Vol. 462 No. 2
1 Mr. S. Brennan asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to implement the report from the Committee on Finance and General Affairs proposing the appointment of a Deputy Attorney General; and the further plans, if any, he has to increase parliamentary scrutiny of that office. [4173/96]
2 Mr. O'Dea asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to introduce proposals to increase parliamentary scrutiny of the Office of the Attorney General; and the further plans, if any, he has to appoint a Deputy Attorney General in view of the heavy and increasing workload of the Office of the Attorney General. [4174/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together. I welcome the recent publication of the report of the Dáil Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs on the Office of the Attorney General. Its recommendations deserve to be fully and seriously considered and I am arranging to have this done.
Deputies will be aware that a provisional report from the Constitution Review Group on Article 30, the article of the Constitution dealing with the Attorney General, was published on 22 January 1996. This report also dealt with the issues raised in these questions. The group is continuing its work and I have forwarded the Select Committee's report to them for consideration in so far as its recommendations might have constitutional implications. The group is expected to report in May and it would be prudent to await the outcome of its deliberations.
Will the Taoiseach agree that the independence of the Attorney General will not be compromised by greater accountability as recommended by the committee and, therefore, the correct way to proceed is to ensure there is accountability by agreeing that the Attorney General will appear before committees and that if legislation is required to copperfasten that it should be provided? The Taoiseach did not comment on the specific proposal to appoint a deputy attorney general. Has he any thoughts on that?
The report of the select committee was received about a fortnight ago. It makes a number of recommendations, including recommendations in regard to accountability, which are being carefully considered. So far as a deputy attorney general is concerned, the constitutional implications of such a proposal would need to be considered, in view of the fact that the Attorney General is a constitutional officer. However, there are significant practical arguments in favour of allowing a procedure for delegation of some of the work currently undertaken by the Attorney General to another person but that needs to be done in the context of the constitutional provisions and following study of the practical implications of any such proposal.
Is the Taoiseach saying he agrees generally that the Attorney General should be more accountable and he is proceeding in that general direction subject to the detail being studied?
We are proceeding in that general direction. As the House is aware there is a provision in the compellability of witnesses Bill for a greater degree of accountability from the Attorney General's Office. The precise details of this are matters that need to be studied with care because as the select committee acknowledges there is a tension between independence and accountability. One needs to work out a system that respects the necessary independence of the office while providing a reasonable degree of accountability. Accountability is provided through the Taoiseach who is available to be questioned twice a week on any aspect of the Attorney General's Office. It would be wrong to say there is no accountability. I am accounting at this moment.
If the Taoiseach says he is moving towards greater accountability for the Attorney General, is he aware of the views of the select committee that section 3 of the compellability of witnesses Bill will lessen rather than increase the accountability of the Attorney General? If he is really interested in getting more accountability for the Attorney General's Office will he arrange for that section to be withdrawn? Furthermore, is he aware of the proposals in the report of the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs that the roles of the Attorney General should be clearly separated and delineated and will he arrange for that?
I do not agree with the supposition in the first part of the Deputy's question. The other aspects of the select committee's report are being carefully selected.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. The committee has given great consideration to this report. Is thought being given to introducing legislation to govern the independence of the Attorney General? As the report points out, there is not a law or any part of the Constitution which says he is independent, unlike the law which applies to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
It is a matter of some legal difference as to whether the second part of the Deputy's supplementary is valid. Many people understand that independence is provided for in the constitutional provisions as they stand. However, as I have indicated the report from the select committee chaired by the Deputy, in which he had a very important input, is being carefully considered by me and the Attorney General. In so far as it has constitutional implications it is important that it should also be studied by the constitutional review group and that is being done. We have arranged to furnish the report to the review group for study. It is important that any legislation of the kind the Deputy is urging should be founded on a full and proper understanding of the meaning of the constitutional provisions as they stand.
Why does the Taoiseach disagree with the Select Committee's recommendation that section 3 of the 1995 legislation should be withdrawn? How can he justify a situation whereby the DPP is obliged to come before a Dáil committee but the Attorney General is not obliged?
I do not propose to enter into the work of the Select Committee which is dealing with the Compellability of Witnesses Bill. I have no doubt the Deputy will be able to advance all his arguments adequately to the Minister responsible through his party representatives on the committee.
The Taoiseach said he disagreed with it.
The Taoiseach said he disagreed with it.
