Vol. 473 No. 2
1 Mr. O'Donoghue asked the Taoiseach the arrangements, if any, that were put in place in regard to legal advice, if required, for the Government in the resignation of the former Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications in view of the Attorney General's previous role as counsel; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23877/96]
The position is that legal advice in relation to the resignation of the former Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications was not required by the Government and, therefore, the question of putting in place arrangements for such advice did not arise.
In the absence of the Taoiseach will the Minister of State enlighten the House as to what exactly the Attorney General was doing in Government Buildings with the Taoiseach and Mr. Sparks on 30 November 1996, the day the former Minister, Deputy Lowry, resigned? Who summoned the Attorney General to Government Buildings on that day? Given that it now transpires that nobody knew more about Mr. Ben Dunne's payments than the Attorney General and Mr. Dunne, will the Minister of State accept that it was inappropriate for the Attorney General to have been in Government Buildings on that day in regard to this matter?
I regret that Deputy O'Donoghue spoke about the absence of the Taoiseach. The Deputy's office was made fully aware of the Taoiseach's position regarding his absence from the House yesterday and today. The secretary in the Taoiseach's Office spoke directly to Deputy O'Donoghue regarding this matter and asked him if he wanted to proceed with this question. Doubt should not be cast on the Taoiseach's intentions. It was right for him as President of the European Union to go to the United States and Canada on very important Irish and EU business, which he did perfectly.
Regarding the Attorney General being in the vicinity of Government Buildings on that day, he comes into his office most Saturdays. I wish to reiterate what the Taoiseach told the Dáil about this matter. At column 463 of the Official Report of 3 December 1996, the Taoiseach said:
Arising from a media report it is appropriate at this point to refer to one further matter. The Attorney General, Mr. Dermot Gleeson, informed me on 30 November that he had acted as counsel for Mr. Ben Dunne in the litigation between Mr. Dunne and other members of the Dunne family. This fact was already public knowledge. No conflict has arisen in respect of any matter upon which the Attorney General has been asked to advise. He is, of course, aware that a conflict could arise if his advice were sought by Government on any issues which arose in the litigation previously referred to. If this should happen, there are procedures in place in the Attorney General's office to ensure the advice required by Government could be provided without the Attorney General becoming involved.
I am not in any way criticising the absence of the Taoiseach and the Minister of State knows that. I merely said I was asking the Minister of State the question in the absence of the Taoiseach, which I would have thought was a courteous way to ask the question.
The fact that the Taoiseach is the President of the European Union is irrelevant. We can await another day to get a white horse for the new Napoleon of Europe. That is a different issue. I am asking the Minister of State a simple question. What was the Attorney General doing in Government Buildings on 30 November 1996 and who summoned him there? Those are legitimate questions. Given that the Attorney General knew more about the payments made by Mr. Dunne than anybody other than Mr. Dunne, it appears that it may have been inappropriate——
Let us be careful not to reflect upon the character or integrity of an officer of this stature and someone who is certainly outside the ambit of this privileged Assembly.
There are no circumstances under which I would——
The matter to which the Deputy refers is before our Committee on Procedure and Privileges this day.
I realise that and there are no circumstances under which I would in any way affect adversely the reputation of the Attorney General for whom I have the highest respect. Nonetheless, I have a right to an answer to my supplementary question. What was the Attorney General doing in Government Buildings on the day the former Minister resigned?
The Deputy has raised that question a number of times. Has the Minister of State anything further to add?
I replied to it. I said that the Attorney General comes to work most Saturdays and he was at work on that Saturday. He informed the Taoiseach of the matter — as he acknowledged on the record of the House — and verbally acknowledged a conflict of interest in it and wrote to the Taoiseach about it a couple of days later. The Attorney General is being pilloried here——
No.
——for acting properly and knowing exactly the code of conduct expected of him.
I know that Deputy O'Donoghue is well aware of the procedures in the Attorney General's office when a conflict of interest arises. Regarding the Price Waterhouse report, the Government has asked an independent senior counsel, Mr. James Nugent, to act and give advice, and that is the proper way to proceed. As Deputy O'Donoghue will recall, this information was given verbatim by Mr. Matthew Russell at a meeting of the special committee convened after the fall of the previous Government. The fact that the Attorney General comes to work each Saturday does not entitle Members on the far side of the House to continuously cast doubt on his integrity.
No one on this side of the House is casting aspersions on the Attorney General, we are merely posing simple questions about his presence in Government Buildings on that particular day. Does the Minister of State not accept that his attendance in Government Buildings that day was the subject of much comment and that he was seen — if my memory serves me correctly — on RTÉ News entering Government Buildings that evening? Does the Minister of State not accept that the presence of the Attorney General in Government Buildings was the subject of much media comment that evening and the following day? When present in Government Buildings on that day, will the Minister of State say whether the Attorney General had any communication with the Taoiseach?
The Taoiseach said at column 463 of the Official Report of 3 December 1996: "The Attorney General, Mr. Dermot Gleeson, informed me on 30 November that he had acted as counsel for Mr. Ben Dunne in the litigation between Mr. Dunne and other members of the Dunne family". That was the Taoiseach speaking on the Nomination of Member of Government motion on that day. It appears that the thrust of these continuous questions is to cast doubt on the integrity of the Attorney General, for reasons I fail to understand. The most eminent, certainly skilled lawyer nationally has been appointed to the post of Attorney General to which he is devoting his attention full-time; he could have continued to practise but has not done so. He has honoured all his commitments, leaving me at a loss to understand the reason for these repeated questions.
We have devoted almost 15 minutes to this question already with quite an element of repetition. I will allow a final supplementary.
My first question to the Minister of State related to the wide media coverage of the presence of the Attorney General in Government Buildings on the day in question. Would the Minister answer "yes" or "no" to that question?
Again, we are having repetition.
The Minister has not responded and I am giving him an opportunity to do so.
We cannot afford this degree of repetition at Question Time.
Will the Minister of State answer "yes" or "no"? Was the presence of the Attorney General in Government Buildings that day the subject of much media comment the following day? In particular does he agree that his presence was the subject of much comment in the Sunday Independent the following day, in which it was suggested that the Attorney General attended a meeting with the Taoiseach and others? Will the Minister state whether the Attorney General subsequently wrote to the Sunday Independent to correct the record or to demand an apology?
We are now having quite an extension of the original question.
I think you, a Cheann Comhairle, received correspondence from the Attorney General in regard to these claims already made in the House by Deputy Woods, who claimed that these people attended a meeting——
I am asking the Minister of State a specific question.
Let us not prejudge a matter coming before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges today; there is now an encroachment into that overall domain. We must now proceed to deal with another question. I am calling Question No. 2.
A Cheann Comhairle, I have asked the Minister a question——
You have asked him a number of times, Deputy.
I have asked him specific questions about media comment on the presence of the Attorney General in Government Buildings that day and whether the Attorney General requested the media to correct the record. That is all I am asking.
I have no idea whether the Attorney General requested the media to correct the record but I know he has written to the Ceann Comhairle on the matter which will be before a meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges today. Someone who has served on that committee for as long as Deputy Dermot Ahern should be fair to it and the Attorney General because it is within this context all that detail will be discussed today.
It would be very fair to this House if the Attorney General would attend that meeting so that we might question him.
I will not allow a debate on this matter.
On a point of order, there are three questions only tabled to the Taoiseach today within three quarters of an hour.
That is beside the point and does not mean we should spend so much time on one question.
I have a supplementary on Question No. 1 tabled in my name.
I have afforded Deputy O'Donoghue quite an amount of latitude on this matter but he has asked the same question repeatedly. Perhaps he now has a relevant one.
With respect, Sir, they are all relevant.
Repetition is not in order.
I understand your difficulty also, Sir, in that the matter falls to be considered by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. As the Minister of State appears to imply, I have not suggested, nor would I, that the Attorney General would divulge information available to him in relation to a client; I would be very surprised if he did. Having unsatisfactorily answered previous supplementaries, will the Minister of State say whether it is satisfactory that the Attorney General, who had Mr. Ben Dunne as a client should have been in Government Buildings on the day in question? Bearing in mind that the Attorney General also had a conflict of interest in relation to Mr. Goodman and Mr. Matthew Russell, will the Minister of State inform the House whether he considers he can properly fulfil his role as legal adviser to the Government in the context of a number of such conflicts of interest?
We are getting quite close to the bone now.
If Deputy O'Donoghue did not indulge in endeavouring to impugn the integrity of the Attorney General, he would make better progress.
Nonsense.
I should remind him that it is impossible for any Attorney General to predict wherever and however conflict of interest may arise until such time as given cases may present themselves. The present Attorney General is in no different position from that of any of his predecessors. By reason of the nature of his practice before appointment such conflicts may arise. Whenever necessary, as in the negotiation of the handing over of the Price Waterhouse report, the advice of independent counsel is sought by and furnished to the Government. I am sure the Deputy agrees it would be undesirable to appoint to the post of Attorney General a barrister who had never practised, which would be the only sure way to eliminate such potential conflicts of interests. Since Deputy O'Donoghue in his practice as a solicitor has availed of the services of the Attorney General, I am quite sure he agrees with what I have just said.
Is it not an indication of the versatility, experience, standing and status of the Attorney General that he appeared for so many people, of whom Members opposite are aware, in the past? Would it not have generated more comment if the Attorney General had been absent from Government Buildings on that day as it is his custom to work most Saturdays?
It is well known that the Attorney General works every Saturday.
Will the Minister of State answer Deputy McGinley's question?
I reiterate that the Attorney General and all barristers are bound by a code of conduct drawn up by the Bar Council which provides that a barrister is under an obligation not to communicate to any third party information entrusted to him by or on behalf of any client. As all Members opposite will be aware, this obligation continues at all times after any such relationship has ceased unless with the specific consent of a client. I cannot say what the state of knowledge of the Attorney General was at that time but, in any event, he would have been bound by that code of conduct not to reveal any information he may have had.
I stress that there is no intention on the part of any Member on this side of the House to impugn or cast aspersions on the integrity of the Attorney General; we have never attempted to do so and do not intend to do so today. Is the Minister of State saying that the Attorney General's presence in Government Buildings was a coincidence? Is he stating that the Attorney General offered no advice to the Taoiseach, Mr. Sparks, Mr. Lowry or anyone else in the hours leading up to Mr. Lowry's resignation on 30 November?
I have said repeatedly that the Attorney General works most Saturdays. As Deputy McGinley said, it would be unusual if he did not turn up on a Saturday. I remind the Deputy of the Taoiseach's reply in this House on 3 December in which he stated:
The Attorney General, Mr. Dermot Gleeson, informed me on 30 November that he had acted as counsel for Mr. Ben Dunne in the litigation between Mr. Dunne and other members of the Dunne family. The fact was already public knowledge. No conflict has arisen in respect of any matter upon which the Attorney General has been asked to advise. He is, of course, aware that a conflict could arise if his advice were sought by Government on any issues which arose in the litigation previously referred to. If this should happen, there are procedures in place in the Attorney General's office to ensure the advice required by Government could be provided without the Attorney General becoming involved.
The Taoiseach clearly said that the Attorney General spoke to him on 30 November and told him he had acted as counsel for Mr. Ben Dunne in litigation between Mr. Dunne and other members of the Dunne family.
Did he speak to anyone else?
That is written in black and white.
It might be advisable for the Attorney General to spend time over Christmas writing out a list of all the clients he has acted for in the recent past so that the Taoiseach will know in advance if he can advise the Government on matters which arise.
Perhaps he could work on Sundays.
We should proceed now to Question No. 2.
I am disappointed that a member of the legal profession, who prides himself on knowing the law, continuously impugns the integrity of the Attorney General in this House.
I do not.
The Deputy does as does Deputy O'Donoghue.
It is a 48 hour week.
Such allegations should not be made because no one has more respect for the Attorney General than Deputy O'Dea and Deputy O'Donoghue.
The Attorney General's case will be well rehearsed at today's meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
Will the Attorney General appear before the committee?
