Vol. 430 No. 7
12 Ms O'Donnell asked the Minister for Justice the number of petitions to commute or reduce sentences which were opened in each of the past two years; and if she will have arrangements made for the decision on all such petitions to be published in Iris Oifigiúil.
I am anxious to be as helpful as possible in dealing with the Deputy's question concerning petitions.
In reply to a question by Deputy Cullen on 30 March concerning the number of petitions to commute or reduce sentences that were opened in each of the past two years, I said that statistics were not maintained in such a way as to enable the precise information sought in the question to be provided. The same applies to Deputy O'Donnell's question. The best estimate I can provide is that the number of petitions in this category is less than 30 per annum.
These cases represent a very small percentage of total petitions received. The number of petitions received in 1991 was approximately 4,300 and the number finalised approximately 4,900. The corresponding figures for 1992 were 4,600 and 3,600. It will be obvious from the 1991 statistics that some of the petitions finalised were received prior to that year. The same applies to the 1992 statistics.
With regard to the Deputy's suggestion that details concerning individual cases be published, it has never been the practice to publish such information and, of course, there is no statutory requirement to do so. I am sure Deputies will agree that there are valid reasons for this and that the individuals who make petitions are entitled to a certain degree of privacy concerning their personal affairs. All of their cases have been before the courts and penalties have been applied, and I do not think that it would be right if the State proceeded to list the names and addresses of those concerned in Iris Oifigiúil simply because, for personal reasons — very often, inability to pay — they have decided to avail of the petitions procedure.
I can, of course, see merit in the publication of global figures and would have no difficulty in providing these from time to time in reply to parliamentary questions. I would, however, have to make the point that the amount of work involved in producing global figures is considerable and that annual figures or at best, perhaps, six-monthly figures might meet the requirements of the House. By global figures I mean figures such as those I have already given with perhaps further information on the number of cases in which fines were substituted in lieu of a prison sentence, number of fines remitted or mitigated, number of cases in which people were granted extension of time to pay and so on. I think that information of this kind might reasonably be provided to the House.
The Minister did not deal as extensively as she might have in her earlier reply with the question of a parole board, as recommended by the Whitaker committee. If we had such a parole board both we and the public would know why people were let out of prison and why their sentences were commuted or reduced. Would the Minister agree that it is somewhat dishonest and disingenuous of politicians in general — not the Minister in particular — to castigate members of the Judiciary with abandon for imposing inadequate sentences but to keep for themselves a method of cancelling or reducing sentences without any public accountability whatever?
I am delighted the Deputy is not suggesting that I have castigated members of the Judiciary — I have been very careful not to do that. I dealt with the question of a prisons board in my earlier comprehensive reply. I said I thought such a board would dilute the role of the Minister for Justice. I am sure Deputies would not appreciate it if a Minister did not have to come into the House to answer questions in relation to prisons.
A parole board——
With regard to the review of sentences——
I referred to a parole board, not a prisons board.
The Deputy should let me finish. With regard to a review of sentences, temporary releases, etc., I am sure the Deputy is aware that a sentence review group headed up by Dr. Whitaker reviews all cases where people are serving a sentence of seven years or more.
I asked the Minister two questions but I did not get a reply to either of them. This is becoming customary. I asked about a parole board——
This is Question Time, not answer time.
I said that it was somewhat dishonest for politicians to criticise judges for inadequate sentences when there is a capacity for unaccountable reductions in sentences to be made in secret by politicans.
Let us move to the next question.
On a point of order, this House is entitled to some elementary courtesies, and it has received very few such courtesies from the Minister today. I referred during my contribution on the refugee protection Bill to the particular habit of this Minister of not answering questions. If the Minister thinks she is playing hardball with us or impressing us as a tough lady, she is not. The Minister is abusing——
The Deputy has made his point. As he knows, The Chair has no power to instruct any Member of this House to reply——
I appreciate that but——
I am moving on to Question No. 13.
The Minister is accountable to this House under the Constitution and she is flouting her accountability and constantly abusing her position.
Question No. 13, please.
