With all the noise from the Fianna Fáil backbenches I will have no difficulty. The Deputy seemed to have no control over them yesterday. They were shouting one another down.
The professional staff of the office possess unrivalled knowledge, skill and experience in the field of Government law, and are highly professional and dedicated. Because of the nature of this work, this fact is rarely seen and acknowledged in public.
The problems of the office have not arisen in relation to the quality of legal advice or of draftsmanship. However, the ever increasing and varied demands of the office's work in recent years have given rise to the need for a major managerial reinforcement of the office, involving, in particular, the introduction of an enhanced and comprehensive system of information technology. These changes are now taking place. When they are complete the office will be fully equipped, by means of a major resource, which will still be embodied in its professional staff, to meet the demands being placed on it.
On the question of what arrangements I made for obtaining formal and independent legal advice, it was not appropriate in the case of Mr. Russell for me to use the services of the Chief State Solicitor. This is because Mr. Russell, a senior legal assistant, in the Office of the Attorney General was the Accounting Officer for the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. That is why an independent solicitor as well as an independent barrister had to be used.
Under the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924, the Office of the Chief State Solicitor is a particular service assigned to the Attorney General. Counsel engaged by the Chief State Solicitor have access to State files — this is clearly necessary if they are to be briefed on a particular case. Of course professional confidence applies and this has never been breached. In relation to the particular matter at issue here today the question of access to State files by the independent legal advisers engaged by me did not arise. These advisers did not have any need to have access to any of these files.
The commitment in the Government's programme in relation to the feasibility of splitting the two roles of the Attorney General was made in the context of a review of the Ministers and Secretaries Act and this review is, as I stated yesterday, in progress. It can also be anticipated that the constitutional review group will wish to examine Article 30 of the Constitution relating to the Attorney General. My predecessor in reply to a parliamentary question on 18 October last from my colleague, Deputy De Rossa, as in reply to previous questions of that kind to him, stated that he had no proposal to alter the existing arrangements in regard to the functions of the Attorney General's office. In contrast, the parties forming this Government have agreed that the roles of the Attorney General required examination and this is being done. We will act, if necessary, on foot of that examination.
Neither I nor my Department had any communication or discussion with the Attorney General as to whether he should attend before the sub-committee of the Select Committee on Legislation and Security. As I stated yesterday, that decision was entirely his own.
In relation to the question of why was Mr. Gleeson dealing with the committee's request for documents, the committee made a request for documents to the Attorney General to which he was perfectly free to reply because he was not conflicted in any way. They did not seek legal advice from him. The committee's own independent legal advisers saw every document. The reasons for which documents required to be excluded were set out in correspondence to the committee and had no connection at all with the matter upon which Mr. Gleeson had advised Mr. Russell.