asked the Minister for Finance whether, in view of the savage and brutal attacks made on officers of the customs and excise while doing their duty to prevent smuggling on the Border, he will now make provision to arm these men or protect them with armed forces.

It is not deemed desirable that customs officers should be provided with arms but the question of making adequate protection available is receiving the fullest consideration.

Would the Minister indicate to what length the preventive staff are entitled to go in the use of force when carrying out their duties? Within what limits are they confined in using force to carry out their duties?

They are entitled to use as much force in their defence as is used against them, if they can supply it.

Where customs officers are attacked first, are they entitled to attack then?

They are entitled to repel.

What about the occasion which might possibly arise where the attackers are armed?

That is the situation described in the question. I think it would not be desirable to have customs officers armed. We had the same situation with regard to the Civic Guards at one period of our history.

Does the Minister suggest they should be left there as timber maggies for smugglers to fire on them?

I do not know what the term means, so I cannot answer the question. We put the Civic Guards out unarmed in the face of armed attack and they succeeded.

You can turn out the smuggled pigs and they will defend them.

asked the Minister for Finance (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that five officers of the customs and excise service were savagely attacked and seriously injured when endeavouring to apprehend smugglers in County Monaghan on the night of May 18th, 1950, and whether he has any statement to make on the matter; (2) whether he is aware that regulations made under the Superannuation Act, 1887, which applies to officers involved in the incident referred to above, do not provide for the payment of more than £5 towards the cost of surgical and medical treatment of officers injured in such circumstances; and, if so, whether he will amend the regulations to provide for a more substantial payment; and (3) what provision is made for officers and/or their dependents who are seriously and permanently incapacitated as a result of injuries received in the execution of their duty.

The answer to the first part of the Deputy's question is in the affirmative. I do not propose to make any statement at this stage except to deplore the occurrence.

As regards part (2) of the question, the injury warrant made under Section 1 of the Superannuation Act, 1887, does not deal with payment of medical or hospital expenses. I can assure the Deputy, however, that, so far as these injured officers are concerned, all reasonable expenses will be met from State funds.

As regards the last part of the Deputy's question, the warrant made in 1946 under Section 1 of the Superannuation Act, 1887, makes provision for special payments to civil servants seriously and permanently incapacitated as a result of injuries received on duty, and to their dependents, where the officer's remuneration is over £500 a year. The Workmen's Compensation Acts apply where the officer's remuneration is £500 a year or less.

Will the Minister give these officers an assurance that they have the full support of the Government in carrying out their duties?

They do not require that assurance.

Even though their duty does entail the prevention of carrying Macklin's smuggled pigs over the Border?

They do not require any assurance from us. We have always upheld officers doing their duty, even against the Deputy's friends.

Is it a fact that no provision is made in these cases for compensation for pain and suffering when the question of compensation arises?

I cannot answer that.

Is it not a fact that in deciding compensation in these cases the Department has found it possible to play Jekyll and Hyde with those officers in receipt of less than £350 per year as compared with officers over that figure?

The Deputy must be speaking of the last Administration. I have had very few examples of that.

I am not referring to any particular Administration. Will the Minister introduce special legislation to deal with compensation in the case of those customs officials?

I see no reason for that yet.

Are these officials not to be covered by legislation such as the Garda Compensation Act, or could that Act not be amended so as to include this particular type of State officials?

Legislation was passed as recently as 1946. I see no reason to doubt the efficacy of the legislation passed.

There were no attacks like that then.

There were plenty of them on Civic Guards.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.