Vol. 519 No. 5
2 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach when the proposed new position of solicitor to the Director of Public Prosecutions will be created; if legislation will be required before the new post is created; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12761/00]
The public prosecutions system study group recommended, among other things, that the Director of Public Prosecutions should consider delegating to the solicitor to the DPP certain categories of decision at present reserved to the director. The Government has agreed in principle to the recommendations of the group.
The establishment of an office of solicitor to the DPP and the transfer of functions from the criminal division of the Chief State Solicitor's office to the new office has taken some time because of detailed and ongoing negotiations between the official side and the union side in relation to staffing and resources. It is hoped that those negotiations will reach finality in the near future. When that happens, arrangements will be put in place to fill the position of solicitor to the DPP and, thereafter, transfer of staff from the criminal division of the Chief State Solicitor's office to the new office will take place.
It is not anticipated that legislation will be required before the new post of solicitor to the DPP is created.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the establishment of this post is an urgent matter? Will he detail what the negotiations are concerned with in relation to resources and, perhaps, salaries? There is a tight labour market at present, as we are aware in the context of the Chief State Solicitor's office. Will the Taoiseach outline the exact position with regard to additional resources and the level of remuneration the post will command?
The current negotiations involve IMPACT, the Department of Finance, the Office of the DPP, the Attorney General's office and the Chief State Solicitor's office. A significant degree of progress has been made. The DPP has given a commitment that he will not move on the post of solicitor to the DPP until the whole package is agreed. That will involve further promotional posts. It will involve additional allowances for people who stay on because they have been having difficulty. It will involve additional staff and it will also involve changes in the accommodation because, as I understand it, even if they had the extra staff today, they could not accommodate them in the castle. That issue must be resolved also. While they are ready to go ahead with the post of solicitor to the DPP, in the partnership arrangements on which they have agreed to work in recent months the DPP has given the assurance that he will wait until all of these matters are concluded. The state of play is that the negotiations are all put completed. A comprehensive offer will be made to the staff side and it has stated that it must ballot on that. If there is a satisfactory result in that, then all of the matters can move together.
Do I take it the staff side and the management have linked a variety of related issues but not specifically the position of an additional solicitor directly appointed to the DPP? While the outcome of those negotiations is all but completed, given our appointment procedure on this, is the reality that this would be a Civil Service Commission appointment? Will this person, whoever he or she may be, not effectively take up the responsibilities until late this year or early next year? Is that a fair assessment of the situation?
It will take a few months anyway.
He can forget the next three months.
It will be about three months from the time of commencement. I am not too sure how the profession will view it, but it will be an important position. The solicitor to the DPP would have the same relationship and status as that of the Chief State Solicitor to the Attorney General. I imagine that it would be seen in the profession as an attractive post. I hope we will move fairly quickly.
Why it was decided to create a separate post rather than simply recruit a senior solicitor in the DPP's office?
This came from the Nally report. The Nally report recommended that, subject to the agreement of adequate staffing levels and appropriate structures, the criminal division of the Chief State Solicitor's office and the solicitor service would be transferred to the DPP to form a unit and that that unit would be headed by a solicitor to the DPP. Rather than just nominating or designating somebody who was there, it would be the creation of a new post. That was one of the recommendations which was accepted. All the recommendations were accepted, but it was one of the recommendations from the public prosecutions system study group report of the year before last.
What will be the reporting relationship between the solicitor to the DPP and the DPP? Will the solicitor to the DPP exercise any separate legal functions in his or her own right?
The relationship will be the same relationship as that of the Attorney General to the Chief State Solicitor. The report spells out that because the DPP has no real power and no real management role over the criminal division of the Chief State Solicitor's office although practically all the work of that office is the DPP's work, it should be transferred to him. The same is the case with the State solicitor service. More than 80% of the work of the State solicitor service is directed to the DPP. For reasons of administrative consistency these divisions will be transferred to the DPP, but he will have a new unit and a new person who will effectively administer and manage it.
I take it the relationship will be the normal one between solicitor and client and that the client, that is the DPP, will make all the important decisions.
The DPP will still make the decisions. Of the 230 staff in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, 70 are in the criminal division. These will move to the new office. The solicitor to the DPP will be responsible for the criminal division. The Nally report also recommended that the work of the 32 State solicitors should transfer to the Office of the DPP.
