Vol. 453 No. 3
1 Mr. O'Dea asked the Taoiseach the progress, if any, that been has made in relation to the introduction of a major information technology programme in the Attorney General's office and the appointment of additional staff to the parliamentary draftsman's office. [9217/95]
The systems in the office of the Attorney General have been reviewed by specialist information technology consultants from the Central Information Technology Services of the Department of Finance and an information technology plan covering a two-year period of implementation for the office has been drawn up and agreed. The Government agreed it was desirable that, in addition to the steps recommended in the report of the review group on the office, independent legal technology consultants should be engaged to provide quality assurance in relation to the information technology plan. These consultants have assessed the plan, visited the Attorney General's office and made a favourable interim report on the plan and the manner in which it is being implemented.
A case and correspondence tracking system was determined to be a priority in that plan and is now at an advanced stage of planning. In addition to this tracking function, the new information technology system will cover the storage and keywording of office legal "know how", access to external legal databases, a new IT package for drafting legislation, and a new internal and external communications system, with appropriate staff training to assure that these systems will be utilised to the best advantage. Rapid progress is being made on all these fronts with the collaboration of the professional, technical, managerial and administrative staff at all levels.
As regards the appointment of additional staff to the parliamentary draftsman's office, a competition under the Civil Service Commission Act, 1956, to lead to the recruitment initially of two more draftsmen is being organised and is expected to be advertised later this week.
As the Taoiseach will be aware, the report was published on 21 February. Has any new equipment, softwear or hardware been acquired since then? The report recommended that extra accommodation should be provided to facilitate the implementation of the new information technology plan. Has anything been done about that? It also recommended training in information technology for the staff in the office of the Attorney General. Has anything been done about that? On the report's recommendation on the introduction of a system of electronic mail, has anything been done in that regard?
Something has been done about all these matters. They are being dealt with as part of an integrated information technology plan upon which quality assurance has been carried out by independent legal technology consultants. All those matters which are necessary to give effect in full to the plan over the period involved are being put in place.
On the date of publication of the report there were 23 people employed in the Attorney General's office, 15 in the advisory section and eight in the parliamentary draftsman's section, as well as three retired draftsmen employed on contract. Will the Taoiseach confirm there has been no increase in staff in the three months since the report was published?
As yet there has not been an increase in staff, but the position on the recruitment of additional staff in the parliamentary draftsmen's section — I cannot give answers about clerical and other categories of staff — is that a competition is being organised to recruit two more draftspersons. On the use of contract drafting, that matter is being actively examined by the Attorney General. I discussed the matter with him after it was raised by the Deputy and others and he told me he is taking every possible step to recruit people on a contract basis for whom a long training and induction period is not necessary because they already have the skills. I am aware the Attorney General is pursuing that matter actively, but the number of people available with the necessary skills is not very large.
In the programme for renewal the Government committed itself to examining the Attorney General's role in terms of his position as legal adviser to the Government and protector of the Constitution for the people. Has progress been made in that regard?
That is separate from the subject matter of Deputy O'Dea's question.
The Taoiseach spoke about a case and correspondence tracking system. What does that mean?
The term is self-explanatory. It means there is a system of recording each step taken in any case and any item of correspondence, and ensuring these steps are followed up with reasonable celerity.
Does that mean letters will be answered rapidly and that people will not have to wait six months for a reply as in a case which is the subject of another question?
Let us wait until we deal with the question.
The purpose of a case and correspondence tracking system is to ensure that all cases and correspondence are dealt with speedily and effectively.
The Taoiseach will recall that following the events that brought down the last Government a commitment was given that any letters in relation to the matter raised by Deputy O'Donnell would be brought to the Attorney General's attention. Will the Taoiseach explain what happened in this case?
The determination as to what happened in this case is the matter on which I wish to make definitive and final inquiries and on which I wish to be in a position, freely and without prejudicing my position, to make decisions.
The Taoiseach did not give the former Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, one day to come up with a reply.
Please restrain yourself, Deputy O'Rourke.
That is a matter on which, therefore, I cannot elaborate any further but, as the Deputy stated, I acknowledge that public assurances were given about dealing with correspondence on such matters. That is one of the factors I will have to take into careful account in assessing the report I have received——
Minister De Rossa should speak up.
The Taoiseach did not say that when he was sitting on this side of the House.
——and on hearing the views of people who may be affected by any decision I make.
That is the reason the Taoiseach is on that side of the House and I am on this side.
He hounded us when he was on this side.
The Taoiseach has one set of standards for this side of the House and another for the side he is on now.
I wish to ask the Taoiseach a direct question. Does he feel as accountable to this House regarding the internal workings of the Attorney General's office as he sought to make the previous Taoiseach and, if so, will he accept that this House is now entitled to the transparency it received from the then Taoiseach?
I certainly believe I am as accountable as the previous Taoiseach was to the House for any decisions I take and for matters relating to the Attorney General's office. When I have concluded my inquiries into this matter and made a decision on it I will give a full account to the House, which is its entitlement. The Deputy should recognise that in reaching decisions that could affect the position of individuals I am obliged to act in accordance with fair procedure and not to say anything in response to legitimate questions from the Opposition that could prejudice my ability or freedom to make the appropriate decision.
That is daft.
Members who understand the complexity of such matters will understand the consequences of my doing so.
While I accept the Taoiseach is speaking slowly and earnestly——
He is programmed.
——I suggest he is not telling us anything. Will he accept my word that I am not expecting him to draw conclusions on the matter referred to in the question, but does he agree that drawing conclusions and simply giving straight answers to straight questions is a separate matter? In refusing to answer questions he is concealing information to which the House is entitled.
I have no reason or motive for concealing information from this House on any of these matters other than my solemn obligation to ensure that I act in accordance with fair procedures in any decisions I reach which could conceivably affect the position of individuals. I hope Members will accept that is my sole motivation in this matter. If Members wish to suggest otherwise, they may do so but they would not be accurate.
That is the Taoiseach's judgment.
This matter resulted in a change of Government and Taoiseach. The Taoiseach should read the text of the debates in this House on 15 and 16 November.
Regarding the position of individuals, surely it is the right of elected Members to seek information from the Taoiseach on a matter of such importance and have it placed on the record of this House? Such information should take priority over all other matters around which the Taoiseach is trying to hedge.
That information will be put on the record of the House, but I must do it at an appropriate time——
A time that suits the Taoiseach.
——in the light of my obligation to adopt fair procedures on this matter.
The Taoiseach gave Deputy Reynolds one hour when he was Taoiseach.
What about Westmeath Vocational Education Committee?
In speaking about fair procedures, does the Taoiseach see a distinction or incompatibility between the replies he is giving the House today and the statements he made here last winter? Does he see any inconsistency in the support he is receiving from the Tánaiste as opposed to the support the Tánaiste refused to give to the previous Taoiseach?
What consistency is there in what Deputy Ahern is saying now and what he said last winter?
I have an obligation to deal with this correspondence and the position regarding implications for individuals of the seven month delay in this office in dealing with this matter prior to my taking up office in accordance with very strict and careful requirements relating to fair procedure and the individuals who might be affected. That is my sole motivation in this matter and I will have no option but to repeat that regardless of the new and, perhaps, valid ways the question may be put.
This is a cover up.
A commitment was given in the programme A Government of Renewal to reform the Attorney General's office to ensure that there would be no breakdown in the future in this regard. Is the Taoiseach asking the Members of the Dáil and the public to accept that by not telling us when this letter was passed over to the Attorney General that he would be in some way prejudicing a person in the Attorney General's office or elsewhere? I would not accept that.
My concern is exactly as the Deputy stated. I would not wish to prejudice my freedom to reach decisions on this matter in accordance with fair procedure by answering questions of that nature.
Is there a dispute between an official and the Attorney General?
As I indicated in response to all questions put to me on this matter, when I have concluded the process I will make all relevant and proper information relating to the questions being put to me available to the House.
The Taoiseach has repeated the term "fair procedure" like a mantra. To whom should he be fair? I fail to understand how his final conclusions could be influenced by informing us when the Attorney General got sight of this letter.
As the report indicated that the lack of information technology was the single greatest barrier to the proper functioning of the Office of the Attorney General, will the Taoiseach state if any new equipment has been installed? We know there are major plans, but the introduction of technology, which is not remote or extra-ordinary, should not cause difficulty. Have computers and printers been installed? Central to this development two key posts were to be filled in the office, the head of administration and a systems and services manager and as plenty of people are available to do that type of work there is no need to delay filling those posts.
The Deputy made his point adequately. Let us hear the Taoiseach's reply.
I am not in a position, nor would it be relevant, for me to give answers regarding individual items of equipment. I said that the purchase of equipment with other steps, including training relevantly referred to by Deputy O'Dea, are being put in place together on an integrated basis as part of an information technology plan. The acquisition of equipment prior to the identification of need and the training of persons to use it would be premature. The important point is that the whole process and every interlocking aspect of it is being dealt with as part of an overall plan. That is the important and relevant answer to the question.
Is it not the case that the staff are crying out for the installation of simple equipment which has not been purchased?
I want to bring these questions to finality.
Can the Taoiseach not proceed with that aspect of the job while the grand plans are under discussion?
It has been two years now.
Anyone who knows anything about information technology will be aware that there is no point in making individual decisions regarding equipment without reference to all the other necessary ingredients. All those matters, including acquisition of the necessary equipment, are being dealt with at maximum speed as part of an integrated and effective plan. There will be no tokenism in dealing with this matter, it will be dealt with effectively on an integrated basis.
When the Taoiseach was in Opposition he called for the dissolution of the previous Government on a matter related to that office which has taken two years to deal with.
