In order to make clear my main point of criticism on this Vote I would draw the attention of the House to two separate items, namely, sub-head B and sub-head G. Sub-head B devotes public money to the purpose of paying State prosecutors, and sub-head G provides payment for the defence of public officials. Now, obviously, there is here a certain conflict of interest. In the legal profession when there is a conflict of interest a lawyer is not allowed to take up a case from both sides. No lawyer, except in a very peculiar kind of case where there is consent, is allowed to instruct counsel on two sides of a case. The reasons for that are perfectly obvious. Here we had cases where the Government was, upon the one hand, employing counsel to appear for the prosecution of public officials, and on the other hand was also employing those who were to defend the public officials. This wrong system ceased to be merely an abstract question in the case of George Gilmore. The old practice was different. Formerly, the Crown would allow a person who was instigating the prosecution of a public official to employ his own solicitor and counsel, even though the State would have to pay the costs afterwards. That is not the system now, and we have strong reasons for objecting to the present system being adopted, whereby, as in this case, the Government employ their own counsel and so on. In the case of Mr. Gilmore, he employed in the court of first instance his own counsel, but when it came to the higher court it was the State took control of the whole case, and the final result of the case was in the opposite direction to the tendency there had been on the prima facie evidence. The result was extremely unsatisfactory. Evidence was given that certain members of the Guards had been instructed to arrest Mr. Gilmore every time they saw him. The result of that action has been that Mr. Gilmore is still being persecuted.
I do not wish to follow that matter any further, for it does not arise on this particular Vote. What does arise is the very wrong method adopted by the Department of appointing those who will act on behalf of persons taking such actions as George Gilmore had to take. Under those circumstances it really leaves the general public with the impression that a man who takes action which develops into proceedings involving a prosecution has no chance of getting justice, because the person who is acting on his behalf is the person who is going to suffer most, not merely financially, but because it means a direct attack on the higher policy of Government. This is not merely a question of serious principle, but a question which is going to arise frequently in the course of the next year, and the Government anticipate that, because whereas last year they estimated for only £200 being spent under this particular sub-head of defence of officials for next year they have fixed the sum at £800. Of course they are aware that proceedings are pending in several cases against them. There were other cases of a civil nature where damages amounting to £245 were obtained before a jury. I take it that the actual damages are not paid by the State but the law costs involved. I do not know who pays the damages. I suppose the individuals are obliged to pay, and I do not know if the individuals are always a good mark. I think if the State is paying one it might as well pay the other at the same time. In any case, from the Estimate it is anticipated that a much larger sum will be spent under this sub-head during the coming year. In view of the issue that is going to be raised again and again I suggest to the Department in order that respect for the law may be established that they should act in as impartial a manner as they are capable of, and whoever is called into a case by a client in the first instance should be allowed to act throughout the case, or anybody whom the client chooses. There is nothing revolutionary about that. In fact it is the other system that is revolutionary, and that system is not one which was in vogue in this country before under the Crown. The present practice was not the practice according to English law, and it is not the practice in England today. I do not suggest that because it is English it is good, but certainly the old system is far better and smacked less of a tyranny than the present system.
The only other criticism I would make with regard to this Vote applies to sub-head A, which refers to the draftsman. There has been a certain amount of delay in this House in the matter of draftsmanship. Drafting facilities have not been given to various members of this House who wish to draft Bills, and the result is that severe criticism has been made of Bills introduced by individual members, and even by Parties. I suggest it would be wise economy to spend a little more money and have a second principal draftsman. It is not conceivable that there is not at the Irish Bar another man of equal capacity and equal brains who would be able to pick up a skill of proper draftsmanship in a very short time equal to the skill which is possessed by the present draftsman. No one questions his skill or ability, but there is only one chief draftsman and every Bill must pass under his supervision. As he is an extremely conscientious man he is unwilling to let anything pass that he has not supervised, and the result is that if he happens to be on a holiday legislation is held up. At all times it is impossible for members of the House to have expert advice and assistance except by special permission of the draftsman.
I would suggest, therefore, to the Minister that it would be far better, and would really be an economy of the time of the House, if Bills were ready sooner. There is an amount of legislation pending, and there are short Bills which individual Deputies could introduce if they had the opportunity of getting the expert advice of the draftsman. It is no use going to the ordinary counsel, no matter how skilled he is, because the Government adhere to the methods of the Parliamentary draftsman, and they wish their legislation to be uniform in technique, and although you may get very learned information upon the phraseology of a Bill, still it will have to be subject to severe criticism later on, and that, I submit, is a waste of time. It would be far better to have a second draftsman, and in that way to facilitate Deputies in the work which to many of us gives most satisfaction, namely, constructive Parliamentary work apart from all political controversy.
I hope that the Minister will look into these two questions, but especially it is a matter of public policy that the greatest amount of independence should be left to those professional persons employed for the purpose of prosecuting public officials and that there should be the least amount of interference between the client and the professional persons employed. After all, when the State employs counsel in this way, naturally the person originating the action and the witnesses will not have the same confidence, will not speak with the same frankness; there will be a feeling that they are talking to the counsel for the defence rather than to the counsel for the prosecution. This is an extremely serious matter. If the Government would take up a proper line on this question, it would do a considerable amount to make the public feel that the Government are trying to act in an impartial manner.