asked the Minister for Justice who bears the cost of the Garda and Army patrols which guard transfers of moneys and valuables between banks; and the estimated cost of these patrols in 1981.

26.

(Waterford) asked the Minister for Justice the arrangements, if any, that exist for reimbursing the cost of the State of supplying Garda/Army escorts for private security firms delivering to banks and private companies.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 25 and 26 together.

The estimated cost of Garda-Army escorts for deliveries of cash to banks in 1981 was £363,000 in the case of the Garda Síochána and £1,054,000 in the case of the Army. The cost is borne by the State and in that context I should perhaps point out that the escorts have been provided not at the request of the banks but on the initiative of the Government in a situation where large sums of money were falling into the hands of paramilitary groups or organised criminal gangs.

Moreover, the transport of some of the money in question is undertaken in order to facilitate, directly or indirectly, the delivery of cash to local post offices for the payment of a variety of social welfare benefits. This is so even in some cases where the cash is being moved from one bank premises to another. The same principle applies to costs incurred in affording protection in certain cases to deliveries of cash to firms other than banks.

I very much regret, particularly at a time of economic difficulty and a time when crime generally is on the increase, that substantial manpower and financial resources have to be devoted to tasks of this nature, but I am satisfied that the alternative of leaving large sums of money easy prey for terrorist and criminal elements would be fraught with danger.

Surely some of the costs should fall on the banks. Nowadays the banks are being taxed heavily, but why should the State have to pay for the protection of the banks' money in instances like this? You have to prevent robberies, but surely the banks have a duty to provide part of the cost.

There is much more than the mere prevention of robberies involved in this situation. What brought about the provision of escorts by the State resulted in a very serious bank robbery involving subversives. Apart from the individual robbery itself and the crime attached to the taking of the money at that time, we have the other difficulty where large amounts of money fall into the hands of illegal groups or subversive organisations and are used and have been used in the past for the furtherance of their evil motives. In that regard it is important that the State ensure that this is prevented. At the moment we are paying the price of that, so to speak. Unfortunately, that is the position, but it is a position that I would be prepared to review.

Have the banks been asked to contribute to the cost?

The banks have been asked in the past to contribute and there were views expressed on both sides, from the Government's point of view and the banks' point of view, but at that time a Government decision was consciously taken that the present facilities should obtain for the reason I have given.

What was the reply of the banks to the request to contribute?

I do not think it would be appropriate to make a reference to that in the House because of the nature of the matter.

Does the Minister intend to ask them again?

I do not intend to communicate that to the Deputy. In areas of security I will not communicate any details to the House.

That is not security, it is finance.

It is security.

Would the Minister agree that there is no distinction to be made between paramilitary groups and organised criminal gangs and that the distinction he appears to draw would be erroneous?

That would not be correct because where one has paramilitary groups or subversive organisations there is a definite assault being made on the security of the State. Criminal gangs pursue their acts of criminality for other motives. There is a very clear distinction.

Is the Minister now saying that the motive of the criminal decides the criminality of his act?

The motive of the criminal in some situations does not pose a threat to the security of the State.

Is the Minister suggesting that paramilitary gangs are not criminals?

There is no such suggestion whatever. The Deputy is quite clearly trying to pose some difficulty for me. I have given a very distinct reply and I am sure the Deputy's intelligence allows him to understand what I mean.

I am trying to clear up what the Minister has said and save him from making an erroneous distinction.

There is a distinction.

Is there any procedure whereby you can extend the terms of reference of the committee which was set up last week to deal with the telephone inquiry in Leinster House to include the deliberate smear campaign that has been orchestrated by a section of Fine Gael in opposition to other members within their own party against individual Members of this House and that has been so actively continued as it was when Eamon de Valera himself was accused of illegitimacy, when Seán Lemass was accused of gambling at the expense of the State, when other members of the Fianna Fáil organisation were viciously attacked, in the same way as Members of this House and members of the Fianna Fáil organisation are being attacked now. I want to suggest that you have the possibility of widening the terms of reference of this protective committee so that individuals like Deputy Mitchell who have deliberately set out to character-assassinate Members of this House could be brought before it.

Deputy Andrews, please resume your seat. The Deputy can ask a member of his party to raise the matter on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. It is not in order to make a statement.

What is the protocol regarding the flying of the flags of the nations of the EEC who are visiting at present? I ask the question because of the insufficient position of our own national flag in its situation outside the door.

The mini-session of the Council of Europe is meeting in Dublin at present and it is customary to have the flag of each nation flying here.

What is the position regarding our own flag?

It occupies the same position.

I know we are the hosts and I hope we are hospitable hosts but I do not think our own flag should be put into the centre. It should be in a higher position than the other flags.

We will take your observation into account.

I have tried to raise a Private Notice Question——

I am making a ruling now. I am not giving any answers as to why I am disallowing questions. You have the right to come to my office to discuss it.

This is a matter of grave public concern.

I am not giving you an answer. It was ruled out before. Will you kindly resume your seat?

On the Order of Business——

We are not on the Order of Business.

I would like to raise on the adjournment why the Minister for Agriculture has failed to make sufficient moneys available to ACOT for the taking over of St. Martha's College in Navan.

The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.

I would appreciate it if it is not put on the long finger as it was last month.

Your question was allowed but it was not selected and you did not attempt to raise it again. However, I will certainly take that into account. The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.