Vol. 448 No. 7
4 Ms O'Donnell asked the Taoiseach the number of staff in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions; when a review of the efficiency of the office was last undertaken; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2826/95]
The number of staff in the office is 28, of whom 12 are lawyers. However, one of these legal positions is filled on a job-sharing basis. The efficiency of the office has been the subject of constant internal scrutiny and review and no external review has ever been deemed necessary. Nevertheless, I will continue to keep the efficiency of the office under review and examine all possibilities for its further improvement.
Will the Taoiseach accept that the efficiency of this arm of the criminal justice system is vital to a credible criminal justice system? The fact that there has never been an external audit or evaluation of the efficiency or accountability of that office is a matter that will have to be considered. I remind the Taoiseach that he and the former spokesperson on Justice, Deputy Gay Mitchell, were foremost in this House in expressing the need for greater accountability. Will the Taoiseach agree that no public office should be so independent as to be unac-countable?
There is a difference between efficiency and accountability. The independent Director of Public Prosecutions and his office must operate to the highest standards of efficiency. I encourage all offices in the Government service to have from time to time an external audit of their efficiency. One should not be complacent that no such audit has been carried out in the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It should be a normal and unthreatening process for any office to invite an independent review of its efficiency from time to time, and I will pass on that view to all offices under my aegis. On the accountability of the Director of Public Prosecutions' office, that is an entirely different matter. We are talking here about accountability to the Dáil for the prosecution or non-prosecution of particular cases and that raises extremely difficult and separate issues.
I understand the Taoiseach's reply but does he not accept there is a genuine reason for concern in this regard? Some mechanism should be considered as a matter of urgency to ensure that cases are dealt with as efficiently as possible. I note the Taoiseach said no outside review has taken place and perhaps that is one mechanism that could be considered. For example, four years ago as Minister I referred the Aer Lingus Holidays case to the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and I am not sure whether it has been dealt with. Are there other such examples and will the Taoiseach publish a list of the cases that have been there for one year, four years or five years? That would, without transgressing on the independence of the office, allow for answerability or accountability to this House, which is dear to the Taoiseach's heart.
It is important to point out that section 2 (5) of the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1974, which established the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, states specifically that the director shall be independent in the performance of his functions. Conducting an independent audit of the way that office works is among his functions and his independence in that regard is guaranteed. I am not in a position to direct him to take action along the lines suggested by the Deputy. The Deputy's question is well thought out and I have no doubt that the reasonable suggestions implicit in it will be considered, as they should be.
I thank the Taoiseach for his helpful and thoughtful reply. Will he consider amending the Act to permit the office holder, whoever that may be, to come before a Dáil committee from time to time? Members of my party and, I understand, some members of his party, put forward that proposal at various times. At one stage we discussed this possibility with the Labour Party during our negotiations for Government. I understand this proposal is central to the Taoiseach's view on how the Dáil should operate. Senior office holders should come before committees in a dignified way and give appropriate information to them.
The establishment of the independent office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was a major step forward in the sense that it took the decisions about prosecution in particular offences out of the political or quasipolitical arena. Hitherto this matter was ultimately for decision by the Attorney General who was the legal adviser to a Government which was politically composed. There were always concerns about the risks of politicisation of decisions in regard to prosecutions and non-prosecutions. A good decision was taken to cut the link between the political system and the decisions about prosecutions. The difficulty is that the measures now being urged to increase the accountability of the office would narrow the gap between the political system and the decision making system and bring the operation of the office back into closer conjuncture with politics, which would not necessarily be a good thing.
I call Deputy O'Donnell. I must dissuade too many Members from offering as I was hoping to complete questions to the Taoiseach today.
On 18 March 1993 the Taoiseach made the point the Opposition is now making about the need for accountability by the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Taoiseach has distinguished between efficiency and accountability. Will he agree that for there to be any evaluation of efficiency there must be some level of accountability whether to a public or private source? Will he further agree that under the 1974 Prosecution of Offences Act the Director of Public Prosecutions may have discussions with the Attorney General about carrying out his duties? Will he request the Attorney General to consult the Director of Public Prosecutions on the sensible points raised by the Opposition?
I will draw the attention of the Attorney General to the points made in the House, but I have to repeat my concern about any attempt to create a highly undesirable situation where the decisions taken in individual cases would be a matter of political accountability. I know this is not what the Deputy is specifically suggesting but it could easily flow from what she is suggesting in the normal cut and thrust of debate.
Given the problems which arose from the delay in the Fr. Brendan Smyth case, will the Taoiseach agree there is justification for a review of the legislation under which the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was set up, not necessarily in regard to the handling and prosecution of specific cases but in regard to the overall operation of his office? A Dáil committee should be given responsibility for overseeing the general operation of that office. Does the Taoiseach envisage the Director of Public Prosecutions coming before the Oireachtas committees, as set out in his Dáil reform proposals?
I do not expect that the latter will happen. In regard to the former, I have already answered that question.
Will the Taoiseach agree it would be possible to amend the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1974, to ensure more accountability by the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions without necessarily undermining or reducing his independence in any way?
Why did the Deputy not do it at some stage during the past three years when he was in the Department of Justice?
There has been great disquiet about the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions not to prosecute in certain cases. Will the Taoiseach consider at the very least amending the 1974 legislation to allow the Director of Public Prosecutions to give reasons for his decisions in certain cases?
We are having quite an extension of this question.
No, I will not because it would not be a good idea. If I were to do this I would politicise the decisions about prosecutions in individual cases; people who knew they would have to account politically for the prosecution of one case and the non-prosecution of another case would introduce political considerations into the decision making process. This would be wrong, and I do not agree with the Deputy.
Judges give reasons for their decisions.
Order, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe has been offering for some time. I intend to bring questions on this subject matter to finality quite quickly.
Is the Taoiseach aware that the members of the Committee of Public Accounts were so dissatisfied with the accounting officer when he appeared before them that they called him a second time? He is due to come before the committee for a third time.
The reasons for this are threefold. First, we found——
Sorry, Deputy O'Keeffe, questions must be brief, relevant and succinct and must not give rise to debate.
We are talking about the efficiency of the office. Up to July last year——
A question, please.
Is the Taoiseach aware that up to July of last year that office did not know one had to have a tax clearance certificate before a person could be employed, that there is no computerisation system within the office and that the Committee of Public Accounts recommended that strategic management consultants should be brought into the office which is not as efficient and effective as it should be?
The Deputy made his point.
I look forward to publication of the report and have no doubt that the Director of Public Prosecutions will take due note of any findings reached by the Committee of Public Accounts in the matters referred to by the Deputy.
Will the Taoiseach agree that the unnecessary remands and adjournments which frequently take place during preliminary examinations and the writing of depositions in long-hand by a District Court clerk are the main reasons for the delays in prosecutions? Will he further agree that a new Bill is required to streamline the system?
I will consider that possibility but I do not intend to make a decision in these circumstances without investigating the matter further. I express some surprise that the Deputy and his party who held responsibility in this area for seven years did not consider it necessary when they were in Government to make any of the changes they are now advocating so eloquently.
You are in Government now.
You are in Government now and the buck stops with you.
Will the Taoiseach agree that the victims of serious crime who make reports to the Garda are entitled to some form of redress when no prosecution is proceeded with? There should be at least limited accountability to people who have been injured as a result of serious crimes and who are often bewildered at the silence from the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. There is no reporting back and all they get is informal information from the Garda that the Director of Public Prosecutions must have decided not to go ahead with the case. Will the Taoiseach agree that is unacceptable in terms of the provision of justice to the victims of crime?
The Deputy's question refers to the efficiency of the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and not to the separate matter she has now raised. I urge the Deputy to put down another question so that that matter can be discussed and replied to.
