Vol. 445 No. 9
2 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he 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 conflicts of interest between the two roles could arise; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [537/94]
I have indicated previously that 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.
Does the Taoiseach recall that during the beef tribunal the Attorney General refused to accept his responsibility to defend the public interest and his counsel declared on his behalf that he was only there to defend the State and State agencies and that it fell to the tribunal to protect the public interest? Does he not regard that as a conflict between his role as adviser to Government on the one hand and, on the other, defender of the public interest?
The question refers to the office of the Attorney General. The Chair is concerned to ensure that there should be no reflection on the character or integrity of the incumbent of that office.
The Labour Party does that; we do not do it.
My question relates specifically to the functions of the Attorney General——
The Deputy has heard my remarks.
I am drawing attention to an instance of where that conflict of interests has arisen.
The situation referred to by Deputy De Rossa was resolved at the beef tribunal, as he knows only too well. The chairman of the beef tribunal accepted that there was a shared responsibility to protect the public interest on the part of the tribunal, which had its own counsel in this regard——
That is more than the £3 a week affair. That is not true.
It is £3 an hour, which represents the increase.
That matter was resolved and the tribunal accepted that it had a role to play with its own counsel in protecting the public interest, a role shared with the Attorney General.
That does not tally with the facts. Will the Taoiseach not now agree, given that I have pointed out to him a clear conflict of interest that has already arisen, that serious consideration should be given to the separation of these two functions? Enough concern has been generated about the findings of that tribunal without having this added concern when it is clearly within the power of this Government to do something about it.
Deputy De Rossa's argument presumes that the Government would have an interest other than the public interest and I do not accept that for one moment.
Certainly the 1987-89 Government did.
The role of the Attorney General is of a quasi-judicial nature, taking account of all interests and deciding his actions or advice accordingly.
In his first answer the Taoiseach acknowledged that there could be occasions when the political interest of the Government and the interests of an individual who required to have his or her rights vindicated in public could differ. In those circumstances surely there is potential for conflict of interest where one person is acting as legal adviser to the Government and is also acting on behalf of an individual who wants to assert or vindicate his or her rights. Is it not the case that the Taoiseach's first answer amounts to saying that there is no perception at the moment of such a conflict of interest but that it will be addressed if it occurs? If there is such a conflict of interests would it not be far too late to address the issue when somebody's rights are being prejudiced by the fact that the same person is supposed to represent the Government and also the private constitutional rights of the individual?
I think Deputy McDowell accurately heard what I said but I will repeat for his information that the possibility that such a conflict might arise at some time in the future is not sufficiently real to justify making the alteration suggested by the Deputy. Consequently the present arrangement stands.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the record of the House should read that the chairman of the tribunal decided, having regard to the instructions given by the Attorney General to his counsel that they would not defend the public interest, that it was incumbent on the tribunal to do so? Does the Taoiseach recall that it was the Attorney General who initiated what has become known as the Cabinet confidentiality decision behind which the Taoiseach and other Minister could shelter? Was that in the public interest?
There seem to be differing views as to whether it was for the protection of the Taoiseach or not. Deputy Rabbitte will be well aware of what I am referring to in this regard.
Why does the Taoiseach not answer questions instead of transferring them?
I have already stated that the question of the public interest was raised at the beef tribunal and resolved by the chairman of the beef tribunal itself. I have no quarrel with that.
Let us not forget the time limit attached to questions to the Taoiseach this day.
I do not forget the time limit. The Taoiseach is deliberately ignoring an example of how a conflict of interest has arisen between the two roles of the Attorney General in the case of the beef tribunal. That is basis enough for a change. Will the Taoiseach not accept that and stop pretending that this did not happen or trying to distort the reality of what happened at the tribunal in his own interest?
Unlike Deputy De Rossa, I do not try to second guess the decisions of the chairman of the beef tribunal.
Would the Taoiseach agree that there would be an advantage to all of us in having an office-holder whose job it is to vindicate public constitutional rights, in view of the fact that at present the only way a constitutional issue can be tested is if some individual is prepared to risk £10,000 or more to go all the way to the Supreme Court? Will he agree there should be a public officer whose job is to ensure that everybody, including the Government, respects the Constitution?
I do not think the possibility of something arising in the future is good enough grounds to make the changes suggested by Deputy Bruton.
