asked the Minister for Justice the result of the police inquiry arising from a recent High Court action (details supplied) in the course of which planning permission played a prominent part; when the inquiry was decided; and the steps now proposed to be taken.

The allegations in this case were brought to the attention of the Garda authorities on 11th March, 1968 by the Chief State Solicitor on the direction of the Attorney General at the request of the Department of Local Government of that date.

A detective superintendent of the Garda Síochána examined the relevant court documents, including the statement of claim and the defence, together with all supplementary statements. He interviewed all the persons who were involved in any way in the proceedings.

Contrary to what was suggested in this House, these court documents contain no suggestion that the defendant alleged that improper influence was ever in fact used or attempted. What they show is that the defendant alleged that the plaintiff had held himself out as being able to use such influence. Even that appears only as an allegation, and the documents contain no evidence in support of it. The plaintiff, for his part, did not, as suggested in this House, claim that he had in fact used such influence and demand payment on that basis. His claim was that he had assisted in the making of the case for the appeal. Both the context in which this appears and other documents go to show that this reference by the plaintiff was a reference to legitimate assistance and there was no admission whatsoever of impropriety.

As for the other investigations carried out by the detective superintendent, the position is that all the people concerned in the civil action refused, for one reason or another, to make statements, and of course they cannot be compelled to do so. For completeness, may I add that Deputy L'Estrange, who made allegations in this House, was also interviewed by the detective superintendent who reported that the Deputy said that anything he had to say was said in the Dáil and that he was making no further statement.

The Garda inquiries lasted from 12th March to 8th April and the results were communicated to the Attorney General on 11th April. The Attorney General's decision was that there was no evidence on which to base a charge against any person.

If the allegations finally made in the amended defence filed in this case are true I deplore the sordid transaction to which directors of this company were a party whereby they thought they could secure their objectives by improper means.

I may say that the Government have given specific consideration to the question of the establishment of a Tribunal of Enquiry under the Tribunals of Enquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, but have been advised by the Attorney General that witnesses could not be compelled to give evidence incriminating themselves.

Is the Minister serious in saying that there is nothing in the pleadings of this case that did not clearly indicate that planning permission was obtained as a result of moneys paid and further moneys promised.

No. I say that in amended evidence filed by the defendants in this case if this allegation was made it was made by one side and denied by the other. This case was struck out. It was settled by Order here, but no Order was made, on the 7th March, the date on which Deputy L'Estrange raised the matter in this House and quoted here from the pleadings. The matter was first mentioned in this House and the first intimation the House got of it was when Deputy L'Estrange mentioned it on the 7th March and made certain allegations here. That was the day evidently on which the case was settled. Immediately then the matter was put in the hands of the Garda the result of which investigation I have given to the House now.

If the Minister has the pleadings, and I take it the Minister has had a look at the pleadings in this case with the assistance of the Attorney General, does he not know that it was a claim made for a specific sum on foot of cheques, the payment of which had been stopped because the planning permission came before the date of the payment of the cheques, and the defendants very properly thought they had given enough to the plaintiff for whatever information he as a Donegal man had for the then Minister for Local Government, another Donegal man.

The Deputy is coming back to the case made in the House by Deputy L'Estrange, from which he ran away immediately he got out of this House and refused to make a statement to the Garda. If Deputy L'Estrange has any evidence of the Minister concerned being involved in this business, the Garda are there. He has refused to make a statement? Why is Deputy L'Estrange so backward in coming forward? Why does he not stand over the allegations he made in this House?

Even by implication the Attorney General is standing over them because he says there is no point in investigation because you cannot compel anybody to give evidence.

He is acting on the specific statement taken by a senior officer of the Garda who went to every body concerned, including Deputy L'Estrange. Like Deputy L'Estrange, everyone of them showed their doubts and gave no evidence. Deputy L'Estrange has all the evidence he was able to get from pleadings; why does he not come along and substantiate his statement that the Minister was involved in this matter?

Is the Minister for Justice not perfectly aware that here the plaintiff has sued for £1,500, the balance of £2,000 which he told the defendants was necessary before he could assist them in getting their planning appeal through successfully. Is it not further suspicious that the plaintiff is a Donegal man, that the then Minister for Local Government was a Donegal man, and that when the allegation was made by Deputy L'Estrange it was promised that the then Minister for Local Government would come in and defend it but he never came in here. I asked for an answer before the referendum and you did not give it.

Deputy L'Estrange was throwing this mud on the eve of a bye-election. When the Garda went to Deputy L'Estrange he refused to make a statement. Why do you not get your pal to make a statement? Deputy L'Estrange's brother-in-law was counsel and it was from him he quoted in his pleadings to this House. Go to the guards and give them a statement.

Do not be talking through your hat.

Deputy L'Estrange does not happen to have a brother-in-law who is counsel.

The Minister is talking through his hat as usual.

Let your pal make a statement to the guards. Why did he run away? He made a dirty charge against the Minister for Local Government, that he was corrupt, and the Minister does not know any of those scruffy friends of yours who were involved. The Deputy ran away after throwing the mud as usual.

Read the record.

He is confusing a dignified assembly like this with Balla fair during an election.

The Deputy has dignified experience from Belmullet.

Much more dignified that the Minister has.

You will not be going there any more, I understand.

I will be awfully sorry to leave.