asked the Minister for Finance, in relation to a reply to Parliamentary Question No. 62 of 14 June 1988, if he will stipulate the manner in which the Attorney General can be held accountable to Dáil Éireann, as is the Government under Article 28.4.1 of the Constitution, for the discretionary decisions he is empowered to take under functions and duties conferred on him by law in accordance with Article 30.1 of the Constitution, in particular, the manner in which he may be asked questions about decisions he has taken under the powers imposed on him by the Statutory Instruments Act, 1947, which powers enable him to decide that certain statutory instruments are not to be published, examples being virtually all regulations governing publicly funded education; if there is any mechanism for Dáil Éireann to question the Attorney General; if he will consider amending the Statutory Instruments Act, 1947, to assign to a Minister the powers given to the Attorney General; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Written Answers. - Accountability of Attorney General.
The administrative raison d'etre for the provision in question is economy of administration with particular reference to the volume and variety of statutory instruments (SIs) and the fact that some SIs are of particular application or receive adequate publicity otherwise. Departments are required to apply in writing to the Attorney General for any necessary direction, giving reasons inter alia, when requesting drafting of the instrument by the parliamentary draftsman. They are also required to ensure that exempted SIs receive adequate publicity when made and are brought fully to the notice of any persons or bodies concerned. Section 2 (5) requires that every direction be published in Iris Oifigiúil.
I am advised that the Attorney General is not accountable to the Dáil under present law. Only members of the Government are accountable to the Dáil under its Standing Orders and, by virtue of Article 30.4 of the Constitution, the Attorney General is not a member of the Government. There is, however, nothing to preclude Deputies from seeking from the appropriate Minister his reasons for applying for a direction to exempt particular SIs from the publication requirements of the 1947 Act.
I believe that, by virtue of his position as an independent constitutional officer, as has been accepted by the Supreme Court — McLoughlin v. Minister for Social Welfare, in particular — it is more appropriate that the quasi-judicial functions in section 2 of the 1947 Act should continue to be exercised by the Attorney General than by a Minister. The statutory procedure governing publication of directions in Iris Oifigiúil together with the requirement that Departments ensure adequate publicity for exempted SIs ensure ample information for persons or bodies concerned. Therefore, I do not favour an amendment on the lines suggested by the Deputy.
I have also inquired into the question of the application of the exemption provisions of section 2 of the 1947 Act in the area of publicly funded education. One such direction, given by the Attorney General on 28 May 1948 in relation to the annual Rules and Programme for Secondary Schools — made by the Minister for Education under the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Acts, 1878-1924 — was published in Iris Oifigiúil on 1 June 1948. I am informed, however, that the Rules and Programme for Secondary Schools are in fact published annually by the Stationery Office. It has not been possible to find any other direction under section 2 in this area.