asked the Minister for Justice whether in view of the recent upsurge of vicious crime the Government will consider an immediate restoration of the pain and suffering provisions of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.

I do not accept that the basis on which compensation is paid for personal injuries criminally inflicted should necessarily be influenced by fluctuations in the levels of crime. The changes introduced on 1 April 1986 to exclude compensation for pain and suffering, were decided on by the then Government in the light of the escalating cost of the scheme as it operated up to then and in the light of available resources. In the present financial circumstances I see no real prospect of returning to a more favourable basis for compensation under this scheme.

Incidentally, an analysis of the statistics available for the last few years would not support the contention that there has been an upsurge in the level of violent crime.

I am very disappointed with the Minister's reply. Would he not agree that a society that does not compensate people who are injured as a result of being criminally attacked or assaulted is a sick society? The amount of money involved is only about £1 million. That could be found by further fines through the courts or in ways of that kind. Would the Minister not agree that it is wrong that people who suffer serious injuries can only be compensated for loss of earnings and can get no compensation at all for these injuries? This is our only way of showing in a practical manner that we as a society condemn in the strongest possible terms those who engage in crimes of this kind. Would he not agree that prison officers whose lives are endangered in many cases as a result of the work they do on behalf of this State are a very vulnerable group in this regard, that they in particular should be the subject of special compensation arrangements, as are the Garda Síochána?

The Deputy will realise that the last part of her supplementary question refers to a separate parliamentary question that was disallowed. Consequently I do not propose to deal with it.

Why not?

The question was disallowed.

How did the Minister get that one out but did not get this one out?

I know full well it was disallowed because it came to me initially, as the Deputy should know.

I did not realise the Minister had anything to do with disallowing questions.

Why were the Minister's representations successful in that case?

The Deputy should be asked to withdraw that insinuation. It is a slur on the Chair.

The Deputy should not impugn the impartiality and the independence of the Chair and I want to tell Deputy Desmond O'Malley that that is the position. No one dictates to this Chair.

A Cheann Comhairle, if you disallowed the other question, why was the Minister aware of the question?

I have no idea.

Would you try to make inquiries, a Cheann Comhairle.

A Cheann Comhairle, as soon as questions are handed in to the General Office — and the Deputy could be advised by her party Leader who was in Government — the questions for a particular Department are immediately sent to that Department so that the staff there can start getting the material ready for the answer.

I put down a priority question in respect of prison officers which, unfortunately, was disallowed. I am sure that is the question referred to. It was disallowed as a result of there being a written reply, which is very unfair to this House because we do not have an opportunity to debate the issue.

It was disallowed because I had asked the question previously.

It received a written reply.

I can assure the House in respect of this matter——

That was in connection with what we were doing. Deputies Barrett and Harney should get their acts together.

——that the standard practice applied in this case as in all cases and that there has been no deviation whatsoever from the standard practice in this case.

What was the Minister's position and that of his party when the changes took place in the criminal injury code in 1986?

I would like the Deputy, too, by way of further supplementary question, to tell me what position he and his party were in at the particular time when they supported the Government which made the decision.

Will the Minister answer the question?

At this stage it is I who ask the questions. This is Question Time to Ministers. It is up to me to ask the questions and up to the Ministers to answer them. The Minister may not answer my question by asking me another. Would he answer the question that I have put to him, which was: what was the attitude of the Minister and his party in 1986 when this arrangement was introduced by the previous Government?

He is shy. I am answering for him. His party opposed it.

I shall answer it for him if he is reluctant to do so himself.

I am not in the least bit reluctant to answer the question.

The Minister did not answer my original question.

The answer to Deputy Harney's other supplementary question is in the negative.

Could the Minister indicate whether any consideration is currently being given in his Department to reinstating this scheme, or re-establishing it, in view of the widespread concern and, indeed, the representations made to him by the National Association for Victims of Crime and others. It would not take a great deal of money to restore this facility. It is something that the Government should consider in all humanity.

The Deputy may not pursue the matter by way of argument.

Is this a matter which is under review, or might be considered afresh?

I make it very clear, without any shadow of doubt whatsoever, that in the present financial climate there can be no question of revising the scheme with a view to allowing the tribunal to make payments in respect of pain and suffering.

One final, brief question. Would the Minister at least do this much? In view of the large number of claims that have been awarded and are awaiting payment, could he provide funds to the tribunal before the end of this year so that many promises of payment made earlier in the year may be honoured, especially coming into the Christmas season?

There is no question whatsoever of additional funds being made available in this year.

Has the Minister any proposals to introduce new schemes similar to that available to the Garda Síochána for other groups involved in the security of the State?

The Deputy can rest assured that the matter which he is raising will receive very favourable consideration at the appropriate time.

A final supplementary question from Deputy Harney.

Would the Minister not agree that his attitude to this matter and the decision to reduce the paltry sum of £10,000 which was given to the Association for Victims of Crime to £8,000 last year and again this year is an indication that the Government are not prepared to put anything like the same amount of resources into helping victims as they do into helping offenders?

The Government very much regret that they are not in a position to restore the scheme to what it was.

Would the Minister not agree with what I have said and forget the brief for a moment?

Deputy, please. Do me the courtesy of allowing me to try to answer the supplementary question. In the present financial climate there is no question whatsoever of revising this scheme.

I call Question No. 7.

We shall have to talk to the Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke, about it. She is the only person who can give us any encouragement.