Vol. 493 No. 4
1 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach whether the Government has considered the report of the Review Group on the Law Offices of the State; the recommendations, if any, the Government has approved, in particular the introduction of a unified prosecution service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14949/98]
I refer to my reply to Question No. 1 of 24 February 1998 indicating that the Government had accepted the recommendations of the Review Group on the Law Offices of the State and in particular to establish a high level study of proposals for a unified prosecution service; a separate statute law revision and consolidation unit and a consultative committee among the law offices.
The review group recommended that the matter of a unified prosecution service should be examined in much greater detail than its own expertise and resources would have allowed. It is expected that the study will begin in September. The study group will be chaired by Mr. Dermot Nally, former secretary to the Government.
The arrangements for the statute law revision and consolidation unit are being discussed by the Office of the Attorney General and the Department of Finance.
I understand nearly all nominations have been received to the consultative committee of the law offices. The Attorney General's Office which has the duty of chairing it proposes to hold the first meeting before the end of July.
The Taoiseach clearly indicated the Government is not satisfied with the current level of prosecution services. Has he requested the Attorney General to contact the Director of Public Prosecutions to ascertain why, after a period of more than ten months, he has not initiated any action following the referral to him of the report of the McCracken Tribunal? I refer to the frequent references by the journalist Gene Kerrigan in the Sunday Independent. Has the Taoiseach seen the articles? Has anybody in his office monitored them or asked the Director of Public Prosecutions through the Attorney General, as the Taoiseach is empowered to do under the relevant section, section 2(6), of the 1974 Prosecution of Offences Act, why no action has been taken?
That is a separate question.
The reply would be fascinating.
It does not arise directly.
With respect, a review has been carried out and the Taoiseach referred to changing prosecution systems. There is a matter of major public concern in respect of which the report of a tribunal was referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Better and more efficient systems of prosecution are likely to be introduced. Has the Taoiseach exercised his powers under section 2(6) of the 1974 Prosecution of Offences Act to request the Attorney General to discuss the matter with the Director of Public Prosecutions while respecting the independence of his office? I request that the Taoiseach be allowed to reply.
The Deputy is asking a particular question——
It would have been ruled out of order. I took legal advice on the matter. It can only be asked in this manner. There are numerous precedents where specific queries were raised on foot of a general question relating to the reform and improvement of prosecution procedures. I urge you to allow the Taoiseach to answer the question.
I will not indicate particular matters that I raise with the Attorney General on a day to day basis. I have seen the articles in question. The Review Group on the Law Offices of the State was of the view that the matter of a unified prosecution service should be looked at in more detail. While the Office of the Chief State Solicitor is accountable to the Office of the Attorney General, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is not. The matter was argued at some length. The review group came to the conclusion that a far more intensive examination of the issues involved was required with the various interests involved being given an opportunity to state their case. I do not want to pre-empt the outcome. That is where the issue rests.
The Taoiseach indicated he is aware of the articles in the newspapers. Has he requested the Attorney General to raise the matter with the Director of Public Prosecutions as he is empowered to do under section 2(6) of the 1974 Act and, if not, why?
I have not requested the Attorney General to do things. I do not normally have to do so. I am not prepared to give accounts of the day to day actions of the Attorney General.
Will the Taoiseach bring this exchange to the attention of the Attorney General so that he can decide whether it would be worth his while responding to the concern expressed repeatedly in the Sunday Independent by the journalist Gene Kerrigan?
The Attorney General also reads the newspapers and is aware of what is in the public domain.
The Taoiseach ought to contact him independently.
What are the issues the review group believed it was not sufficiently expert to examine in regard to a unified prosecution service and which should be examined by a further body?
It is some time since I read the report but there are a number of issues, including whether a unified prosecution service is the best option. This was the subject of considerable debate. Recent reports in other jurisdictions suggest it is an issue which requires the fullest and most detailed consideration.
Will the Taoiseach agree that one of the great strengths of the Irish prosecutorial system as against that in the United States is that it is genuinely independent of the passing political pressures of the day unlike the American system which is very much affected by electoral considerations in prosecutors' offices and so forth? Does he also agree we should preserve one of the unique strengths enjoyed by our judicial, prosecutorial and legal systems, namely, the independence — frustrating though it may be at times — of the DPP?
Deputy Bruton was involved with the Attorney General in commissioning the report in the first instance and he will be aware these issues were considered when the Director of Public Prosecutions and other interested parties put forward their perspectives on the matter. The issues in question did not come within the direct remit of the review group but it felt they were worthy of examination. I recall from reading the report that there did not seem to be a tremendous appetite for changing the system in so far as it was examined by the review group. However, because the DPP wished to have these matters examined in further detail the group obviously decided to examine them.
The case of someone caught shoplifting in Dunnes Stores would not be heard in the Office of the DPP for ten months. We should adopt a new perspective on this matter.
