With regard to this Vote it seems that an increase of £2,000 upon last year's amount is unreasonable. There is a sum of £12,000 set aside for prosecutions. That seems to be made up of payments of expenses for prosecutions in the country. It seems to be an unreasonable amount especially when there is another item after that of £10,000 for fees paid to counsel. I take it that a big portion of that money goes to the two Prosecutors who are practically continuously in the Central Criminal Courts. Then there is an independent salary paid to the Attorney-General and the practice does not seem to be followed here which is adopted in other places by which the Attorney-General goes into court and conducts important prosecutions. Perhaps the Minister when replying would give some indication as to the work of the Attorney-General's Department and tell us why the Attorney-General himself does not conduct some of the cases in court and thus save money spent on prosecutions. There is a sum of £30,928 for State Solicitors. That would mean about an average of £600 to each State Solicitor. These solicitors are only part-time officers. They are in somewhat the same position as a sheriff who is appointed at a lower salary. I understand that these State Solicitors in Land Commission cases, when they are successful, receive their costs from the litigants and make no return to the Department. If that is so, anyone who stays an hour or so in a Circuit or District Court in the country and listens to the undefended Civil Bills at the suit of the Land Commission will realise the enormous amount of fees which go into the hands of the State Solicitors. In 99 per cent. of the cases the Land Commission are successful, and I would like to know if the fees recovered in such cases go into the hands of the Land Commission or into those of the local State Solicitor. If they go to the solicitor it means that in many cases he draws an abnormal salary, a salary much larger than most senior counsel in the courts can hope to draw.
There is an item set apart for the defence of public officials in actions taken against District Justices, members of the Gárda Síochána, and other public officials for acts done by them in consequence of their duty. Perhaps the Minister would give some details as to how that is made up. If the District Justice gives a decision which is wrong, I understand that when there is a case stated or when there are certiorari proceedings, if the Supreme Court hold against him on the points submitted he is liable for the costs. I do not know if that is one of the matters provided in this sum of £400. I also want to know if, in cases where the Gárda Síochána are mentioned, the costs of defending proceedings such as those in the Waterford cases are borne by the State. In the Waterford cases, as the House will remember, acts of blackguardism were committed by the Civic Guards which you could not expect the State to stand over. I want to know whether in the case of Civic Guards found guilty of such acts of blackguardism the State steps in and pays the expenses in such proceedings. Perhaps the Minister would also explain the reason for the increase under this head and whether he contemplates any alteration in regard to the present system.