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.