Vol. 478 No. 7
3 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach whether the Attorney General instructs counsel representing the public interest at tribunals of inquiry; and the steps, if any, which are taken to guard against any possible conflict of interest. [12037/97]
The public interest has been separately represented by counsel at two tribunals of inquiry. The principal role of such counsel is to ensure that any constitutional or other legal issue which arises before a tribunal is addressed from the point of view of the public interest. The Attorney General first instructed counsel representing the public interest at the hepatitis C tribunal.
The Office of the Attorney General, through the Chief State Solicitor's office, instructs one senior counsel and one junior counsel at the Dunnes Payments Tribunal of Inquiry. Because the Attorney General himself has a conflict of interest — which I reported to the House on 3 December 1996 — in relation to certain matters that arise before that tribunal, procedures have been put in place in the Office of the Attorney General to deal with such a situation. These procedures, where a conflict of interest arises for the Attorney, have been in place since the present Attorney General took over in the Office of the Attorney General and I outlined them to the House on 25 January 1995. In relation to the Dunnes payments tribunal the senior legal assistant and a third legal assistant have been delegated the function of instructing counsel for the public interest at the tribunal. Those officials deal with issues arising out of the tribunal in consultation with the appointed counsel.
Does the Taoiseach believe the public interest is adequately represented at the tribunal, particularly given the recent comments to the contrary by people reporting on it, who have attended it and by observers who have a good knowledge of the courts and tribunal system?The Taoiseach said in the past that if we make mistakes we must apologise and face the matter honestly. Will he admit there is a blatant contradiction between what he stated at the beef tribunal and what he said at the Dunnes-Lowry tribunal, both of which were set up by the Oireachtas? He owes it to the House to clear up the matter rather than try to explain it away. I invite him to clear up the matter in the Dáil.
Representation of the public interest at the tribunal comes into play where the tribunal believes it is a party in terms of an issue in dispute and there is a need for someone else, apart from the tribunal, to state the case for the wider public interest. For instance, if the tribunal felt it had to take a certain course because of its terms of reference and there was a question as to whether that was in the wider public interest as distinct from being in the interests of the tribunal's terms of reference as more narrowly defined by the Dáil, then there would be a case for the counsel for the public interest to set the wider considerations before the tribunal or to argue them in whatever forum it was necessary that they should be argued.
My understanding is that the concept of a counsel for the public interest is not one where that counsel is expected on a daily basis to replicate or repeat the questioning or the argumentation that the tribunal, through its counsel, is advancing.It is important to make the point that in 99.9 per cent of the situations that arise there is no question but that the tribunal is acting in accordance with the public interest and it represents the public interest in terms of its work and the terms of reference that have been set. It is only in situations where it could be argued there is a wider public interest beyond that which the tribunal is pursuing that the issue arises of the counsel for the public interest having to come into the picture.That is my understanding of the basis upon which the counsel operates. However, I make the point that the counsel for the public interest does not act on the instructions of the Government, therefore, it is not appropriate for me to say what the counsel for the public interest should or should not do. It acts on its account with the aid of people in the Attorney General's office who act in the context of that office's independent constitutional function which is independent of the Government. It makes its own decisions. Therefore, it is not appropriate for me to be drawn into a discussion as to whether a decision in the tribunal is right. That would involve effectively asking me, as a representative of the Executive, to interfere with the work of the independent counsel's assessment of what is the public interest.
On the second part of the Deputy's question. my party and I have co-operated fully with both tribunals. We provided details of every donation relevant to both tribunals as to amount and circumstances, donations to our party and to any individuals who may have received money. We were open to be asked questions from anybody at the tribunal about any of those donations — all that information was disclosed. There was nothing hidden in terms of the donations received. If there was a question about any circumstances, any donation or who knew about such a donation, it was open to anybody at either tribunal, and is open to anybody at the current tribunal, to ask questions about any donation in terms of any suggestion that anything was not proper in respect of a donation being sought or received.
As to the evidence I gave at the beef tribunal, I am glad the Deputy's party is interested in having a discussion about the beef tribunal. That was not always the case. In terms of my approach there, I answered, as I indicated, in respect of practices that occurred prior to my becoming leader of my party. I answered about a different period from the one about which I answered at the more recent tribunal. At that one I answered questions about the practices that occurred after I became leader of the party and I answered fully on both occasions. In my understanding, there were differences in terms of the situations that applied at particular times in the two periods, but in both cases my answers were full and frank.
In describing what is clearly the same period 1987-89 will the Taoiseach explain why he gave two quite distinct and different accounts of it, first in June 1992 and second, in the last week or so at the current tribunal, in view of the fact that correspondence published recently makes it clear he was involved in fundraising at a period when he said he was not? Does the Taoiseach not consider it desirable that the counsel for the public interest at the present tribunal should be instructed by a private solicitor who is independent of everyone rather than by civil servants who are the legal advisers to the Government, beholden to it and must uphold its point of view at all times? How does he expect a counsel instructed in that way to act independently in the public interest? Is that not borne out by the fact that the counsel concerned has only intervened in the tribunal in a minimal way, when there are clearly matters where the public interest is involved and where it is different from the Government's interest?
I remind Members, as I have done so often in the past, that if serious allegations are to be made against a Member, especially the Taoiseach or a Minister, it may not be done by way of cross-examination or innuendo across the floor of the House, it must be done by way of substantive motion. I have conveyed my strong views to Members on this matter within recent hours. I will not permit an interrogation of this kind to continue.
Why not, Sir?
You know full well why.
There is no accountability in this House if neither I nor any other Member may ask the Taoiseach to account for diametrically opposite sworn evidence which he has given to two tribunals. What is the point of this House if I cannot ask the Leader of the Government to account for his actions?
If you wish to make a serious allegation of that kind, deal with it in another way, not by way of innuendo.
There is no innuendo. I am saying it quite straight — the Taoiseach contradicted himself on oath. He said "A" on oath one day and "B" on oath the next day.
Could I be allowed to answer what Deputy O'Malley is saying? I have nothing to hide.
Certainly, but I must also tell the House that I am obliged to proceed to deal with other business within five minutes.
The Deputy referred to newspaper "revelations" over the weekend. As he is well aware, I have confirmed, as have the two people named, that I did not approach them for funds for Fine Gael at the relevant time. I was not involved in any significant way in fundraising for Fine Gael at national level until I became party leader.
The Taoiseach was aware of the system.
In my answers to the tribunal on the beef industry, I indicated that if it had any further questions about what had happened in that period when I was not responsible, we would get the answers for them. If the Deputy checks the answer I gave to question No. 19 to me, he will see I made that offer to get any relevant information which the tribunal wanted.
He lost all the files.
Another bonfire.
As I indicated to the House, my party and I have co-operated fully with both tribunals. I appeared voluntarily before both and answered truthfully with regard to the circumstances which applied in terms of the relevant period covered by both tribunals to the fullest knowledge that I had at the time. It would be appropriate if others had co-operated in the same way.
Will the Taoiseach answer my question concerning solicitors?
The Office of the Attorney General has two functions. One is as adviser to the Government. The other is a residual function in which the Attorney General and those working for him are independent of the Government, that is, in his representation of the public interest in a number of cases. This arises all the time in different areas and does not have anything to do with tribunals of inquiry.
As I explained, the Attorney General acted in a previous case for one of the parties currently being inquired into by the tribunal, before he became Attorney General. He is not in a position to give instructions to the counsel acting for the public interest in this tribunal because of his previous work. Therefore, as with all cases where the Attorney General had previously worked for clients affected by anything the State is now doing, he has made arrangements for others in his office to deal, in his place, with any issues which arise, although not at his direction.
The senior legal assistant in the Attorney General's office, Mr. James Hamilton, has the knowledge, capacity, integrity and independence of judgment to act entirely free of all influence from all quarters in the instructions he gives to counsel acting for the public interest before any tribunal. That is what he has done on other occasions where he has had to step into the shoes of the Attorney General in cases in which the Attorney General could not act. This arrangement is an appropriate, good and sound one.
Why not have a private, independent solicitor?
That is an argument the Deputy can advance. However, when we have a perfectly good arrangement, with a perfectly reputable and competent person——
Good from whose point of view?
——who understands the issues fully and against whose independence no suggestion can be made, we should work with that arrangement rather than going to the expense of getting the services of a solicitor in private practice.
Is the likely to ask any questions which would embarrass the Government?
Who is engaging in innuendo now?
Mr. Innuendo O'Malley.
Order, I am calling Deputy Bertie Ahern.
You have ruled out questions on the Dunnes tribunal and I will not breach the ruling on that issue, which is being addressed in every television programme and newspaper. The Taoiseach said at the beef tribunal that politicians were not systematically informed about contributions.Is it not the case that the then Leader of the Taoiseach's party, Deputy Dukes, made him aware by letter that there was systematic chasing and following up of contributions? I take issue with the Taoiseach not because that was the case, but because he misled the beef tribunal in making it quite clear——
I feel strongly——
It appears he misled the tribunal.
That is not true.
——that the debate should not continue along this train of events. The Deputy should put down a substantive motion on the matter. That is my advice, otherwise this kind of innuendo is very serious and against the best interests of democracy.
This is from the transcript of what the Taoiseach said. It is not innuendo.
I am sorry, quotation is not in order, as the Deputy knows.
Did that not happen either?
A Cheann Comhairle, you ruled out raising the Dunnes tribunal——
I advised the Deputy and his party how they should proceed in this matter.
So we cannot raise questions about any tribunal?
The advice from my office is at the Deputy's disposal. I am sure he has read it carefully.
Should the innuendo be let lie?
It is not innuendo — I referred to what the Taoiseach said.
Is a transcript innuendo?
I made it clear in my evidence to the beef tribunal that Front Bench Fine Gael politicians were not systematically informed of contributions made to the party during my predecessor's period of office as Leader. That is true. The context in which those questions were asked was that of suggestions that the party might not have pursued certain issues affecting the beef industry because of this. As the record shows, as far the Goodman package — which was a central portion of the concern of the beef tribunal — is concerned, I was the only Member of the House who condemned the sweetheart deal which was put in place by my predecessor, the former Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey. I was attacked by Mr. Goodman for the stance I took on that matter. Any suggestion, therefore, that I could have been influenced in any way is without foundation and has shown to be so on the basis of the record. However, in my evidence to the beef tribunal I indicated that, while there was no systematic informing, one might know of particular contributions on a random basis. That is a satisfactory situation.
I welcome the interest of the Deputies opposite in the beef tribunal. When the report of the tribunal was presented to the House, Deputy Bertie Ahern voted against allowing any questions to be asked about it. He voted that his party leader and then Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, would not be permitted to answer a single question in the House about anything to do with the scandals in the beef industry into which the report was undertaken.
The Taoiseach did the same with regard to the hepatitis C tribunal.
What about the hepatitis C tribunal?
The Taoiseach tried to muzzle that again today. He professes openness but has gone the other way.
Deputy Bertie Ahern's interest in the beef tribunal report is to be welcomed because many questions need to be asked and answered about the collective responsibility of the Government of which he was a member in the way in which it did its business with regard to the beef industry between 1987 and 1990. The Deputy was a Minister throughout that period and, to the extent that there were abuses in the beef industry resulting from failures on the part of the Government, he was collectively responsible for those abuses.
The Taoiseach should not rewrite the report.
Will the Taoiseach allow the Attorney General attend the Select Committee on Social Affairs today?
