Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 4 May 1976

Vol. 290 No. 4

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Frank Stagg Funeral.

24.

asked the Minister for Justice the total cost to the Exchequer of the late Frank Stagg's funeral; and the costs since then.

25.

asked the Minister for Justice why his Department took over the funeral of the late Frank Stagg; and why his remains were not interred where he expressed his wish to be buried.

With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 24 and 25 together.

My Department did not take over the funeral. If, as I assume to be the case, the Deputy is referring to certain actions taken by the Garda Síochána, with the support of the Army, these actions were taken for security reasons which the Government considered necessary in pursuance of their declared policy in relation to unlawful organisations.

The persistent attempts by members of an unlawful organisation and their associates to exploit the situation that arose are well known and, indeed, notorious. Because of this and because also of certain obligations of confidentiality, I must decline to make any comment on the question of the choice of burial place. In this connection I think I should make it quite clear that I do not recognise anybody other than the deceased man's wife, or somebody authorised by her to act on her behalf, as having any right to raise any issue in this regard.

As regards the question of the cost, the clear implication of the question, when taken in conjunction with the assertion that my Department took over the funeral, is that the action decided on by the Government involved the State in additional costs. There is, of course, no basis whatsoever for assuming that the costs incurred were more than would have been incurred had the original plans of an unlawful organisation to stage a funeral through Dublin and across the country been allowed to proceed. The contrary is the case.

The costs incurred—which I emphasise were less than what would be likely to have been incurred if the Government had not intervened—are for various reasons very difficult to calculate, but it has been estimated that overtime costs incurred in connection with the arrangements amounted to about £114,000. As regards costs since, it would be contrary to long-established practice to disclose information which could be used to quantify the deployment of Garda personnel in relation to a localised or other specific security operation where the information would be very useful to criminal elements.

In reply to the Minister's prepared speech on this matter, might I ask him whether he is now satisfied that the action he and his Government took, in regard to the whole performance surrounding the funeral of the late Frank Stagg, was totally and absolutely unnecessary, was clearly intended as a provocation and the Minister must now see that this provocation did not come off and he must be a very disappointed man after spending all that time, effort and money?

I am well satisfied and I am supported by the great volume of public support for the Government's action that what we did was eminently right in the circumstances. What I am not satisfied about, and deeply regret, is the death of this unfortunate man, a death inflicted on him by the Provisional IRA and those who were responsible for forming that body must bear the vicarious responsibility of his death.

The Minister has made no attempt to answer my supplementary question in spite of the great pains he went to to make a propaganda statement——

The Deputy asked if I was satisfied and I said I was.

——on the basis of the reply to the two questions I put down. Might I ask him again if, with hindsight, he is not satisfied that, when the Government stepped in as they did on the morning on which the remains of Frank Stagg were being flown into Dublin Airport, it was totally unnecessary, totally at variance——

The Deputy is indulging in repetition.

The Minister has been repeating himself. I do not see why some lesser backbencher should not indulge in the same practice.

It is not in order to indulge in repetition.

Might I suggest that the decent thing at this stage is to let the unfortunate man rest in peace?

I would like to ask the Minister whether the implication of both his main and supplementary replies is that we should let this man rest in peace? I have more respect for the late Frank Stagg than the Minister, and it is not for any derogatory reason I raise this matter.

(Interruptions.)

Could I have information on a point of grave urgency? Could I inquire from you, Sir, how I might be able to raise the matter of Kevin Street students and their inability to take their examinations?

The Deputy ought to consult my office about that matter in the first instance.

I wonder could I have information as to how I might raise immediately——

I have advised the Deputy that he may consult my office on the matter.

Would it be possible to raise this matter this afternoon at some stage?

Are you aware that this is a matter of grave urgency?

The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.

Top
Share