I wish to make a statement. This morning in the House on the basis of incorrect information and in the absence of Deputy Harte for reasons known to you, I said he had been refused the reason for the non-answer to a question of his. Subsequently I discovered I had been incorrectly informed on that matter and I want to set the record straight. In fact, he was informed of the reason. The reason he was given was that the matter was one which occurred outside the jurisdiction and the precedent was against the answering of such questions. To give some examples—and they are merely examples—I wish to mention to the House that in Government I answered questions on the following subjects. Volume 274, Question No. 10, Crossmaglen GAA Park; Volume 273, Question No. 2, Northern Ireland internee; Volume 271, Question No. 28, British SAS; Volume 269, Question No. 40, Use of C.R. Gas; Volume 267, Question No. 11, Northern Ireland internees; Question No. 14, British forces in Northern Ireland; and, most relevant of all, Question No. 18, death of an Irish citizen killed on a concession road. In the light of those precedents which are only a few arising from my own personal experience, I should like the Chair to reconsider the basis of the decision made in respect of Deputy Harte's question.
Business of Dáil.
The Deputy has cited what he regards as precedents. Without going into the actual files to see why the questions were admitted—perhaps the one he refers to was a citizen of the Irish Republic—I would not know at this stage. By way of helping the Deputy, I gave him a number of similar cases that were rejected in the past and some of them occurred when the Deputy was in office.
It was because you gave me a list of cases rejected in the past and did not include these cases that were accepted that I felt it necessary to draw your attention to them.
I am grateful to the Deputy for the information but I gave him a number of similar cases, picked at random, that were rejected.
I have given a greater number of cases where question were accepted in the past, including the specific case of somebody killed on a concession road. I merely ask the Ceann Comhairle to look again at the question in the light of that.
The Deputy should concede that an effort was made to raise in the House the question of a person shot on the Border in his time in office and that question was rejected.
With regard to Question No. 18, Volume 267, a reply was given and I have it here.
On 10 July 1973 a question was rejected on the grounds that the Minister had no function in something which took place outside the jurisdiction.
My precedent was 26 July 1973. It was question by Deputy Blaney which I answered personally relating to the death of an Irish citizen killed on a concession road. To say the least, the precedents are mixed. The latter ones and the weight of them are on my side.
I want the House to accept that each case is examined on its merits. The matter of allowing or rejecting each question is not done in the interest of saving any individual embarrassment. The easiest way out always for the Chair would be to accept all questions thereby avoiding the type of ugly scene we had today. However, we must be guided by precedent.
I accept that. My concern was that if I did not challenge the matter now the ruling given to Deputy Harte that the question could not be answered because the matter happened outside the jurisdiction might be taken to be a binding precedent for the future when there are many precedents in the opposite direction. It seems to me most undesirable that this House should not be able to ask whether Ministers have inquired into matters that occur in Northern Ireland. In so many cases when these matters have been raised questions have been answered and the responsibility for making inquiries about them has been accepted. It has also happened in cases concerning Irish citizens in Britain. The idea of a precedent being created that such matters occurring outside the jurisdiction cannot be raised here is one that we could not accept and I would ask the Chair to look at the matter again.
I do not think any question relating to an Irish citizen has ever been rejected in the past.
The person concerned was an Irish citizen.
The person was a citizen of Northern Ireland.
I beg your pardon. Any person with one grandparent born in this island before 1922 is an Irish citizen and the Ceann Comhairle must be aware of that fact. In fact, the majority of people in Northern Ireland are Irish citizens.
I have no evidence to the effect that the person was an Irish citizen.
You have no evidence to the contrary.
The same situation applied to 11 other questions that I looked up at random. They had been ruled out. I should like to point out that we are using the time allocated to the next item.
Is the Chair aware that two weeks ago Deputy Lenihan answered a question about Crossmaglen GAA Park. What is the difference?
I have said that every question is considered on its merits.
Have some questions more merit than others?
We are not here to discuss that.
Perhaps we should not pursue the matter further but it should be looked at with a view to establishing a clear-cut precedent in the matter, that questions which ask Ministers to look into matters which occur in Northern Ireland or Britain and which affect Irish citizens will be allowed regularly, not allowed sometimes and disallowed on other occasions. The present situation only causes confusion in the House. Perhaps we could discuss it further in due course through the usual channels.
It may be discussed in another place. The precedents in this case are clear to me and I have given a copy of them to Deputy FitzGerald.
I have given the Ceann Comhairle my precedents.