John O'Donoghue
Question:1 Mr. O'Donoghue asked the Minister for Justice the number of cases in which Judge Dominic Lynch participated on the bench in the Special Criminal Court since 1 August 1996 [22116/96]
Ceisteanna — Questions. Priority Questions. - Special Criminal Court Cases.
His Honour Judge Dominic Lynch participated in sittings of the Special Criminal Court on four dates since 1 August 1996, namely, 8, 15, 16 and 28 October, and dealt with 11 cases.
What was the nature of these cases? Will the Minister specify to the House the offences charged in respect of each accused person? Will she indicate whether any of these offences related to the possible extradition of the accused person and, if so, how many? Will she indicate also whether any of these cases resulted in a conviction, and the number of people remanded in custody and on bail? These are statistical questions arising out of my original statistical question.
The Chair must be allowed to determine that matter. The question in the name of the Deputy was allowed because I regarded it solely as a statistical question and that matters appertaining to policy should not therefore arise. If I were to decide otherwise it would have to await formal questioning of the Minister which will resume later today, but this is essentially a statistical question and I cannot permit any deviation from that.
I do not mean to be argumentative with the Chair, for which I have the greatest respect, but I would point out, Sir, that I had many questions tabled to the Minister today but I am left with only one priority question as a result of the disallowance of all those questions, bar this one. The question I posed to the Minister is statistical but the Chair has ruled that my supplementary questions expand too much on the original question. In those circumstances may I be allowed to ask the Minister, in regard to the 11 cases she mentioned, the number of occasions, if any, the Attorney General contacted the Director of Public Prosecutions or vice versa?
I do not have that kind of information.
The question is statistical to some extent. The House is aware it is a long standing rule that statistical questions do not afford an opportunity for dealing with policy, but if the Minister is of the view that the question raised by the Deputy is statistical, she may respond to it.
I can only repeat——
We must proceed then to Question No. 2.
Judge Lynch sat on 8, 15, 16 and 28 October and dealt with 11 cases. The Deputy's question relates to the number of cases and I have given the figure.
In the interests of the House obtaining full information in relation to this extremely serious matter, will the Minister undertake to furnish the information I sought to the House?
The Deputy can table a question.
The policy area to which the Deputy refers can be raised later this evening in ordinary questions to the Minister.
I do not mean to be argumentative but I am trying to ask statistical questions and the Minister is saying she does not have the information. I want to ask more statistical questions arising out of this question which could be deemed to be supplementary or even axiomatic and, therefore, I am surprised that the Minister does not have the replies. I want to ask the Minister, for example, the number of the cases she mentioned which involved explosives.
The Deputy will have further opportunity of questioning the Minister.
This is my priority question and I am exercising my privilege——
What is the privilege?
——in respect of that priority question.
What privilege?
I would have thought, therefore, that the statistics I am seeking, which are axiomatic or supplemental to the original question, would be available to the House. I want to ask the Minister, for example, the number of cases that involved explosives——
Why did the Deputy not ask that in his question?
——murder or bank robberies. These are consequential supplementary questions to which one would expect the Department to have a reply.
Why did the Deputy not ask them in his question?
See no evil, hear no evil.
These are very specific questions which would normally require specific answers.
I was asked a question and I have given the Deputy the answer.
The file is usually full of information and the Minister knows that.
I am asking the right questions but I am not getting the answers.
We are now dealing with priority questions.
Deputy O'Donoghue asked me a statistical question, namely, the number of cases since 1 August on which Judge Lynch sat, and I have given him that information. The Deputy is fully aware that these cases are now the subject of court proceedings and I cannot say anything that will prejudice them in any way. I do not know the answer to questions concerning the number of cases in which the DPP was involved, etc. because all the cases are before the courts.
On a point of order, I have asked supplementary questions. Ministers who come into this House to answer questions expect to be asked supplementary questions, even to a statistical question. In fact, it would be automatic that those questions would again be statistical. Nobody could suggest the supplementary questions I have asked would in any way prejudice the cases before the courts. There is no excuse for not answering these questions.
They are being discussed in every paper in the land.
They will be.
Let this not lead to unnecessary argument. I am proceeding to Question No. 2 in the name of Deputy O'Donnell.
On a point of order——
I ask the Deputy not to raise what might seem to be spurious points of order in circumstances where I am dealing with essential time factors.
I appreciate we are dealing with priority questions but when I was a Minister of State with responsibility for the CSO I answered purely statistical questions and supplementary questions related to them. The Minister has a file with her——
This is a point of argument, not a point of order.
The Minister has a list of cases in her file. She knows the particular charges and she should be in a position to provide that information to the House.
The Deputy should allow Question Time to proceed in an orderly fashion. He may raise that question later if he wishes. Let us proceed to Question No. 2.
A Deputy
More cover-up.