Vol. 450 No. 3
11 Mr. Sargent asked the asked the Taoiseach, in view of the fact that the review of the Office of the Attorney General makes no suggestion that the post of Attorney General should be a full-time post, if he will honour the commitment made in A Government of Renewal for a full-time Attorney General; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [
The commitment in the policy document, A Government of Renewal, has been honoured. The current Attorney General is full time, subject to the requirement that he will be able to retain his status as a practising barrister. I should explain that in order to retain this status he cannot exclude himself entirely from the possibility of private practice. However, the Attorney General has not accepted any new private work since his appointment and any private work which he might accept in the future would be minimal in extent and accepted solely for the purpose of maintaining his status as a practising barrister.
I am pleased to hear the post of Attorney General is full time. I would like to know whether the review into the office of the Attorney General, which did not find it necessary to include the recommendation that the post of Attorney General ought to be full time, or the commitment in the programme for Government will take precedence in the future? The public would be interested to know whether reviews carried out from time to time could be used as a stalking horse to allow for a U-turn given that they may recommend something contrary to that contained in the programme for Government. In that case what would take precedence?
The programme for Government, which represents an agreement between three parties on this question, would take precedence. It is the view of the parties in Government that the Attorney General should be full time subject only to the requirement that he or she maintain his or her status as a practising barrister. There is no question of that being changed by any internal reviews, audits or examinations.
Is the Taoiseach interpreting that aspect of the programme for Government as having any implications for ordinary Members? For example, will the dual mandate with counsellors be considered in the light of that commitment in the programme for Government?
That is a separate matter.
Will the Taoiseach confirm that the terms of appointment of the Attorney General are precisely the same as those of his predecessor?
I do not really know much about the precise terms of reference of the Attorney's predecessor.
Will the Taoiseach clarify that the terms are the same regarding his ability to continue as a practising barrister, if he so wished? To call his predecessor a part-time Attorney General is unjustified.
I do not want to enter any commentary on that matter.
I will put down a separate question.
I have no wish to cast aspersions on any previous occupant.
