Vol. 428 No. 1
15 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if the Government will consider proposals to separate the two functions of the Attorney General as legal officer to the Government and defender of the public interest into two distinct and separate offices, in view of the possibility that conflict of interest between the two roles could arise from time to time; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I am not aware of any instance where a conflict of interest has arisen between the various functions of the Attorney General which has created any difficulty in practice over the years. The possibility that such a conflict might arise at some time in the future is not sufficiently real to justify making any alteration in the present arrangements and, accordingly, it is not proposed to do so.
I am surprised at the Taoiseach's reply, given the experience in regard to the X case and the beef tribunal. The Attorney General advised the Government in relation to the setting up of a tribunal and also advised a team to challenge, and essentially obstruct, the work of that tribunal. I do not believe the current circumstances can justify a continuation of the situation where the Attorney General attempts to serve the Government by way of legal advice and also serve the public interest. Will the Taoiseach at least indicate that he is prepared to have the functioning of that office reviewed in some way so that these clear conflicts of interest which we have experienced can be avoided in the future?
The Deputy will be aware that this matter was raised very early in the work of the beef tribunal. The chairman of the tribunal acknowledged that as he had been provided with a full legal team he would be able to have regard to the public interest if any conflict of interest should arise in the course of the hearings. I am not aware that any difficulty has arisen in regard to representation of either the public interest or the interest of the State agencies before the tribunal. I am sure the Deputy is aware that the constitutional role of the Attorney General is set out in Article 30, which I have no proposals to change at present.
Would the Taoiseach agree that the public interest was directly frustrated by the action of the Attorney General in seeking to impose an artificial degree of Cabinet confidentiality to the point that the tribunal, established by this House, was unable to get information which it was set up to get?
The beef tribunal should be kept out of the question.
Would the Ceann Comhairle agree that the Taoiseach claimed that no such conflict had arisen, and that I am telling him that it did in a particular case?
There should be no reference to the tribunal until it reports.
Would the Taoiseach agree that it would be desirable to have legislation to clearly establish the functions of the Attorney General in a way which distinguishes his functions as an adviser to the Government and an appointee of the Government on the one hand and, on the other, his wider responsibilities as a guardian of the Constitution on behalf of all people of all political persuasions?
I am surprised that Deputy Bruton is asking me to bring forward legislation. Article 30 of the Constitution defines the role of the Attorney General and, as the Deputy knows full well, this role can only be changed by an amendment of the Constitution. The issue of Cabinet confidentiality was adjudicated on by the Supreme Court, and I hope that, like me, Deputy Bruton accepts its ruling.
Would the Taoiseach indicate where in Article 30 of the Constitution there is any reference to the public defender of the constitutional rights of the citizen? It is not there.
I will read Article 30 for the Deputy, which states:
There shall be an Attorney General who shall be the adviser of the Government in matters of law and legal opinion, and shall exercise and perform all such powers, functions and duties as are confined or imposed on him by this Constitution...
I wish to indicate again to the House that I am proceeding within two minutes to deal with questions nominated for priority.
I must again point out that over the past 12 months in relation to the Maastricht Treaty and Protocol 17 and its effect on Irish law and the X case the Attorney General adopted contradictory positions. The Attorney General adopted a contradictory position with regard to his advice to Government and his actions at the beef tribunal. In view of this will the Taoiseach give a commitment that these functions will be divided?
The Deputy must not have heard my earlier reply, that I have no such proposals on hand. All actions taken by the Attorney General in the matters to which the Deputy refers were vindicated by higher courts.
We now come to deal with questions nominated for priority. Question No. 25 is withdrawn.
