Mary Harney
Question:15 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach his views on the agreement by the Director of Public Prosecutions to appear on a live radio programme to answer questions from members of the public. [17212/95]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Office of Director of Public Prosecutions.
Mary Harney
Question:16 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach his views on the DPP rendering accountability for his Office by participating in an RTE radio programme. [17226/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 15 and 16 together.
There is no statutory prohibition on the Director of Public Prosecutions appearing on a radio or television programme or giving interviews to journalists. It is entirely a matter, therefore, for the Director as to whether he accepts such invitations.
On the Order of Business on 16 November, I informed the Deputy that I believed it is important that the House should not be treated in a less informative way than any other institution, at the very minimum. Following consideration by the Government of the issues involved, it has been decided that the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Bill, 1995, will be amended to allow for the compellability of the Director to attend before a committee, to be designated, in order to answer questions on statistical and general policy issues arising from the annual reports which it is envisaged the Director will henceforth publish. Compellability will not extend to discussion of specific cases.
I very much welcome the Government decision but it is strange that a Government Bill published a week ago has to be amended within a week because of a radio programme. This shows how restrictive the Government was in approaching that Bill. It is only right that an independent officeholder should be accountable and that accountability is not incompatible with independence.
In answering parliamentary questions on the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, does the Taoiseach intend to be more forthcoming about general policy issues? I am not talking about individual cases. There are general policy issues that arise on which the Director was able to answer on the radio last Friday but which the Taoiseach has not been prepared to address in parliamentary questions here.
In so far as the general policy questions are ones upon which the Director makes independent decisions, the appropriate person to explain those policy decisions is the Director. I will respond to the matters concerning administration or the provision being made for the Director's office in terms of resource support and so on in the House.
In view of the Government decision to introduce a reporting mechanism for the Director directly to a committee of this House in due course, I presume the Ceann Comhairle will make decisions within his prerogative on whether particular matters are more appropriately directed to me or the Director.
I cannot ask the Director questions in the Chamber because he is not a Member of the House. Therefore, I have to ask the Taoiseach. If the Taoiseach feels the Director should answer general policy questions, surely the Bill should have been amended along those lines? I understand the Bill will only be amended to allow him to answer questions on administration or did I misunderstand?
The Bill will be amended to allow us compel the Director to attend before a designated committee to answer questions on statistical and general policy issues arising from the annual reports, which it is envisaged the Director will henceforth publish. The admissibility of particular questions to me in that context will be a matter for the Ceann Comhairle.
Is the Taoiseach aware, as a result of public statements by the Director of Public Prosecutions, that he now gives the reasons for his decisions in any individual case to the Garda if requested? The Garda is one element in the criminal justice process. Does the Taoiseach not think it is now time for the Director to provide information of this nature more widely?
No.
Why?
If the Director becomes involved in public disclosure and discussion of reasons for decisions in individual cases, there will be a serious risk they will become influenced by political discourse and trends in public opinion.
It is more appropriate that these should not be of that nature. However, the matter can be examined. Hopefully, as a result of the Government's decision, there will be a discussion before a committee, in a non-adversarial way, of the general policy considerations that underlie the way in which the director approaches particular categories of decision. I hope the Deputy agrees it is important that we do not become involved in the politicisation of individual decisions.
Last week I put it to the Taoiseach that the legislation needed to be amended. He seemed reluctant to acknowledge that this was so and I thank him for his change of heart. Has it been decided before which committee the Director of Public Prosecutions will appear? Is it likely to be the Committee of Public Accounts as was the case with the Attorney General?
There is no reason it should be that committee. If I were asked to guess I would say it would not be that committee. However, that is a matter for decision at a later stage and any representations the Deputy wishes to make will be considered favourably.
The time for questions to the Taoiseach is exhausted.