There is no definition of the role of counsel for the public interest in tribunals, Ms Sara Moorhead, a barrister, told the conference.
"Barristers take instructions, but who is the client? Members of the public? What mechanism is there for them to communicate? As it stands, counsel for the public interest seems to have no particular remit.
"None of this has been thought through by the politicians. It is not enough just to nominate counsel for the public interest, they must be given instructions."
She pointed out that the appointment of counsel for the public interest followed the beef tribunal, when there were differences between counsel for the tribunal and for the Attorney General as to who represented the public interest.
There were also conflicts in relation to Cabinet confidentiality during that tribunal. She said it was interesting to wonder what role counsel for the public interest would have played arguing against Cabinet confidentiality.
Sir Richard Scott, who chaired what came to be known as the "Arms to Iraq" inquiry, said his inquiry had been set up to investigate the actions of government. Although it was investigative and inquisitorial in nature and not testing the truth of any specific allegation, because it was investigating government he decided it should hear evidence in public.
This did not mean it was all conducted in public. There was a lot of perusal of documents. On that basis his team prepared questionnaires and decided on that basis who would give oral evidence. Of the 278 witnesses asked to give written evidence, only 81 were orally examined. The public did not see the written evidence of underlying documents. Some categories of witness were not orally examined, specifically those in the security and intelligence agencies and those who did not have anything significant to offer.