Yesterday legislation introduced by Deputy Clare Daly was voted on in the Dáil and defeated on the advice of the Attorney General. The matters surrounding the issue raise questions that must be addressed in a modern democracy. Article 30 of the Constitution states:

1 There shall be an Attorney General who shall be the adviser of the Government in matters of law and legal opinion, and shall exercise and perform all such powers, functions and duties as are conferred or imposed on him by this Constitution or by law.

2 The Attorney General shall be appointed by the President on the nomination of the Taoiseach ...

4 The Attorney General shall not be a member of the Government.

In recent years the Government has frequently advised the Oireachtas and the public that, on the advice of the Attorney General, it had no choice but to enact or oppose an item of legislation. The question arises as to why such weight is attached to the advice of one man or woman. Why is one barrister's advice held in such high esteem? Is the Law Library not full of contradictory voices and opinions? The Attorney General who is referred to as the chief law officer of the State cannot have his or her advice followed slavishly and without question. Appointment as Attorney General does not bestow infallible wisdom on the holder of the office for, if it did, it would make the Taoiseach infallible in the selection of the officeholder.

Does the Senator have a question for the Deputy Leader? We should not be discussing the Attorney General.

I am getting there. The Attorney General gets it wrong sometimes and when that happens-----

We are not discussing the Attorney General.

The issue must be discussed in the light of the debate in the Dáil yesterday. The Attorney General sometimes gets it wrong and when that happens, the State must carry the cost of erroneous advice. Court actions to rectify where the law is wrong frequently end up in the Supreme Court. This is a very costly place to have to go and the public carries the cost. Is the legal advice the Government receives always correct? According to the Minister for Health, Deputy Leo Varadkar, it is not. An article in the Irish Examiner on Saturday, 10 November 2012 by Paul O'Brien, political editor, headlined, "Varadkar: Referendum legal advice was wrong", states, "The legal advice 'was wrong' Transport Minister Leo Varadkar said yesterday of the process that led to the Government misusing public money on its referendum website and booklet".

Does the Senator have a question for the Deputy Leader?

Yes; I am getting there. The advice in question had come from the Office of the Attorney General, Ms Máire Whelan, and cleared the material on the website and in the booklet, "But the Supreme Court found this week that elements of the website and booklet were 'not fair, equal or impartial'".

There is also the question of the advice given in 1999 about the Aliens Act. It is my understanding the superior courts of the State, the High Court and the Supreme Court-----

Is the Senator looking for a debate on the issue? We are not having a debate on the advice given by the Attorney General.

I am coming to the end. These courts may make decisions on the constitutionality of any disputed matter and, as such, the advice of the Attorney General can be assigned no more weigh than any other advice available at any given time. I ask the Deputy Leader to hold a debate on the role of and weight assigned to the advice provided by the Attorney General on legislation.

Following what Senator Gerard P. Craughwell said, it is important that the House recognise the authority of the Attorney General's position. I am not talking about the Attorney General.

We are not having a debate on the Attorney General.

I am not speaking about the person of the Attorney General but the Office of the Attorney General. It certainly is allowable to speak in this Chamber about the Office of the Attorney General or any public office. The idea that the Attorney General's advice is sometimes wrong is uncontestable. It is challenged at Supreme Court level and sometimes found that it is not what it is. However, when the Attorney General expresses the opinion that the actions of the Government are unconstitutional, Article 15 of the Constitution kicks in and requires the Government not to enact or attempt to enact legislation thought to be unconstitutional. It is as clear as day and there can be no argument about this, as Article 15 makes clear.

They got it wrong in 1999.

Does Senator John Gilroy have a question for the Deputy Leader?

I support the proposal made by Senator Gerard P. Craughwell that we have a discussion on the matter. The idea that the Attorney General wakes up in the morning and forms an opinion shows a blatant misunderstanding of how the Office of the Attorney General arrives at conclusions. It comprises 35 legal officers-----

We should not be discussing the Attorney General at all.

The Office of the Attorney General is a legitimate topic for discussion, the person of the Attorney General is not.

We should not be discussing the Attorney General or the Office of the Attorney General.

Is the Office of the Attorney General not an allowable topic of discussion?

No, that is correct.

I cannot accept that ruling. I will accept it, of course, but-----

Does the Senator have a question for the Deputy Leader?

If the Attorney General's opinion is as valid as anyone else's, it demonstrates an misunderstanding of the operation of the Office of the Attorney General. The Attorney General widely canvasses opinion among academics and senior law officers in the Four Courts, the Law Library and elsewhere. Having canvassed their opinions, the Attorney General arrives at a particular position. It is not as if he or she wakes up in the morning and decides what is right.

The Attorney General is the only practising barrister in the office.

I support the Senator, but I disagree with what he stated. I support him, however, in seeking a debate on the role of the Office of the Attorney General.