asked the Taoiseach if he will state (1) the salary and other emoluments of the Attorney-General; (2) whether the said office is part-time or whole-time, and if part-time, the number of hours per day or per week that the Attorney-General is required to devote to its duties; and (3) the names and period of office of persons who have held the office of Attorney-General since the establishment of the State and who (a) carried on their practice at the bar during their term of office, and (b) carried out the duties of the office on a full-time basis.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Position of Attorney-General.
The salary of the Attorney-General is £3,000 a year. Fees payable to him in virtue of his office, such as those for Letters Patent and fiats, are surrendered to the Exchequer.
The Attorney-General is at liberty to engage in such private practice as may be compatible with the full and proper discharge of the duties of his office.
There are no official records which would enable me to give a precise answer to the third part of the question. With some of the Attorneys-General, there was an understanding not to engage in private practice; with others, there was no such understanding. In the latter cases, there is no information as to whether or to what extent the liberty to practice was availed of—or, indeed, could be availed of, since the volume of official business has varied considerably from time to time and at certain periods was very heavy.
Is it not a fact that the present holder of this office, when he held the office formerly, did so on a full-time basis and did not utilise his part-time in private practice? Will the Taoiseach now state why that form of procedure has been departed from? We now have the procedure where the Attorney-General is paid £3,000 and at the same time he is in a position to make another £3,000 or £4,000 a year in private practice.
I do not know about figures. I am not responsible for the figures stated by the Deputy. As regards the main part of the question, the position is this. First of all, there are good reasons why an Attorney-General should be allowed to practise. He is head of the profession and the judges from time to time have intimated that they would wish to see the Attorney-General practise in the courts. Also in that connection an Attorney-General sometimes has, like others who leave their work to take up a public appointment, to go back and try to resume this work. It is not fair to ask a person to go out of practice completely. However, notwithstanding these reasons, which I fully appreciate, I tried to get a rule followed which would mean that the Attorneys would not engage in private practice. That rule, however, was not followed by succeeding Governments and I felt it would not be right that it should appear that an Attorney-General under our Government should have an inferior status to that of other Attorneys-General, but the whole question as to whether an Attorney-General should or should not engage in private practice is an open one. I had great difficulty in making up my mind originally. I did do so, however, and I got an understanding with a number of Attorneys-General that they would not engage in private practice. But one has to get, or should try to get, the best lawyer one can have for this post. If you want to get the best, you have to see that too big a sacrifice is not expected from him in leaving his position as an active practising lawyer and going into State employment.
Two wrongs do not make a right. It is immaterial whether or not another Government set up this precedent. Surely the fact that the State sees fit to pay an allowance of £3,000 per year shows that the State considers that that, in itself, should be sufficient in order to keep the particular occupant in reasonable comfort during his term of office? Do not the same reasons apply then with regard to Cabinet Ministers and others who would normally practise at the Bar? They have to give up practice when they take a Cabinet post and why should not the same procedure be adopted in the case of the Attorney-General?
It is equally true of Cabinet Ministers. Very often, it would be possible to get a person you would like to be a member of the Cabinet, but you cannot get that person because of the sacrifice that would be demanded from him if he were to enter the Cabinet. Some are prepared to do that for public and other reasons but, generally, if you want a particular person, you must try to see that the sacrifice that is demanded is not too great. As regards one Government and another, the only question is that there must be uniform practice. Otherwise, you will have it suggested that one person is of inferior status to that of another. As regards which is the right principle to adopt, the inclusion or exclusion of private practice, the question can be argued very strongly on both sides. I might take one view and the head of another Government another view.
Did the present occupant not do it on a full-time basis in the former Cabinet when Fianna Fáil were in office?
A person may be willing to make a sacrifice at one period but not to have to make it a second time.