John O'Donoghue
Question:1 Mr. O'Donoghue asked the Taoiseach the circumstances, if any, in which he is answerable and accountable to Dáil Éireann for the Office of the Attorney General; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15979/95]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Attorney General's Office.
The Attorney General, as a constitutional officer of the State, is independent in the performance of his duties. Under Article 30 of the Constitution, the Attorney General is appointed by the President on the nomination of the Taoiseach, who has the power to request his resignation. The Taoiseach, therefore, has the political responsibility to be satisfied that the Attorney General's functions are being properly and adequately performed. He also has responsibility under the Civil Service Regulation Act, 1956, in relation to certain staffing matters in the Office of the Attorney General.
Does the Taoiseach believe it is his duty to inform the House of the basis upon which the Attorney General gives certain advice to the Government? For example, would he regard it as his duty to tell the House why the Attorney General would tell the Government that a Minister should be indemnified at the taxpayer's expense when sued in his personal capacity for defamatory remarks?
I would not consider it my duty to inform the House of advice tendered to the Government by the Attorney General. The advice tendered to the Government by the Attorney General, and the advice tendered to previous Governments by previous Attorneys General, has always been a confidential matter between the client and the legal adviser and has not been the subject of responses to parliamentary questions in the House.
Am I correct in interpreting the Taoiseach as saying that the taxpayer who is put at risk by alleged defamatory comments should not be told precisely why he has to pay up?
Obviously the Deputy did not listen to my reply.
I did.
The Deputy asked two questions and the answer to the second one depended on the answer to the first. He asked if I had responsibility to tell the House of advice received by the Government from the Attorney General. The answer to that question is no and I may not. His second question was not relevant as I am not in a position to tell the House of advice tendered by the Attorney General to the Government. My understanding is that the assumptions being made by the Deputy are not correct.
Does the Taoiseach accept that the general public is entitled to know the demarcation line in regard to this issue? We are talking of possibly hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money in one instance and we may be speaking about millions of pounds in the future. Does the Taoiseach believe he has a duty to tell the House where the demarcation line is? In other words, can he tell the House the circumstances in which the Attorney General would advise that an alleged defamatory statement made by a Minister should be paid for by the taxpayer if it is found by a court to be defamatory?
We are having much repetition.
The Deputy is bringing the separate matter of indemnities into a question concerned solely with answerability to the House for the Office of the Attorney General. The established practice is that if an indemnity is granted for whatever reason the person who avails of it — this applies to all public servants whether they are civil servants or ministerial appointees — may be covered for their costs but they will not receive any of the damages which will go to the State. That is my understanding of the general policy which applies in regard to indemnities. The granting of indemnities has been a very rare occurrence in recent times. The Deputy's query about indemnities in particular cases is an entirely separate matter and there is no reference to it in the question. He has, surprisingly, attempted with some success to introduce the issue of indemnities into this question where it has no place. If he wishes to table a question about indemnities in respect of a particular case it will be answered by the appropriate Minister.
Given the duality of the Attorney General's role as protector of the public interest on the one hand and legal adviser to the Government on the other, does the Taoiseach think there is a need to separate his functions? The Government gave a commitment to do this in the Programme for Government and I would like to know if the matter is being examined. On the letter recently sent by the Attorney General to RTE in advance of the broadcasting of a programme, was he acting in the public interest or as adviser to the Government? Did he discuss the matter with the Taoiseach in advance of sending the letter?
These are separate matters.
They relate to the Attorney General.
I tabled a question to the Taoiseach and it was disallowed.
This is a general question and Members are bringing in specifics. If they want specifics they should table particular questions.
On a point of order, I tabled a question on the same matters raised by Deputy Harney and it was ruled out of order.
If it was ruled out of order this was for good and cogent reasons in accordance with the practice of the House.
That was done by the Taoiseach who said he had no responsibility.
I ask the Deputy to withdraw that remark. I do not and cannot rule questions out of order. That is a matter for decision by the Ceann Comhairle, a unanimously appointed and independent officer of the House.
Is the Taoiseach saying his office had no contact with the Ceann Comhairle's office in that regard?
My office has the same degree of contact with the Ceann Comhairle as any other Member of the House may have.
The Ceann Comhairle has advised us to table questions.
I resent the imputation that pressure was brought to bear on my office by any Minister or the Taoiseach. I repudiate that imputation and I must ask the Deputy who made it to withdraw it unreservedly. No-one dictates to me in my office.
I withdraw any such implication.
Thank you.
I am happy to answer Deputy Harney's question.
The position is, as I have said so often in the House, the Ceann Comhairle has no function whatsoever in respect of questions which are disallowed. That matter has always been one of Cabinet responsibility. Let us remember that.
That is not correct, you disallow questions.
The Cabinet disallows them.
I beg the pardon of the House. I used the word "disallowed" instead of "transferred" in error. The position is that the Ceann Comhairle has no function whatsoever in respect of questions which are transferred. That has always been a matter of Cabinet responsibility.
I accept that, Sir. The reason I am harping on this point is that I put down 17 questions on this matter and all of them were disallowed. Does the Taoiseach regard it as his duty to tell the House of a conflict of interest in the Attorney General's office? Would that be a matter of public interest?
These are hypothetical questions.
If I was aware of a conflict of interest it would be my responsibility to take action in respect of it.
In response to Deputy Harney, the Attorney General sent the letter to RTE in his capacity as guardian of the public interest and, as was proper, without consulting me. It was not a matter upon which he should have consulted me as he was acting in an independent capacity.
Deputy Harney raised the question of the possible division of the functions of the office. This is one of the matters that will be dealt with in the report of the review group on the Constitution which will shortly fall to be considered by a committee of the House. There are many complexities and difficulties involved, but the matter will be considered in that context. Each Member of the House will be able to make a contribution either directly or indirectly in the context of the all-party committee on the Constitution.
Under the Bill dealing with the compellability of witnesses which was circulated this week the Attorney General will be able to appear before a committee of the House to discuss "the general administration" of his office. Will the Taoiseach explain what is meant by the term "general administration"? Will Deputies be able to ask questions about the issues raised by Deputy O'Donoghue and Deputy Harney?
There is a well established distinction between administration and policy matters. "Administration" would exclude policy decisions and legal advice, but include the expeditious processing of business, such as how files were dealt with and moneys accounted for. The Deputy should pursue these matters when the Bill is introduced when he will receive more information from the Minister concerned than I can give here on an extempore basis.
This question relates to the circumstances in which the Taoiseach is accountable to the House for the actions of the Attorney General. Apparently, it is the Attorney General who offers advice on the question of whether there should be indemnity in a particular case. If he indicates that there should be indemnity, the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money will be involved. Does the Taoiseach agree that, in the interests of common justice, the taxpayer should be informed of the grounds on which such advice is based?
Rather than make inferences or assumptions about individual cases where he thinks imdemnity is being granted——
I am relying on a public statement by the Attorney General.
——the Deputy would be best advised to table a question about the matter. This question does not relate to indemnity, it relates solely in abstract terms to the circumstances in which I am answerable for the actions of the Office of the Attorney General.
The Attorney General gives advice.
I cannot be put in a position where I have to answer many hypothetical questions about matters which the Attorney General may consider in the future. If I am to give authoritative answers on those subjects, I require notice. I am anxious, to the best of my ability, to give clear and truthful answers, but I cannot do so if I do not receive notice. The matters raised by Deputies O'Donoghue and O'Dea are not mentioned in the question before the House.
This is a matter of considerable public interest. If the Attorney General and Ireland are joined in an action for indemnity, the alleged defamatory statements become the statements of the Government. That is a serious matter and the Taoiseach is obliged to answer.
If the appropriate question is tabled.
I will answer any question that is in order and of which I have received notice. This question has not been put to me. The assumptions underlying these emotion charged interventions of a District Court character are not true.
The Taoiseach is patronising us again.
The Deputies should do their homework.
(Interruptions.)