Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 8 October 2013
450. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the specific date in July 2000 on which the company which specialised in the field of destruction started destroying firearms and ammunition which was stored at Clancy Barracks. [42132/13]
View answer451. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Justice and Equality further to Parliamentary Question of 4 July 2013, if the serial number of the gun confirmed as destroyed by the Minister had appeared in Garda records before 17 August 1989. [42133/13]
View answer453. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the way it is possible that a company could destroy a gun and ammunition on 19 July 2000 in spite of the fact that it only won the tender to destroy firearms and ammunition in Clancy Barracks after the 29 January 2002. [42137/13]
View answer454. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if the suggested sale date of Clancy Barracks of July 2000 that was given in response to Parliamentary Questions Nos. 623 and 624 of 28 June 2005, provided as an explanation for the date of the destruction of the gun, 19 July 2000, confirmed by the Minister in response to a Parliamentary Question of 4 July, 2013; if he will confirm that the actual date of the completion of the sale of Clancy Barracks was 26 March 2004. [42139/13]
View answer455. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Justice and Equality his views on whether the investigation by the Garda Complaints Board in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Kerry in 1992 could be considered to have comprehensively investigated issues regarding the sale date of Clancy Barracks which were raised more than eight years later; the way the investigation completed by the Garda Complaints Board could be considered to have comprehensively investigated issues regarding the tender company concerned which was raised more than eight years later. [42140/13]
View answer456. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Justice and Equality his views on the progress of an investigation by the Garda Complaints Board in the case of a person (details supplied). [42141/13]
View answer457. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if he has familiarised himself with all the facts in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Kerry, up to the present date; including after 1992 when the Garda Complaints Board completed its investigation. [42142/13]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 450, 451 and 453 to 457, inclusive, together.
I have advised the House on a number of previous occasions that I have been informed by the Garda authorities that the case in question which dates from 1989, was the subject of a thorough investigation.
The Deputy is aware that complaints were also made to the Garda Síochána Complaint Board, an independent statutory body, which further investigated the matter. It found no evidence of an offence or breach of discipline on the part of any Garda member concerned.
I am further informed by the Garda authorities that the particular firearm and ammunition seized from the person in question was destroyed on 19 July 2000. This was as part of an arrangement to destroy a large number of firearms stored at Clancy Barracks, including those which came into the possession of the Gardaí as a result of operations against subversives groups.
With regard to information as to the sale of the former Clancy Barracks, in June, 2002 the Department of Defence accepted an offer for the purchase of Clancy Barracks in the sum of €25.4 million. Following detailed consideration of the matter the sale of the barracks was completed on 26 March 2004.
In circumstances where this case has already been subject to an investigation by the Garda Síochána Complaints Board (an independent body whose conclusions it is not my role to second guess) I do not consider that the expenditure of further Departmental or Garda resources, in compiling further information of the kind sought by the Deputy could be justified.
