asked the Taoiseach if he will comment on the reason it took seven months for the Attorney General to decide that he was precluded from advising the Joint Committee on Building Land.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Joint Committee on Building Land.
1.
The Deputy will be aware that on 20 October 1983 the Minister for the Environment informed the Joint Committee on Building Land of the Government's view that the Attorney General, in view of his constitutional position as legal adviser to the Executive, could not provide legal advice to the Joint Committee. The complexity of the constitutional issues raised by the Kenny Report was such that the examination of these issues by successive Attorneys General was not completed until August 1983, when a 69 page advice was made available to the Minister for the Environment. The Attorney General offered a summary of his advice on a personal and confidential basis to the committee but this offer was not accepted. However, the advice of the legal adviser to the Department of the Environemnt was made available to the committee. In view of the complexity of the issues to be decided on, I am satisfied that there was no unreasonable delay.
Does the Taoiseach agree that it took a very long time to say "no" and that such lack of action might be seen by the public as a stalling exercise?
I hope it will not be seen in that light under any circumstances as the issues involved are extremely complex. They were undertaken by three Attorneys General over a period of changes of Government and were brought to a conclusion last August by the present Attorney General. The committee were informed on the resumption of the Dáil in October.
As chairman of the committee which was kept waiting seven months for the Attorney General's opinion on the contents of the Kenny Report, could the Taoiseach make it clear whether the Attorney General is legally precluded from giving advice to any group other than the Government as it now seems that it was wrong for the Minister to have indicated to the committee at an early stage that the Attorney General's advice would be made available to them? This has happened in this Dáil on two occasions——
A question, please, Deputy.
Is the Taoiseach aware that Deputy Quinn, when he was Minister, also gave advice to another committee to the effect that the Attorney General's opinion would be made available to the committee hearing the Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1983, which was sent to a Special Committee of the House? On two occasions Government Ministers indicated that the Attorney General's advice would be made available to a committee of this House. That opinion was not subsequently made available and the reason given was that the Attorney General could not legally give advice to anybody except the Government. Would the Taoiseach avail of this opportunity to state the correct position so that we will not be led astray again by Government Ministers?
This issue did not arise until relatively recently with the expansion of the committee system in the Houses of the Oireachtas and, consequently, had not come up for decision. That accounts for the fact that Deputy Ray Burke when he was Minister in May 1982 made the offer of the Attorney General's advice to this committee. When Deputy Quinn was Minister he repeated the offer in March 1983. He was relying on the fact that the offer had been made by the previous administration. Subsequently, when advice was prepared and put forward it became clear that the Attorney General can only advise the Government formally. However, he offered on a personal and confidential basis a summary of his advice to the committee and endeavoured to be as helpful as he could within the limits of his office. The position, which was confused originally by Deputy Ray Burke when he was Minister, has now been clarified.
Would the Taoiseach confirm that Deputy Quinn, as Minister, made a similar commitment in regard to——
That seems to be a different question, Deputy.
The Taoiseach is, as usual, trying to blame somebody else.
This is an important matter and I should like the Taoiseach to indicate clearly whether advice of the kind given by Deputy Quinn on both occasions was incorrect and led to major delays in the case of the building land committee——
We cannot have a debate on this matter.
Deputy Quinn was misled by the fact that the offer had been made by a previous Minister for the Environment. The matter has now been clarified and the confusion occasioned by Deputy Burke's original offer as Minister has now been sorted out.
Are we to take it in future that when Ministers of this Government make statements that they are not necessarily speaking on behalf of the Government?
That is argument, Deputy, rather than a question.
I am afraid that Deputy Burke promised something which he was unable to fulfil. He misled himself and others but the House is now clear on the position and Deputy Burke's confusion has been cleared up.
I am chairman of a committee of this House which has been led astray——
I am not going to allow a debate on this question.
We are not speaking about previous Governments, we are talking about this Government.
I am calling the next question.
The Taoiseach should retract the implication contained in his reply.
This offer was made by Deputy Burke when he was Minister and repeated by Deputy Quinn in error but in good faith, believing that Deputy Burke had grounds for making the offer in the first instance. I am glad the confusion has now been clarified.
The Taoiseach has a very warped mind.