asked the Minister for Justice the cost to the State of the raid by the Special Detective Unit and other members of the forces during the course of the Feakle peace meeting.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Feakle Peace Meeting.
16.
It would be contrary to well-established and, in my opinion, fully justified practice for me to give information which might be used to quantify the deployment of Garda personnel and other resources in the carrying out of a security operation.
Is the Minister aware that this raid was abortive? Is it any wonder, then, that the increase in the cost of security for one year was £24 million or is the Minister aware of what the meeting was about?
That would seem to be a separate matter. The question refers only to the cost to the State in respect of the matter referred to.
An amount of £24 million is substantial.
The Deputy is making a statement.
May I say in reply to the implications of the Deputy's statement that no apology is made on behalf of the Garda for carrying out their duty at any time they consider fit in order to ensure the security of the State. To suggest that money spent on security is money wasted ill-becomes the Deputy.
Question No. 17.
I would give all credit to the Garda for carrying out their duty but——
This is Question Time, Deputy.
——to disrupt a meeting that was being held in the interest of achieving peace——
The Deputy is bringing in an irrelevant matter. The question appertains to cost only.
I am asking a question.
Can the Minister say whether the Government have changed their minds regarding their favourable comment on the usefulness of this meeting?
The question relates to cost. I cannot allow a broadening of that subject.
I shall not attempt to broaden the scope of the question but I should like to know whether, if the Government have not changed their minds, how they can justify having arrested two of those who took part in those talks?
All I can say to the Deputy is that this Government have not changed their minds in regard to security or the protection of the institutions of this State. As long as people break the law they will be hunted out and arrested.
Question No. 17.
(Interruptions.)
Is it considered to be in the interest of the security of the State to arrest a Protestant clergyman? These honourable men were working in the interest of peace.
This has nothing to do with the question. I am calling Question No. 17.
The Deputy is well aware that the people who were sought on that occasion were not Protestant clergymen but were members of the IRA who were wanted for serious crime. Does the Deputy object to those men being sought out?
Is Bishop Butler wanted for serious crime?
(Interruptions.)
I have called the next question.
I was attempting to be in order without interrupting either the Minister or the Chair but perhaps I was not heard. Arising from the last supplementary reply——
This is not in order. The Chair will deal only with the subject matter of questions before the House.
Neither the Chair nor anybody else could be aware as to whether I was in order since I have not asked the question. My question arises from the Minister's supplementary reply that the raid in Feakle was carried out in connection with the security of the State——
The Chair has repeatedly called for the next question.
——and I want to ask him why, then, the talks were praised by the Government as a worthwhile effort?
That is not in order.
I regret that there should be criticism in this House by any Deputy, no matter what might be his past, of the Garda for carryout their duty.
Do not mind the past.