asked the Minister for Justice whether in view of the decision of the High Court and Supreme Court respecting the shooting and death of Michael Patrick Lynch at Marsh's Yard, Cork, he intends to pay compensation to the nine persons wounded on the occasion of the shooting.

The answer is in the negative.

Arising out of the Minister's reply, is he aware that John J. O'Riordan, who was severely wounded on that occasion and whose life was despaired of; James Hegarty and Maurice O'Doherty, a married man, had nothing whatever to do with the lorry, were ordinary spectators of the incident, who were pushed by the crowd, and that they were acquitted by a Cork jury of activities in connection with the Marsh's Yard incident? In view of these facts can the Minister see his way to compensate these men?

I do not know.

Can the Minister tell us what action those men are entitled to take, having regard to the fact that, in the case of Michael Patrick Lynch, severe and heavy damages were given against the perpetrators of the shooting?

I do not know whether they could take any action or not.

Well, I am sorry the Minister for Justice is not present to give us some information on the matter. However, I shall bring it up again.

Is the Minister aware that, arising out of the shooting in question, a decree was given against certain members of the Guards and that very strong remarks were made by the judge who tried the case? Is the Minister further aware that, were it not for the provisions of the Public Authorities Protection Act, every single one of these men would have an action which the State would have to face? In the circumstances, does the Minister not consider it to be an act of gross injustice to these men, who have been wronged by the servants of the State, not to compensate them?

The Deputy may be right in his legal points—I do not know.

Is it in order that the Minister principally concerned in an important question like this should be absent and that it should be left to be answered by a Minister who seems to know nothing at all about the case?

Members of the Government have joint responsibility.

Quite so, but in this instance the Minister left to answer the question seems to be in absolute ignorance of the subject matter.

Arising out of the Minister's reply, is he prepared to give an undertaking that, in the event of civil actions being started by these injured parties, he will undertake that no servants of the State will plead the Public Authorities Protection Act in order to avoid their liability?

I could not give any such undertaking.

So, in fact, you want to do these people out of the compensation to which they are entitled?

Who found that they are entitled to compensation?

The judge of the High Court has said so and has given stiff damages against you.

He said no such thing.

He said, on the only case tried on the merits of this issue, that the conduct of the Government servants was a public scandal and it was proposed to give the maximum damages against them.

Arising out of the Minister's reply, is he aware that these men went into the witness-box and deliberately swore that they went out to kill? It was an unprecedented admission in a court of law. Is the Minister aware of that, that they went out to commit murder?

Not to commit murder.

They went into the witness-box and they swore there that they went out deliberately to kill these people.

A supplementary question must relate to the main question on the Order Paper, which in this instance has reference to compensation.

I should like to give notice that I will raise this matter on the adjournment.

I would like to ask if, in a case of deliberate murder by a servant of the State——

The words "deliberate murder" should not be used in the House unless of a person duly convicted of murder. Citizens have no defence against charges made here.

I do not want to accuse them of it, but they went into the witness-box and said they went out to kill these people.

I think the Deputy should be asked to withdraw those words.

What other name could be given to it?

These men swore deliberately that they went out to kill the boys.

Is this in order?

If there is a technicality——

The Deputy may ask a supplementary question, but may not endeavour to make a speech in the guise of a question.

Is the Minister aware that those men went into the witness-box and in my presence and hearing swore they went out to kill these boys? It was only by the mercy of God that at least a dozen were not shot to pieces.

Is the Minister aware that the judge ordered these people to be brought up on trial?

Has the Deputy withdrawn the charge of murder?

No, I am raising it on the adjournment.

The Deputy will not raise it on the adjournment. He may not, on the adjournment, raise the question of murder or anything else relating to this matter.

I intend to raise this question, as we cannot get a satisfactory answer now from the Minister.

While the Chair is speaking, no Deputy should interrupt. This whole matter was discussed at length on an Estimate last week. Hence it may not be reopened on the adjournment this evening.

The Minister who was left to answer the question knows nothing at all about it.