Opposition allegations that the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is being directed by the Attorney General's office was strongly refuted by Government in the House of Assembly Monday.

But the United Bermuda Party (UBP) persisted and branded as a failure the "four year experiment of having a political Attorney General".

Having an Attorney General picked from among parliamentarians to advise the Government on legal issues and a separate office for prosecuting criminal cases was instituted shortly after the election of the Progressive Labour Party in 1998. Shadow Legislative Affairs Minister John Barritt kicked off the debate with his observation that, for the fourth year in a row the DPP was included in the Budget estimates as a line item under the Attorney General's (AG) office.

And he pointed out that the mission statement written for the Attorney General's Chambers in the Budget estimates included the words: "To prosecute and direct public prosecutions in the courts of Bermuda."

"That is constitutionally wrong," said Mr. Barritt. "The DPP is meant to be separate and apart. He and his officers do not take direction from the Attorney General's Chambers. I can also assume that what I have long suspected to be the case is in fact the case - that the Attorney General is directing the DPP's office."

He argued that including the DPP's money as a budget item under the AG's office would be similar to putting the office of the Auditor General under the Ministry of Finance. The DPP and the Auditor General are both appointed by and answerable to the Governor.

Education Minister Paula Cox was the first to respond. "The Attorney General has always taken the position that she does not direct the DPP. She has some responsibility for administrative oversight," Ms Cox said.

"It should be stated for the people of Bermuda that the Attorney General does not tamper with public prosecutions."

Premier Jennifer Smith backed those comments saying that the AG is responsible administratively and has to account for the funds to the Assembly.

She added that the decision to have a politically appointed Attorney General was Government's and that could be changed by any other government. But the UBP persisted with the argument that if the DPP is to be independent, it should be treated the same way as the Auditor General and make its own pitch to the Finance Minister for its budget.

Mr. Barritt compared the amounts being spent by the two offices to buttress his case. The Attorney General's office has been allocated a budget of $2.1 million and 25 staff members, while the DPP gets $1.4 million and 16 staff members.

"I would suggest that we need to pay more attention at this time to the DPP and what it needs for the role it is expected to do," Mr. Barritt said.

He pointed to recent "serious cases" brought before the courts which had collapsed.

"I know the buck gets passed and I'm sure there's enough blame for everybody. The four year experiment of having a political Attorney General has been a failure. I think we need to go back to having a non-political AG making decisions," Mr. Barritt continued.

"It's heavily weighted in favour of the AG's chambers, heavily weighted on the civil side. Offering money or taking money away is a way of influencing either directly or indirectly. That is why I think it's time to... end that experiment."

He then turned to the fact that there were no output measures for the Attorney General's office and no explanation given.

"What a sad indictment," Mr. Barritt said. He also said that government should measure the average cost per case for representing the Government in court, the total costs of cases Government has lost, or the number of cases taken to trial.

Backbencher Arthur Hodgson backed the decision to have a political AG, saying it followed practice in other countries, including Britain.

He explained that in the past, Attorney Generals, who directed both civil and criminal cases, were appointed by Britain, and sat on the executive council, and reported to the Crown not to Bermuda's people.

With the advent of party politics, the post was a Civil Service post but they would be recruited with a view to their political affiliation. "I was opposed to it because it gave the impression that the Attorney General had his political views and what was happening was the government was recruiting people that supported their political views. And the public didn't know it."

The current system was more transparent, he said.

Turning to criticism of the DPP's record, Mr. Hodgson pointed out that the public prosecutor's main aim was not to ensure he gets a conviction but to present the evidence.

"The prosecutor has an interest in justice, the defence lawyer has an interest in his client."