Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 2 Dec 1997

Vol. 483 No. 6

Ceisteanna—Questions - Moriarty Tribunal.

Ruairí Quinn

Question:

1 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the arrangements, if any, in place to ensure representation of the public interest at the Moriarty Tribunal of Inquiry; the body who will be responsible for instructing counsel for the public interest and for determining the form, content and extent of his or her instructions; whether these instructions will extend to representing the public interest in the submission of matters for the tribunal's consideration in relation to matters on which it is entitled to make recommendations; whether an arrangement is in place by which those responsible for representing the public interest might, in drawing up their brief, take into account matters raised by public representatives as being of specific importance; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20456/97]

The Taoiseach

The protection of the public interest is a function exercised independently of the Government by the Attorney General. I understand the question of appointment of counsel to represent the public interest at the Moriarty Tribunal is currently under consideration by the Attorney General.

It is envisaged if counsel for the public interest is to be appointed it will be the Office of the Attorney General which will instruct the counsel and determine the form, nature and extent of their instructions.

Mr. Quinn

I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. I am sure he will accept it is a time honoured tradition in this House for the Taoiseach to answer on the Attorney General's behalf where appropriate. Will the Taoiseach ensure that the Attorney General will accept representations from public representatives, particularly from Members of this House, as to how they think the public interest could best be represented by the person nominated by the Attorney General to so do at the Moriarty tribunal?

The Taoiseach

Issues which are put forward will be dealt with by counsel representing the Attorney General. Because of some of the issues which arose in relation to previous tribunals it is not yet clear what kind of instructions the Attorney General will give to counsel. I am sure that is what Deputy Quinn had in mind when he tabled the question. I understand that whatever counsel is appointed will have the expertise and knowledge to deal with what they believe to be public interest issues during the course of the tribunal.

This House would like to see counsel for the public interest raise issues about which people are curious. However, in legal terms this issue is viewed in a slightly different light and there could be a slight misunderstanding of the role of counsel for the public interest. I want to clarify this as I am conscious that two further tribunals are upcoming after Christmas and the issue will arise again at that stage. The courts believe that the perception that counsel for the public interest should vigorously cross examine all witnesses before the tribunal is based on a misconception. The concept of the public interest is, from a legal viewpoint, separate and distinct from issues about which the public might be curious although it is difficult at times to see how they differ.

If, through evidence given by witnesses before the tribunal, it is apparent that some public right has been interfered with, counsel for the public interest may then intervene if the matter has not been adequately covered by counsel for the inquiry. My information is that the task of counsel for the public interest is to elicit answers to whatever questions they choose to put to witnesses who appear before the tribunal. It is not the role of counsel for the public interest to cross-examine witnesses except where such testimony relates to a public interest issue and where the public interest team is in possession of factual information on which to base cross examination. It is also considered that the role of counsel for the public interest is not to substitute for parties who have been chosen to represent other groups before the tribunal. I asked these questions when in Opposition and I would like to give the information back to the House now.

Mr. Quinn

I am grateful to the Taoiseach for his supplementary reply. Does he agree the Attorney General has two distinct and separate roles in this instance? His clear role, one I fully understand and do not wish to challenge, is as legal adviser to the Government. However, in this particular context, the Attorney General also has a responsibility to represent the public interest and to appoint a suitably qualified person to legally represent that during the course of this tribunal. Does the Taoiseach agree that the public would have more than a curiosity interest in the management of the Ansbacher accounts? Does he accept it would have a very real legal and political interest in this issue? Evidence given to the previous tribunal revealed one beneficiary of these accounts, who will be the subject of one of the forthcoming tribunals. It is clear there has been a breach of the law with regard to these accounts and a failure on the part of the Central Bank to properly monitor them. The Taoiseach represents the Attorney General in this House. Will he accept the Attorney General should ensure that senior counsel representing the public interest at the tribunal will raise the question of the Ansbacher accounts in so far as they relate to the workings of that tribunal?

The Taoiseach

At this stage counsel has not been appointed. When public representatives raise issues in the House their concerns are on the Official Report which can be seen by the Attorney General. I gave my earlier reply so Deputies could see how this matter is interpreted in the legal context.

The Deputy wishes to know if counsel for the public interest will ensure that matters of public concern, particularly those expressed by public representatives, are taken into account by the tribunal. They should be.

Mr. Quinn

Can I take it the Taoiseach agrees the management of the Ansbacher accounts, in the context of the remit of this tribunal, is a matter of legitimate public concern and not curiosity, and the Attorney General should instruct the counsel he appoints to ensure this matter will be properly raised within the brief of his or her representation of the public interest? Will the Taoiseach formally communicate to the Attorney General what he appears to have said, that he agrees with me?

The Taoiseach

The terms of reference of the tribunal have been agreed by resolution of the Dáil following extensive debate. They reflect the concerns of the public as expressed by its elected representatives. The issues raised by the Deputy are not included in the terms of reference——

Mr. Howlin

That is not the Deputy's fault.

The Taoiseach

——but they are related to them. I am confident the tribunal will carry out its task in accordance with the terms of reference. I see no need for counsel for the public interest to bring these matters to the attention of the tribunal. However, particular note should be taken by counsel for the public interest of issues which have been raised by public representatives.

Mr. Higgins

(Dublin West): Deputy Quinn said matters raised by public representatives should be of specific importance. Public representatives will not be represented at the tribunal. To remove doubt about a number of issues of grave public concern, will the Taoiseach consider a short amendment to the terms of reference to provide that the Ansbacher accounts and the unadvertised sale of substantial State lands at Glending Wood, County Wicklow be included? That would ensure these matters would be investigated rather than being left to chance.

The Taoiseach

I do not propose to make any such amendment. However, I have every confidence that, as was the case in the last tribunal, relevant issues will be investigated. While these issues are not included in the terms of reference, they are relevant to the moneys and the facts about which we have knowledge at present. The tribunal and the teams represented at it will delve into these matters as they see fit.

An Ceann Comhairle

Question No. 2 has been postponed.