Vol. 530 No. 4
1 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the progress made to date in implementing the recommendations of the Nally Report on the Chief State Solicitor's Office; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1766/01]
In reply to Parliamentary Questions Nos. 7 to 10 from the Deputy on 8 November 2000, I outlined the specific recommendations in the Nally report on the public prosecution system relating to the Chief State Solicitor's office. These were the transfer of the criminal division of the Chief State Solicitor's office to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the transfer of the State solicitor services from the Attorney General to the DPP. An appointment to the post of solicitor to the DPP has recently been made.
As I indicated, a group comprising representatives from 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 implementation of the recommendations. Some progress has been made but, notwithstanding extensive negotiations by the group, agreement has not been reached with the staff side on the subject of additional staff resources and structures in the enhanced prosecution service. Efforts to find a solution are continuing.
In preparation for the transfer of the criminal division, regular meetings are being held at a high level between the DPP's office and the Chief State Solicitor's office.
A couple of questions arise from the Taoiseach's reply. We had a comprehensive exchange of views on 8 November. Given that the Taoiseach said the appointment to the post of solicitor has been made, can I take it that that person is in situ and working or has there been agreement to establish the post? Perhaps the Taoiseach would clarify that point. Why has it taken so long, notwithstanding the extensive consultations and negotiations? In the subsequent reply on 8 November he revealed that there was a virtual exodus of staff from the Chief State Solicitor's office, not to mention his own. Clearly there is a problem in relation to the recruitment and retention of people in the public service. Will the Taoiseach indicate whether the post is actually occupied and the person appointed is working there? Will he outline the difficulties and when he hopes to have them resolved? Is it a matter of salary scales, job description or other factors of which we do not know?
In reply to the first question, I am nearly certain that the individual has actually taken up office. If that is incorrect I will inform the Deputy but the process finished a number of weeks ago. If the person is not in place he or she is about to be. However, I will confirm the position for the Deputy.
Was the person interviewed?
Yes, that is finished. It is a question of whether the person is in situ.
They would hardly resign before they arrived.
The second part of the question is not so easy. The Deputy will recall that through the summer there were detailed negotiations. An offer giving what were considered significant improvements, promotional outlets and starting scales was put to the union in the summer. That offer was rejected by a substantial majority of union members. The negotiations resumed after the holiday period and new significantly enhanced proposals were put in November. This improved offer was also rejected and strike action was threatened. Almost at the strike date it was agreed by both sides to have a third party report and intervention on all the negotiations that had taken place. John Dowling, former director of the Bar Counsel, took up that task acting as an independent mediator. He has reviewed all the outstanding issues. The strike action did not commence. His report is due at the end of this month.
The negotiations dealt with staff resources, grading issues but the issue of numbers was a significant problem. The November offer which was rejected allowed for the creation of 75 additional posts which was well up, as Deputy Quinn will recall when we discussed this matter here in the summer. We await the outcome of this final effort. I have given every encouragement, support and resource to try to resolve this issue. In the meantime some progress has been made but not as much as one would have wished pending the additional staff required.
May I ask a few brief questions on what action might have been taken on other recommendations? With regard to the appointment of the solicitor to the DPP, has a decision been made on the transfer of power to that solicitor to take decisions on whether to prosecute? One of the recommendations in the report is not only to appoint a solicitor to the DPP but to delegate power to that solicitor to take decisions on whether to prosecute specific categories of cases. At present the Attorney General appoints/ nominates State solicitors. The report recommends that in future State solicitors be selected by the Civil Service Commission. Has that happened? Has the common pool of staff been established through the various legal offices under the Taoiseach's jurisdiction – the Chief State Solicitor's ffice, the DPP, the Attorney General – so that staff members can seek promotion and transfer between those offices? There is a strong recommendation, in page 36 of the report, that a substantial extension of the range of fines, not confined to traffic offences which can be dealt with in the same way as on-the-spot fines, should be dealt with on a strong recommendation from the Garda Commissioner. That would require legislation. What progress has been made on that with a view to making more effective use of Garda time and our court system?
A number of the administrative and technical issues have been dealt with; some of the other issues have not. Responsibility for the State solicitors has been transferred from the Attorney General to the DPP. That has been agreed with a legislative provision to enable the DPP to delegate them.
I understand that will require an amendment to the 1974 Act. I am not sure what progress has been made, but that is what has been agreed. The appointment of the Chief State Solicitor should be made on the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission. Discussions on this have been held between the Chief State Solicitor, the Attorney General and the Civil Service Commission, but agreement has not been reached. Agreement on adequate staffing levels and the appropriate staff structures has not been resolved, but it has been reached on the procedures involved. The criminal division of the Chief State Solicitor's office will be transferred to the DPP's office to form a unit headed by the solicitor to the DPP. Again, with the necessary statutory clarification that will be done in the same amendment to the 1974 Act. It can be done as soon as the staffing issue has been resolved.
The common pool of staff entitled to apply for transfer and promotion among the various legal offices and in accordance with various Civil Service procedures has also been agreed. Again, it links in with the staffing issue, but agreement has been reached on the way to proceed. The current negotiations are more concerned with the numbers involved.
Is the Taoiseach referring to salary scales?
Negotiations centred on shortening the number of increments on the existing salary scale. However, most of the discussions have been concerned with the numbers involved. A figure of 75 was suggested but that has been rejected. Not wishing to become involved in the work of the mediator, I understand a figure of 75 will not resolve the issue.
What about the Garda Síochána and the issue of fines?
Negotiations on simplifying Garda fines have been completed.
Does that include more on the spot fines?
That may have been legislated for. Not long ago I answered similar questions on the legislative changes required in this area, although many of the proposed changes did not require new legislation as they were already covered under current legislation. Work is progressing on the issue of on the spot fines. Changes were introduced soon after the management report.
The Taoiseach referred to the reorganisation of the Chief State Solicitor's office and changes to procedures in the office. He will be aware that before the Christmas recess I raised with him and his colleagues the problems being created for organisations that have received grants arising from the need for deeds of trust and the delays in this regard in the office. The Taoiseach's colleagues were very helpful in their advice and I understood from them that new procedures were to be put in place to address this by perhaps removing some procedures from the office. Will the Taoiseach indicate the progress made in this regard? Major problems arise when sporting and community organisations seek to draw down grants and they are unable to obtain the required deeds of trust.
I am aware of similar cases. Substantial progress has been made in addressing this issue. Much has centred on the ownership of the land, be it a local authority or a corporation. Concerns were raised that the club or organisation could sell the land if it was not of use.
Can a grant be given on a solicitor's undertaking?
Agreement has been reached by some of those involved on a basis on which to proceed. Dublin Corporation, the county councils, the Attorney General's office and the Chief State Solicitor's office have been working on finding a way forward that would not impose an enormous burden and legal fee on the organisations concerned. I am not aware of the outcome, but I will ask the relevant parties to communicate with the Deputy.
Are the Taoiseach's party headquarters not in the same position?
That might be more complex.
Does the Taoiseach accept there is a staffing crisis in the Chief State Solicitor's office? Deputy Gay Mitchell referred to one of the many problems that have arisen. Local bodies face major difficulties in trying to advance and implement Government policy, even where grants have been allocated to them. Apparently little progress has been made since this issue was raised last November. On 8 November I asked the Taoiseach if he would be prepared to contract out services if agreement cannot be reached throughout the negotiating process to avoid the problems that have been mentioned. What are his views on this?
Deputy Gay Mitchell referred to a problem that has arisen because of the need for openness, transparency and accountability and the requirement to clarify issues that previously would not have been addressed in such a manner. However, given the present climate this must be done.
It is not being done.
I have never heard anybody ask clubs to finalise legal trusts and tie down contracts for fear that the club might sell the land.
The Government has set the rules.
The Deputy will be aware that the reports laid before the House have indicated the need for legal certainty when dealing with these issues. That must be addressed.
The Taoiseach is still in office.
There is a need to find a simple resolution. One Deputy told me of a person who, having received a grant of approximately £11,000, had to pay legal fees of £1,500 to resolve the issues arising. I have instructed the relevant parties to produce a simpler system that does not impose huge legal burdens.
Do it.
We have done so. There is not a serious breakdown here. An industrial relations problem has arisen that must be addressed. Notwithstanding the favourable economic climate for solicitors, where they have left the public sector in great numbers, many use their experiences in the Office of the Chief State Solicitor to progress their careers. I do not blame people for doing this, but the remuneration and numbers employed must be increased because of work pressures. An enormous amount of additional work has arisen, including in the asylum area and in the tribunals. It is not a case of people in the office seeking something for nothing. Genuine issues have arisen which must be addressed.
There has been a huge increase in resources for staffing, IT, organisation structures and the library and information systems. In addition, there has been increased training and career assistance and a move has been made to merge various functions in the relevant State offices. This has not satisfied staff members so we must persevere until they are satisfied. Although we have offered a big increase in staffing levels the outstanding issues have not been resolved. Based on these reports I hope they will be in the next few weeks.
