Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 10 Mar 1964

Vol. 208 No. 4

Committee on Finance. - Vote 18—Law Charges.

Minister for Finance (Dr. Ryan)

I move:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £12,500 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Attorney General, etc. and for the Expenses of Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges, including a Grant in Relief of certain Expenses payable by Statute out of Local Rates.

Two law actions are responsible for this Supplementary Estimate. One is the action taken by Mrs. Ryan against the Attorney General challenging the validity of the Health (Fluoridation of Water Supplies) Act, 1960, and the other action taken by the Civil Service Clerical Association against the Minister for Finance and others regarding the implementation of the Civil Service scheme of conciliation and arbitration.

The excess of £7,000 on Subhead B—Witnesses' expenses, etc.—and that of £10,000 on Subhead C—Fees to Counsel—have been occasioned by the Fluoridation case. This action, taken against the Attorney General was heard in the High Court and was dismissed. Costs were awarded against the plaintiff, Mrs. Ryan. She appealed to the Supreme Court against the decision of the High Court and judgment on that appeal has been reserved. In the meantime the State is obliged to pay its commitments in respect of fees to counsel for the State, witnesses' expenses and other incidental expenditure. In all, State costs arising from this action are estimated to total approximately £23,000. Of this amount £836 fell into 1962-63 and, when account is taken of savings expected to be realised on the normal Vote provision for 1963-64, £17,000 remains to be voted under Subheads B and C of this supplementary estimate.

The excess of £5,500 on Subhead E arises from the action taken by the Civil Service Clerical Association against the Minister for Finance and official and staff representatives on the General Council set up under the conciliation and arbitration machinery for the civil service. The action arose from meetings of the Council held in May, 1962, to deal with a claim for increased pay for the grade of clerk-typist. The Association sought an order from the High Court declaring that the meetings were invalid and that the agreed report should not contain any reference to these proceedings. They also sought an injunction restraining the Minister for Finance from requesting arbitration on the clerk-typists' pay claim.

The orders were sought on a variety of grounds which were rejected by the court, with the exception that it was found that the Staff Panel had not complied with certain technicalities in the nomination of their representatives on the General Council. On this account the meeting of 31st May, 1962, was declared invalid. The injunction against the Minister for Finance was not granted and the case against the Staff Side secretary was dismissed.

In the course of his judgment, the trial judge referred as follows to allegations made against the Staff Side defendants:

I have no hesitation in finding that these charges against members of the Staff Panel and of the Committee are wholly false: my view is not that the charges have not been proved but that it has been established that the charges are unfounded. The members of the Staff Panel and of the Committee acted throughout this dispute with the highest degree of honesty and good faith. Threats of legal proceedings, wild allegations of bad faith, disorderly conduct, interruptions with the orderly progress of conciliation meetings ... were in their view a threat to the existence of the conciliation and arbitration scheme. Moreover, they felt rightly that their honour was involved: their associations had entered into the reorganisation scheme and by doing so they thought they had committed themselves to the Minister and that a claim to amend the scheme should be made in clear terms and not by the devious way of putting forward a pay claim and then using it in an underhand way to criticise or alter the reorganisation scheme.

The court made no order as to costs which meant that the three parties to the action were responsible for their own costs.

The General Council set up under the agreed scheme of conciliation and arbitration consists of official and staff representatives. The staff defendants, having acted as staff representatives at the General Council meetings in respect of which the action was taken, were joined as defendants and thus became liable for costs amounting to £4,412.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

On a point of order, I do not question the Minister's right to read a statement, but usually as a matter of courtesy, when a statement is being read by a Minister, it is circulated to members of the Front Bench opposite. The Minister has said some things that I found it difficult to hear. Therefore, I should like him to arrange to have his statement circulated in the course of reading it.

Dr. Ryan

I am sorry: It is a short statement, and I do not think it is usual to have short statements circulated. I do not want to show any lack of courtesy.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

The fact is that I find it difficult to hear what the Minister is saying. I know that if the Minister were speaking and not reading, he would be more audible. I find it difficult to hear what he is saying, and I am interested in the subject matter with which he is dealing. I feel the statement should be available to us.

Dr. Ryan

I have only a little more to read. I am dealing with why it is put on public funds. In the light of the judge's comments already quoted and in view of the fact that the staff defendants were operating the machinery set up by the conciliation and arbitration scheme, I am satisfied that this is a proper charge on public funds.

The State's own costs in the action amounted to £2,126 but savings on the subhead generally reduce the supplementary provision necessary to £5,500.

Savings of £9,000 are expected on Subhead D of the Estimate and appropriations-in-aid are expected to exceed the original provision by £1,000. Making allowance for these factors, it is necessary to ask the Dáil for an additional £12,500 for Law Charges.

Mr. Dillon

I question the propriety of going beyond the most formal statement in regard to a matter which is sub judice, which I think correctly describes one of the cases referred to by the Minister in connection with this Supplementary Estimate. In regard to the other case, relating to Civil Service arbitration, whether or not it is desirable for the Minister to make a long ex parte statement of his view of the merits of this litigation on an occasion of this kind I think is open to question.

The case has been before the court.

It is the right of any citizen to go to the court if he feels he has a case to make. In this instance, the applicants were granted relief by the courts. The Minister may think it was on a pure technicality but the record speaks for itself. Anybody interested in that can have recourse to the record if he wants to pursue it further. Certainly, the decision of the court was one to which the applicants were entitled.

If the Minister feels, in all the circumstances, that the costs of certain public servants who were cited as defendants in this connection should be met, I do not think the House would dissent to meet these costs. They arise out of the conciliation and arbitration machinery which obtains in the Civil Service.

I shall not enter into a discussion of the merits of this case. I believe the sound principle is that Dáil Éireann shall not undertake a review of the decisions of the courts of competent jurisdiction in this country. These expenses arise out of litigation which the plaintiffs were entitled to initiate and which the Minister was entitled to defend per se or per alios. He directs the attention of the House to the fact that technically perhaps he might not be liable in respect of the costs of the Civil Service case and he comes to the House for authority to meet the costs in view of the special circumstances of the case. We are not prepared to object to that course.

We think the matters arising out of the other case, if they need to be discussed here at all, should be left over until such time as they cease to be sub judice of the High Court which they at present are.

Mr. Corish

We have no objection, either, to giving this money to the Minister.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I have not as long experience in the House as either the Leader of the Opposition or the Minister but I certainly do not recall any situation in which an Estimate in relation to law charges was introduced into this House associated with a statement by the Minister which appears to have been critical in relation to one of the cases with which he was concerned. I know nothing about the rights or wrongs of the action brought by civil servants who felt themselves aggrieved or concerned about statements made by the Minister for Finance but I feel they were entitled to ventilate their claims in the courts.

It is part of our concern here that an independent judiciary should decide upon their claim. In this particular instance it appears that the point of view of the Minister for Finance was sustained by the courts. So be it. It is not necessary that it should be discussed here.

If, in fact, the two cases which make this Supplementary Estimate necessary represent one that is sub judice and the other in which the point of view of the Minister was sustained in the courts, there are many others in the main Law Charges Estimate in which the citizen or different citizens successfully challenged the point of view of the Executive. It is quite wrong, if a case has been decided, that a situation should be provoked here where the merits of a case decided in the courts would again be the subject of debate here and it is in that regard that I should like as an individual Deputy to enter the protest.

I did not fully hear what the Minister said. However, I heard enough to convince me that the Minister appeared to be delivering here on his own behalf an ex parte statement with regard to the merits of one of the cases with which we are concerned in this Estimate. I do not think that is right and I do not think it is a practice that should be encouraged.

Dr. Ryan

I did not want to review this case. I agreed to pay the costs of the staff representatives— which I need not have done—because they were fighting to uphold the claim that was there for arbitration. I wanted to justify my step to the House by stating the opinion of the judge of the staff side. He gave it as his opinion that the staff side were on the whole right in their action and for that reason I thought it right to do as I have done so that Deputies would understand why I assumed responsibility for the payment of some £4,412 odd of taxpayers money.

Vote put and agreed to.