I understood the Minister was going to move the Supplementary Estimate dealing with Law Charges.
Committee on Finance. - Supplementary Estimates, 1935-36.
The Dáil, according to order, went into Committee on Finance and resumed consideration of Supplementary and additional Estimates.
Debate resumed on Vote 26—Law Charges.
It was moved.
Are we to get no details?
Some details were given last night.
I wanted to ask for a few additional details when the Minister is winding up. I am not aware that he gave any information on sub-head E—Defence of Public Officials. I think he ought to tell the House the nature of the legal proceedings that were necessary in the defence of public officials, and to explain how it is that this sub-head has become larger with the passage of years. Does it mean that inexperienced officials exceeded their jurisdiction, or is it that some wholly unique action has arisen? Under sub-head D—I see that additional fees to counsel represent £2,500. We have paid State Counsel in this financial year the comfortable sum of £12,000. Is the Minister in a position to give any information there?
I might point out that we have not yet paid the £12,000, and that we may not have to pay £12,000.
Presumably, the Minister has already paid £4,900, and now within a few weeks from the end of the financial year wants an additional £2,500. He is not paying that for fun. Apparently, he has been advised that it is highly likely this sum will be required before the end of the financial year. Otherwise, he would not ask for it. These are the only questions arising on this Estimate that I wish to raise.
I do not like to appear discourteous, but I think there is a rule against needless repetition. I gave all this information last night. The Deputy asked about fees to counsel in respect to which we are asking for an increased provision of £2,500. I would like to point out to the Deputy that it is not to be taken, because we are asking for £2,500, that that money is going to be spent. We have to make provision for cases where unexpected expenses have been incurred against the Estimate, and we have to make provision to carry on until the end of the year. There was an unexpected case. I do not want to dilate upon it. I will tell the Deputy what it was afterwards. It was a case in which considerable State expenditure was incurred, and when I disclose what it was the Deputy will understand the necessity for it. It was one in which the State had to provide for the defence of prisoners and had, at the same time, to conduct a very expensive prosecution. In regard to sub-head E, I explained to Deputy Cosgrave last night that the increased provision here is almost entirely due to the fact that costs were given against the State unexpectedly in the case of some officials. The Deputy will also understand that in cases where ancient title is involved the Attorney-General is made a party to the suit. It is unusual, I think, to give costs against the State. It happens that in this case they were given against the State and amounted to £1,530. The other cases for which special provision has been made in this Estimate were the actions taken by Cork and Louth County Councils. In view of the manner in which these cases were disposed of, I acceded to representations made to me by the legal representatives of these county councils, and we have agreed to bear a measure of the costs. The other item for the defence of public officials arose in a case where costs and expenses were awarded in relation to Article No. 2 (a) of the Constitution against certain officers of the State who discharged their duties in the manner which had been customary under the previous Administration. It was in consequence of that that the State was involved under this sub-head in something over £900, £350 being in respect of damages. On that point, Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney stated last night that it was unusual for damages to be awarded against defendants in these cases. The Deputy's memory must have failed him, because in 1931 damages amounting to £145 were awarded against certain detective officers. In 1931-32 there was a similar payment, so that in respect of this sub-head these are items which are not unusual.
Are we to understand that these were damages for illegal arrests or illegal detention?
I have not the particulars here but in one case—I may be wrong—I think they were for damages for actual assault.
I am referring to the sub-head.
Deputies will remember the action taken by General O'Duffy and the Kilcoyne case. These are the cases involved there.
Question put and agreed to.