Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for their questions. The Attorney General's report was his own but, as Deputy Jim O'Callaghan pointed out, we asked him to prepare it. It was commissioned by the Government in that sense and we published it because I made a commitment in the House that we would. It was a very solid and comprehensive report. Above all, it pointed out that at least in the view of the present Attorney General, and I believe it would be the same for any Attorney General that I have worked with, the State's interest is the public's interest. The State can have no other interest than the public interest. Often in this country and perhaps in other countries people speak about the State in a very cold and almost alien way. The State is always presented as being cold, callous or hostile. This is because the State has no face. When we put a face on the State what is the face of the State? It is the taxpayer and the people who depend on public services, such as children in our schools, patients in our hospitals and older people who need care. It is our citizens. The interest of the State that we consider is the public interest and we have to look at things in the round. We cannot disregard the interests of the taxpayer. Equally we cannot disregard the needs of people who use our public services, such as children and patients. This is what the public interest is all about. It is never just about the person making a claim. It also has to be about the taxpayer and all of those who depend on our public services. This is the public interest and we have to take it all into account.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan also pointed out that everyone has a legal strategy. People who sue the State have legal strategies as well as the State having one. There is nothing sinister or secret about this. He also pointed out the need for legal privilege. It would not be fair to expect one side in a case to disclose the advice it has if the other side is not willing to do the same. While we can all perhaps buy into the concept of being a model litigant we have to define what it means. A model litigant should not be one that concedes to every claim or folds in every case. I do not think anyone would argue this. We have to define what "model litigant" actually means.

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was ratified by the previous Government during my first term as Taoiseach. I was very glad that as a Government we could do this. It was very much led by the then Minister of State, Finian McGrath. I do not believe we are in breach of it but that is not for me to judge. I do not believe the convention would have applied retrospectively. Again I could be incorrect on this and I would have to seek advice.

With regard to the concept of reforming the Office of the Attorney General, as I mentioned earlier we have no plans to do so. I am not hostile to it either and we will certainly look at the Labour Party's Bill in this regard. It would be disingenuous for me to be against it in principle. In fact when we were in opposition in 2010 and 2011 as part of our New Politics document we proposed reform of the Office of the Attorney General by transferring some of the functions to the Office of the Ombudsman. We do not have a closed mind on the idea of reforming the Office of the Attorney General but we would have to make sure the reforms are for the better.

It has been the case that legal advice has been published in the past in the form of a note simpliciter. When Seamus Wolfe was Attorney General he published a note simpliciter form, or legal advice, on the eighth amendment. Where there is litigation it is a very separate matter and it would not be right to expect the public, that is the State, to publish its legal advice when the people suing the public, that is the State, do not do so.

With regard to the connected issue Deputy Boyd Barrett raised, an issue is arising with regard to nursing homes charging for what are often described as extras or additional services. There has to be greater clarity on this and some guidelines on what is genuinely an extra. I do not think anyone would expect that the fair deal fee paid to nursing homes would cover everything, such as taxis or clothes, but we need to make sure we have proper guidelines and better clarity on what is covered and what is not so that people know where they stand.

See this speech in context