asked the Minister for Defence if he will state, further to his reply of 5th November, 1970, that ten men from County Derry were enlisted and given FCA training at Fort Dunree during 1969-70, why this was done in view of Defence Forces Regulation R.5 Part 3.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - FCA Training.
34.
As I indicated in reply to Question No. 87 on the 5th of this month, the ten men from County Derry were enlisted in An Forsa Cosanta Áitiúil and given training at Fort Dunree under an arrangement approved by my predecessor. The circumstances surrounding that arrangement were fully explained to the Dáil by my predecessor on the 3rd of this month.
Would the Minister accept that what was done was contrary to Defence Forces Regulation R.5, Part 3?
I have nothing to add to what the Minister stated.
That is not the question I asked. I asked if the Minister would accept that it was contrary to the regulation. That is a straightforward question which the Minister must answer.
I suggest that is not in question.
It is a question.
Question No. 35.
A Cheann Comhairle, the Minister has refused to answer a question.
That is a matter for the Minister, not the Chair.
If I may remind the Minister, I asked him why this was done in view of Defence Forces Regulation R.5, Part 3. I have received no satisfactory reply. I am asking the Minister if it was or was not contrary to that regulation?
It was Government policy at the time and they turned a blind eye to it.
The circumstances surrounding that arrangement were fully explained by the Minister.
Arising out of the Minister's reply that the circumstances were fully explained, may I ask him how he reconciles two parts of that full explanation: one, that this was done with the authority of the then Minister for Defence, deliberately, with full knowledge that these people were from Northern Ireland, and the other reply also given at another time by the Minister at that time that, in fact, one cannot always know where people come from and inquiries are now made, with the clear implication that the Minister concerned, or the people concerned, did not know where these people came from? Which part of the full explanation are we to believe?
I have nothing to add to what has already been stated.
The Minister is afraid to say a word.
(Cavan): Surely as the new Minister, the Minister should clear up the position which badly needs to be cleared up.
Instead of covering it up.
Question No. 35 postponed.