asked the Minister for Justice if he will consider arming the Garda Siochana in view of the many raids throughout the country.

It is not proposed to depart from the long-established policy of having an unarmed police force. The extent to which certain members of the force should be armed for particular duties is the subject of a continuing review.

Am I to assume from that reply that the Minister is satisfied with the present security system? Is he aware that many countries in Western Europe have an armed police force and the system seems to work smoothly?

Not generally.

In reply to Deputy Murphy, since its inception the Garda Síochána has been an unarmed force and down the years the policy has been that it remains an unarmed force. There have been occasions in the past when, because of upsurges of armed violence in the State, calls have been made for the arming of the police. The Garda Siochana themselves have always staunchly maintained that they stay unarmed. The arming of the gardai to meet the challenge posed by armed criminal elements will not stop criminals from using firearms, a fact that is evident in other jurisdictions where the police are armed.

Arming the police could well produce situations in which inevitably shoot-outs would escalate and possibly innocent civilians would be killed. Moreover, an armed police force could have a serious adverse affect on the Garda role as a community service and on the capacity of the Garda Siochana to act as guardians of the peace. The significant rise in armed robberies that has featured in the crime statistics in recent years is the reason given for arming the Garda. Serious though the situation is, it is not of the proportions that would call for such a drastic revision of policy. Certain members of the Garda who are assigned to specific duties and who operate in plain clothes carry arms. This has always been the position. The number of men in the Detective Branch is being considerably increased at present and these members can be armed when assigned to particular duties. Additionally the Garda authorities can and do call on support from the Army in situations where they require armed support.

Is the Minister satisfied with a recent front page statement in the Irish Independent indicating that more than £1½ million was taken in armed robberies during the past 12 months and that of that large sum only 1.86 per cent was recovered? We must assume that the raids were 98.14 per cent successful.

Question No. 18.

Surely we cannot accept that our security position is correct when armed raids seem to be a most successful enterprise.

Question No. 18.

I reject the implication in the supplementary question put by Deputy Michael Pat Murphy that the Garda as a body should be armed.

He who pays the piper calls the tune. Is that not a matter for the Government to decide? All I am asking the Minister is if the statement is correct that only 1.86 per cent of property stolen since this Government took office was recovered and that 98.14 per cent was retained. Is that a factual assessment of the position, as given in the newspaper, or not? I believe it is.

I would refer the Deputy to the latter part of my reply to his first supplementary question which more than adequately covers the point he is now raising again. I said that the significant rise in armed robberies that has featured in crime statistics in recent years is being given as a reason for arming the Garda. I say that, serious though this situation is, it is not of the proportions that would call for such a drastic revision of policy, that certain members of the force who are assigned to specific duties and who operate in plain clothes carry arms, that this has always been the position, that the number of men in the Detective Branch is being considerably increased at present and that these members can be armed when assigned to particular duties.

Question No. 18.

A final question. Am I correct in stating that the 1.86 per cent of the stolen property recovered was recovered mainly due to the fact that the raiders were accosted by armed gardaí?

I am sure that the thinking of——

Were it not for that fact, none of the property would have been recovered.

I am sure that the thinking of Deputy Michael Pat Murphy would be somewhat coloured if some innocent by-standers were shot on the streets.

I reject that comment. People are standing by in Belgium, Holland, France, Germany and in other countries and they have nothing to fear.

This is argument. I am calling the next question.

If arming the Garda is not the answer—and I share the Minister's view on this—what is the Minister doing about the armed raids?

I have already covered that, if the Deputy had listened on both occasions when I told Deputy Murphy what we were doing with regard to increasing the number of men in the Detective Branch throughout the country.

Question No. 18.

It is under review, I know——

Sorry?

——but meanwhile robberies are occurring in Donegal and in——

I never once mentioned the word "review".

No, but it is implicit in the Minister's answer.

No, it is not.

While the Minister fiddles banks are being robbed.

The Deputy is not being very helpful.

I resent that. I tried to contact the Minister during the entire Summer Recess, but he went to ground. The Minister is harder to get than the fellows robbing the banks.

If the Deputy expects me to create a platform every time he feels the political need for one to further his own personal interests, I cannot oblige him.

In my public statements I offered the Minister every assistance, but he did not even acknowledge them.

Even the Garda have rejected the Deputy's offers of help and efforts to assist them.

The Minister could be surprised on that.

Order, please.

When I become as unpopular with the Garda as the Minister has become during the past few months I will reconsider my position.

When the Deputy has, he can review his position.

Question No. 18.