepared to give the details sought in this question as it involves questions of security.
In the past.
If the Deputy, by way of supplementary question, puts to me certain facts which he alleges to be the case, I cannot refute them or comment on their accuracy because, in effect, through a back door method I would be answering the original question. When there is a question of security involved, I just cannot give any information. That is the nub of my reply.
The Minister has not offered any explanation as to why security is involved.
May I put a question on a matter on which the Minister has already commented? Does the Minister recall having made a statement in a Press interview shortly after the escape to the effect that the same number of armed guards were on duty on an equivalent date last year as were on duty on the date of the escape? Is the Minister aware that there was, as Deputy Colley pointed out, one armed guard there for a short duration for a specific purpose in a position in which he could exercise no influence over the escape attempt, successful or otherwise, and that he was withdrawn, whereas on the equivalent date last year which he mentioned in his Press interview there were a number of Special Branch men on duty around the clock? Will he comment on that?
In his statement to the Dáil following this unfortunate incident, the Leader of the Opposition made the allegation that security had been reduced. When commenting on that and some other rather odd points in his statement, I made the comment that the number of gardaí on duty at Mountjoy Jail on the day in question was exactly the same as it had been on that day 12 months when the Leader of the Opposition was Taoiseach. I made that comment to show that the general tone of his statement regarding the reduction of the forces was inaccurate.
May I put a specific question to the Minister? Is it or is it not true that there was only one armed Special Branch man on duty for a limited time during visiting hours for the purpose of observing visitors and that on the equivalent date 12 months previously there was an armed Special Branch guard on around the clock duty? Is that right or wrong?
I am not prepared to comment on the duties of any particular members of the gardaí at Mountjoy Prison on any particular day. That is a matter relating to the security of the prison and it is not proper for me to give any details on it.
Is the Minister saying he deliberately tried to create the impression that the same number of gardaí were on duty at Mountjoy on the date of the escape as there were during the previous year?
That is what I said in my statement. The number of gardaí on duty was the same as in the previous year.
At that specific time?
Yes.
Will the Minister deny that the around the clock duty was withdrawn?
There are gardaí on duty around the clock at Mountjoy all the time.
I am asking the Minister will he deny that around the clock duty by armed Special Branch men was withdrawn by the time of the incident?
As a matter of security, I am not prepared to say what gardaí were on duty, around the clock or otherwise.
Is it not a fact that not even an un-armed guard was on duty when Fianna Fáil allowed Paul Singer to leave this country with hundreds of thousands of pounds of the Irish people's money?
They are in trouble when the Deputy gets up.
Would the Minister indicate in his opinion what period of time would require to have elapsed before he would feel entitled to answer a question of this kind in relation to security matters?
It would be quite impossible to answer such a general question. If I were asked what was the security in Mountjoy Prison in 1945 I presume it would be quite relevant to announce that today. With respect to the Deputy, it is an unreal way to pose this problem.
And he knows it. He is just trying to make trouble for no valid purpose.
We know who caused the trouble——
To cover your own record.
I am asking the Minister to examine——
The Deputy is making very heavy weather of it. Does he remember when Ministers were dismissed——
We are getting under the Taoiseach's skin. I am asking the Minister to explain to the House and to the public in what way precisely security would be involved, breached, or in danger of being breached, by his answering questions relating to security arrangements made some time ago which, on the statements of the Minister and the Government, have been changed since then.
If the Deputy after 16 years in Government is not aware of the requirements of security I am not going to use Question Time to give him a lecture on security.
We know who cut down on security and we know who is covering up——
(Interruptions.)
Tell us a little about what happened between February and May, 1970.
Tell us about the Offences Against the State Act, who is enforcing it and who is against it.
I am calling Question No. 29.