Ruairí Quinn
Question:7 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the progress made to date in implementing the recommendations of the Nally group on the public prosecution system; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17213/00]
Ceisteanna – Questions. - Chief State Solicitor's Office.
Ruairí Quinn
Question:8 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the steps being taken to address the serious shortcomings in the Office of the Chief State Solicitor identified in a recent internal document on human relations in the office prepared by a sub-committee under Partnership 2000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18047/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 8 together.
Work is continuing on the implementation of the recommendations in the Nally report on the public prosecution system, specifically the transfer of the criminal division of the Chief State Solicitor's office and the State solicitor service to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
As I indicated in previous replies, a group comprising the Department of Finance, the Office of the Attorney General, including the Chief State Solicitor's office, and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, was set up to oversee the transfer. Part of the arrangements for the transfer included consideration of the staffing levels and structures necessary in the enhanced prosecution service and, in parallel, in the Chief State Solicitor's office. The process included considerable discussion between the group and the IMPACT trade union. I understand that these discussions are complete and that proposals have been put to the union which are being considered at present.
The report on human resources in the CSSO was prepared by a sub-committee of the partnership committee within the office. The issue had been included on the partnership committee agenda at the suggestion of management. The report has been circulated to all staff and the committee is now considering the implementation of the recommendations. The report contains a wide range of recommendations covering all aspects of human resource management within the office from operational matters, such as the administration of the personnel section, to recruitment, training and development issues, staff resources and accommodation. Not all are within the immediate control of the CSSO. I have arranged to have copies of the report placed in the Oireachtas Library.
I have a difficulty in reconciling the positive nature of the Taoiseach's reply with the reports, which I will not quote, which were carried in the newspapers as recently as the 17th of this month. This is a major and central post in the administration of the State. A period of approximately four months will have elapsed between the post becoming vacant – this is a retirement vacancy, not a sudden vacancy – and 24 August when the new man, who comes from Dublin Corporation and whom we wish well, will take up office. Is the Taoiseach aware, because it does not seem evident from this reply, that the public has serious misgivings about the inability of the Chief State Solicitor's office to do the task with which it is charged? When we previously discussed this matter on 8 February, the Taoiseach spoke of the possibility of contracting a number of people on a basis not dissimilar to the National Treasury Management Agency to give the Chief State Solicitor's office the resources it clearly lacks. Has the Taoiseach given further consideration to that proposal?
I am aware of the report and the document which came through the partnership process. I do not want to become involved in the arguments about that because many of them are internal. There is no doubt that there was some trenchant criticism in the document. I do not accept that all the criticism outlined in the report represents fair comment. A communication policy has been put in place recently. The partnership process involves a significant improvement in the approach to communications.
The issue of overwork highlighted in the report has been the subject of union management negotiations and there is some truth in that. A substantial offer of additional staff numbers has been made to the union as part of the general package. So far, this has not been accepted but I hope that a favourable outcome will come about soon and that arrangements will be made to recruit the additional staff. They will probably be full time but, as the Deputy said, they may also be contract staff.
It is not accurate to say the recommendations of various reports were not implemented as has been highlighted. The recommendations of the main report, which was prepared by Deloitte & Touche, were considered by management and, by and large, were accepted and have already been implemented. As with any such report, a number of recommendations were not acceptable to management or could not be applied at the time. That created some difficulties. The comments about leadership are not accurate. Improved management structures were put in place following the Deloitte & Touche report and these have included a new divisional structure, new sectional arrangements and a new management advisory committee.
While not everything in that office is perfect – I am not here to say it is – substantial progress has been made. If this round of negotiations builds on the Nally report by seeing how it can be implemented, further progress will be made.
I should correct the record. I inadvertently said the new person, Mr. David Hogan, comes from Dublin Corporation. He comes from Cork Corporation. That may be part of the reason for the delay in accepting the post. I would not like to have misled the House.
Does he agree there is clearly a resource problem in this office and that this and other Governments have not been slow to contract out work for professional services such as accountancy, consultancy services for Departments and infrastructural design? When it comes to the legal sector, however, we are incapable of contracting out to the private sector for precisely the same thing. This is a Government which would gladly flog off anything which might raise a few shillings, although it has not been so successful in relation to two banks. Does the Taoiseach agree there is no ideological impediment within the Progressive Democrats-Fianna Fáil coalition to the contracting out of legal services? If that is the case, why is this area of the public service being denied the choice of market supply available and availed of elsewhere? The State and its citizens are suffering as a result of this. There is no rational explanation for it.
I assure the Deputy that, although I disagree with him on some things, I do not disagree with him on this. There is no ideological reason. If areas of this work have to be farmed out to contractors, I have no difficulty with that. I made that clear in these negotiations and after the publication of the Deloitte & Touche report.