asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he protested to the British Government at the damage caused to lands and buildings in the Castleblaney border region arising from the apparent overuse of explosives in road cratering recently.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Border Damage Protest.
28.
The facts concerning closing of a cross-Border road near Castleblayney to which the Deputy refers are still under investigation by the relevant authorities but preliminary investigations would seem to suggest that a greater amount of explosives may have been used than was necessary. When a full report is available, the matter will be considered and whatever action is appropriate will be taken.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that in the comparatively simple operation of cratering roads to use such an amount of explosive which scattered rocks across fields and damaged buildings was not necessary? Will the Parliamentary Secretary ensure that a strong protest is made, and ensure that this will not happen again?
The Minister cannot ensure that but he is prepared to assure the Deputy he is pursuing the matter in the form of a protest to the British Government regarding the amount of explosives used which appears to have been excessive.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary impress on the Minister the urgency of the matter so that there will not be a repetition in the future?
The Minister was originally asked whether he had protested and the answer given was that inquiries were being made. Will the Parliamentary Secretary state if a protest was made regarding the excessive use of explosives in the cratering of the road?
The report which the Minister has received is what he has described as a preliminary one. A full report is awaited, together with a full account of the damage caused by the explosives. The Minister is prepared to assure the Deputy that when these are available the information will be assessed with a view to raising the matter with the British, if appropriate. I take that to mean that if the evidence suggests——
In other words, a protest has not been made.
If the amount of explosive used was excessive, naturally we will protest.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary state if the Department of Foreign Affairs will process claims for compensation for property damaged on this side of the Border?
As the Deputy knows, or should know, the law is that damage maliciously caused in any county can be the subject of a claim against the local council.
For damage caused by the British Army?
It may seem mad to the Deputy but that is the law. Any kind of malicious damage caused in a county area can be the subject of a malicious damage application.
I have given the Deputy a lot of latitude on this matter. I am calling Question No. 29.
There are many cases such as the one mentioned in the question. Is the Parliamentary Secretary now stating that in respect of any damage caused on this side of the Border as a result of British interference along the Border malicious damage claims must be brought by the people concerned against the council?
No, I am not saying that.
What is the Parliamentary Secretary saying?
What I am saying is that, if the Minister is driven to the conclusion by the evidence which he finally gets that an undue amount of explosives was used which caused damage within the boundaries of the State, he will pursue the matter with the British but the Deputy's supplementary question related to——
That is what I asked first.
It is not what the Deputy asked. His supplementary question related to compensation for individuals and individuals are quite free, irrespective of the progress or success of whatever the Minister may do with the British, to make malicious injuries claims against the local county council.
Question No. 29.
Is there not a time limit of 21 days for making a malicious injuries claim?
I am not prepared to give legal advice to the Deputy.