asked the Minister for Defence if any investigation has been carried out into the circumstances in which shots were fired by a soldier on duty at Portlaoise Prison on 18 May last; if his attention has been drawn to the strong criticism expressed by the Prison Officers' Association at the action of the sentry; if he will outline the instructions given to soldiers as to when they are authorised to open fire in such circumstances; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

(Limerick West): I am satisfied that, on the occasion in question, the military personnel acted in a proper manner and that further inquiry into the incident is not necessary.

Arising out of that extraordinary reply I should like the Minister to advise me as to whether he has carrried out any investigation as he was asked in the question and, if so, the extent of that investigation. Will the Minister tell the House on what conceivable basis he can suggest that a member of the armed forces was acting properly in shooting at a member of the public who was at that stage technically free and subject to no restraint or arrest? On what basis was a man who was running, as he was entitled to do, subjected to the fire of a member of the force?

(Limerick West): I should like to reiterate that I am satisfied that military sentries acted properly and in accordance with the needs of the situation on this occasion.

The Minister may be satisfied but I asked him on what conceivable basis a member of the armed forces was acting properly. Is it the position that any member of the public at any stage—Mr. McVeigh was in that position at that time——

I would prefer if reference was not made to any person in relation to this matter.

I accept the ruling of the Chair. On what basis is the Minister satisfied about this? Have instructions been issued through the Minister's Department to members of the Defence Forces on the circumstances in which they might or should open fire on members of the public passing Portlaoise Prison?

This is leading to repetition.

(Limerick West): In reply to the last part of the Deputy's question I should like to tell him that instructions are given and the military personnel know what they are. If sentries suspect that the presence of any person within the prison boundary is unauthorised they are entitled to challenge that person and to take all reasonable steps to prevent that person's further intrusion into prison property.

The Minister is now suggesting that the person in question was in some way challenged but I should like him to tell us how a sentry operating from the roof of Portlaoise Prison could have sought to challenge the person in question. Secondly, on the basis that the person in question was being conducted under close prison officer attention, how could it be suggested that his presence there represented any form of difficulty or threat for the overall security of the prison? Could I ask the Minister——

I want to dissuade the Deputy from attempting to debate this matter now. We may not debate it now.

I am asking——

A final supplementary, please, relevant and brief.

I am asking the Minister if he can assure the House that there will not be a repetition of this sort. For example, could I finally——

Please, the Deputy must now desist from making a speech.

Could I ask the Minister if his investigation has in any way established that the sentry in question put in danger members of the Prison Officers Association, the prison staff who were accompanying the prisoner at the time?

(Limerick West): I would like to repeat I am satisfied that the military sentries acted properly and in accordance with the needs of the situation on that occasion.

No. 13, Deputy Joe Sherlock.

We are not satisfied. It is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs.

The Minister is satisfied but the Deputy is not.

We are not.