asked the Minister for Justice if the inquiry into recent disturbances in St. Patrick's Institution has been completed and if it is proposed to publish the report.

I presume the Deputy is referring to the disturbance which occurred in St. Patrick's Institution on 31 October 1978 which is over a year ago.

I gave the House an account of these disturbances, based on the facts then known, in reply to a parliamentary question on 1 November 1978. A more detailed internal inquiry was subsequently carried out. It is not the practice to publish the results of such inquiries—and I am satisfied that there are good reasons for this practice, mainly the fact that the facts are more likely to be revealed on that basis—but I can say that the inquiry did not disclose anything that was either inconsistent with or that added materially to the account I gave the House already.

I should also add that allegations were made that, while dealing with the disturbance and, even more so, after the disturbance had been quelled, prison officers seriously assulted a number of prisoners by way of retaliation. As such allegations amount to allegations of criminal offences on the part of the prison officers concerned, the Garda Síochána were asked to carry out a separate investigation. They did so and submitted their report, which includes the statements of the persons who made the allegations as well as those of prison officers, to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The director found that there was no evidence to warrant a prosecution.

Will there be any changes in the system of administration in St. Patrick's arising out of those inquiries? Will they have any concrete effect? Will the Minister reconsider the general attitude to the publication of the whole or part of such reports in order to quell sometimes unnecessary concern in the public mind, sometimes justified, and remove the cloud of suspicion which on occasions hangs for a long time in the wake of such instances? Will the Minister consider a more open approach to the idea of publishing such reports which ultimately are paid for out of the public purse?

I cannot say what the findings of that report were. However, the findings did not bring about any change in the statement I referred to, which was issued on 1 November 1978. It is not the practice in this House to comment on matters such as changes within the prison administration.

An affirmative would suffice.

I cannot say. I would need separate notice of that question so that I could consider the implications of it. With regard to the idea of making available reports of Garda or other inquiries to quell unnecessary concern, I do not believe that all the concern that is being voiced is necessary or genuine, as the Deputy thinks. The Deputy mentioned an organisation this morning which my predecessor and I have had difficulty with. We will have an opportunity during the course of the debate on the Vote for the prisons to thrash that out. I agree that there is concern but not the great concern the Deputy speaks of.

The Minister admits that there is some concern. I am not asking the Minister to consider publishing a verbatim report of an internal inquiry but he should consider publishing a statement, as comprehensive as possible, making allowances for questions of libel and confidentiality, which would help to clarify the matter in the public mind.

I issued a comprehensive statement on 1 November dealing with the matter.

Subsequent to the inquiry?

I am telling the Deputy that what came out in the inquiry did not make any difference to the facts outlined by me in that statement.

I take it that the Minister is not in favour of publishing those reports in any shape or form?

We have devoted sufficient time to this matter and I am calling the next question.

7.