Vol. 458 No. 5
1 Mr. O'Dea asked the Taoiseach the person who decides on the circumstances in which a Government Minister who becomes involved in legal proceedings should be indemnified by the taxpayer for any costs incurred or damages awarded; if he will give details of these circumstances; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16835/95]
Where a Government Minister is involved in legal proceedings which arise through the exercise of his duties, no question of indemnity arises as any judgment given against the Minister would be effectively against the corporate person and thus becomes a State debt to be discharged in due course. However, if a Government Minister is involved in legal proceedings which do not arise through the exercise of his duties, it is difficult to imagine a request for an indemnity at all. Nevertheless, if an indemnity was sought by a Government Minister involved in legal proceedings and there was any doubt as to whether these arose through the exercise of his duties, any legal advice on the giving, or non-giving, of the indemnity might be clarified by the Attorney General for the benefit of the Minister for Finance who vets all public expenditure.
May I ask the Taoiseach if the criteria have been published? The granting of indemnity to a Minister involved in court proceedings potentially exposes the taxpayer to payments of perhaps hundreds of thousands of pounds. Does he agree that the criteria should be made public or does the exposure of the taxpayer depend on a nod and wink arrangement? Has agreement been reached to indemnify a member of the Government in respect of court proceedings in which he or she may be involved?
As regards the second part of the question, no decision has been taken to grant indemnity to any member of the Government and no application for same has been made. As regards the first part of the question, I have set out the criteria in my reply to the Deputy's question today. Where proceedings arise, the position is that consideration is given to whether the alleged action is taken by a Minister in the exercise of his duties. A decision is made by the Government having regard to the facts of the case and having received the legal advice of the Attorney General and of the Minister for Finance in so far as the public expenditure implications are concerned.
The Taoiseach said that the issue depends on whether the Minister is acting in the exercise of his duties. Does he envisage a situation arising in which a Minister would libel somebody in the exercise of his duties?
I will not engage in a process of speculation about matters. As I have already indicated, the criteria are clear. In order for the Minister to be covered as a corporate person or corporation sole, the matter must come within his area of responsibility and the action must be taken by him in the exercise of his duties. No application for indemnity has been made at this stage. I have given a complete answer to the question and if the Deputy wishes to pose hypothetical questions I am not willing to follow him down that road. I think cases of this nature can be assessed only in the light of the facts of the case as known, either as disclosed in the proceedings or in the statement of claim.
In his reply the Taoiseach mentioned the fact that the Attorney General would be the person responsible for making the decisions in relation to the indemnification.
I did not. The Deputy should listen to the replies.
Could the Taoiseach clarify what he said? I understood him to say that the Attorney General advises him——
It is on the record. Any legal advice on the giving or non-giving of the indemnity would be sought from the Attorney General for the Minister for Finance who vets all public expenditure but, as I indicated, a decision would be taken in the light of those advices by the Government.
In the programme for renewal the Government has already identified the conflict between the Attorney General's role as legal adviser to the Government and as protector of the common good. The Taoiseach has undertaken to review that and perhaps to make changes. Does he not accept that there would be a conflict of interest in respect of the legal advice the Attorney General would give on this issue?
It depends on the case. Where an Attorney General may have acted for one of the parties concerned when he was in private practice, a conflict of interest might arise——
That is not the point.
——but where that is not the case there is no question of a conflict of interest. The Attorney General is the appointed legal adviser to the Government and his advice will be received and taken into account by the Government. In a matter of this nature a decision will be made by the Government as to whether an indemnity is appropriate. That can only be decided in the light of the facts as disclosed in the statement of claim.
