Enda Kenny
Question:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the Nally report under the re-organisation of the Office of the Chief State Solicitor; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19550/03]
Ceisteanna – Questions. - Departmental Offices.
Pat Rabbitte
Question:2 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if administrative or organisational changes are planned within the Office of the Attorney General; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22163/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:3 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the recently published strategy statement for the Office of the Attorney General 2003-05. [22165/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
I am pleased to inform the House that the Nally report has been largely implemented and that the detail is available in both the annual reports of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Office of the Attorney General, which were published in December 2002. Arrangements are in train to bring forward the necessary legislation to transfer the responsibility for the State Solicitor Service from the Office of the Attorney General to the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is intended to include this amending legislation in suitable legislation which is already in draft.
The Office of the Attorney General is operating well and there are no specific plans at present to make any organisational changes. However, this is not to say that organisational changes will not be made as necessary in the future in order to ensure efficiency.
As the Deputies will be aware, there are commitments under Sustaining Progress to implement modernisation across the Civil Service and, where appropriate, these are being implemented in the Office of the Attorney General. The Public Service Recruitment Bill and the Civil Service Regulation Bill, when enacted, will bring about many changes for all elements of the Civil Service. The Office of the Attorney General is committed to modernisation. Any planned changes are set out in the strategy statement which was laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas in June of this year.
Recently the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. James Hamilton, gave his first ever media interview, in which he spoke candidly about the workings of his office and difficulties outside his control. He voiced concern about the inconsistency in sentencing for similar crimes, in particular, and the backlog that results in delays of several years prior to cases coming before the courts.
Given that members of the Government have been forthright in saying justice delayed is justice denied in other areas, what actions does the Government proposes to take to clear the backlog of cases? This is outside the control of the DPP and requires direct action by the Government.
The transfer of responsibility for the local State Solicitor service from the Attorney General's office to the DPP was one of the key recommendations of the Nally report. What progress has been achieved in the discussions that have taken place? When will legislation be introduced to give effect to the recommendation?
On the second question, legislation is required and I understand discussions and work on that are taking place. I do not have a date for the legislation but progress has been made. It is the final element in the full implementation of the Nally report.
On the first question, the Director of Public Prosecutions made a number of comments about issues requiring legislation in the justice area. A number has been addressed in current Bills and he highlighted the implementation of three criminal justice Bills which are to be introduced. I do not recall exactly when they are to be brought forward.
With regard to staffing the office of the DPP, there were difficulties for a long time filling posts but there are not many vacancies now. The issue of outsourcing the office's work was raised continually in the House and we moved on that. An enormous amount of work is outsourced to private solicitors. Deputy Quinn advocated this for many years and I agreed with him.
The Taoiseach agreed but it took long enough to implement it.
I accept it took a few years. However, all the advocacy work in the jury courts is handled by private practitioners acting on the DPP's instructions, which is a significant change. All the State Solicitor's work is also in the hands of local solicitors. The largest item of expenditure in the office's budget is counsel fees, which are represented by that work. The State Solicitor's office also makes extensive use of counsel in dealing with the day to day caseload and that has made a significant difference to the work of the DPP. A public prosecutions solicitor has been in place for some time.
Does the Taoiseach agree that when the DPP makes such observations they carry more weight than if they were made elsewhere in society and it is a serious matter when he expresses concern about uniformity of sentencing policy and the duration of backlog in areas of criminal law? Does the remedy for a number of matters raised by him lie not in more legislation but in the operation of the courts themselves? Is the Taoiseach satisfied sufficient progress has been made under the aegis of the new Courts Service in the areas referred to by the DPP?
That is an issue but these are questions for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I do not monitor on a daily basis the implementation of the Court and Court Officers Act 2002 or the excellent Denham report. The DPP pointed out issues relating to staffing, outsourcing, technology and so on but they have all been addressed. He referred to legislation and it is our responsibility to put it in place.
I am not up to date on how many of the reforms documented in the Denham report have been implemented. It was to be implemented in conjunction with the Nally report over two years between 1999 and 2001 as part of the reform package. I agree with the Deputy that reform of the offices of the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Chief State Solicitor, the courts and legislation were issues highlighted at the time.
Questions Nos. 2 and 3 relate to changes in the Office of the Attorney General. Has consideration been given to the circumstances highlighted in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General where the then Attorney General felt obliged to refuse to give advice because he could not secure the documents necessary to enable him to give the advice? How does the Taoiseach propose to deal with a situation where the Attorney General or his staff are expected to give advice when their clients go AWOL? The then Minister for Education and Science and the Department refused to reply to correspondence over a period of ten weeks on a major matter that exposed the taxpayer. Do the changes implemented in the Attorney General's office provide against the situation recurring?
The Attorney General gives advice to the Government and Departments but that does not prevent Ministers from making their own decisions on policy issues, which they subsequently report on and clear through Cabinet. From time to time the Attorney General's office and Departments are involved in meetings on day to day issues but the office is not involved in everything because it does not have to be. Such a reform is not necessary in the day to day running of the office. Naturally, the office likes to be kept up to date on issues. It would have been better in regard to certain issues if letters had been responded to more quickly, but it is not necessary for staff of the Attorney General's office to be present at every meeting.
The Taoiseach will acknowledge that when a Minister is dealing with a policy matter that has legal and/or constitutional implications, under our Constitution the Attorney General is obliged to give advice. What transpired in this situation was that the Attorney General was disabled from doing so because he could not even secure the documents.
In this instance, because there was a stand off in the negotiations, the Minister took action to deal with policy issues and, when he had done so, he continued the negotiations with the Attorney General's office. Legal advice was necessary and was given over a six month period. However, when a Minister is involved in policy issues, he or she does not have to seek legal advice every day when trying to undo an issue. The Attorney General does not attend every Government meeting.
I readily accept that the Government should take legal advice and keep the Office of the Attorney General informed. It is best practice for the Government to respond to correspondence from the Office of the Attorney General. That is what is meant to happen. In this case we know there was a delay.
Is the Taoiseach saying that the Attorney General—
Sorry, Deputy, we cannot have a debate on the specific issue. It does not really arise from the three general questions before the House, which are about organisational changes in the Office of the Attorney General. We cannot debate one specific instance. If the Deputy wishes to submit a question on the matter, he should do so. I call Deputy Boyle.
I would like to come back in.
The general question I would like to put to the Taoiseach is a further development of what Deputy Rabbitte has said. In light of the reorganisation of the Office of the Attorney General, is the Government asking questions as to how, when and to what extent the office should be involved in issues such as that described by Deputy Rabbitte? I instance what the Taoiseach has told the House in the past about a series of 16 meetings that took place which the Office of the Attorney General—
I have to rule the Deputy out of order because he is talking about a specific instance. The questions before the House are general questions about organisational changes.
The general questions I am asking relate to the how, the when and the what.
The Deputy's question should be specifically related to the three questions before the House.
In light of the experience that has been mentioned, I would like to know about the how, the when and the what of the changes in the Office of the Attorney General. I ask a specific question in that regard. The Taoiseach has said in the past that the Attorney General was physically present at the meetings. I think he meant that the Office of the Attorney General was represented at the meetings.
Yes.
The Attorney General did not physically attend any of these meetings.
No, but certain personnel from his office were present.
It is important that this detail is placed on the record. In light of that experience, I would like to know the extent to which the Attorney General should be physically present when issues of importance, with major expenditure implications, are involved. This is crucial to the central question about the reorganisation of the Office of the Attorney General. I am asking about the how, the when and the what.
It is a matter of office organisation. The Attorney General is present for most meetings of the Cabinet or Cabinet sub-committees. He attends most meetings of Cabinet sub-committees with his staff. The Attorney General is not present when most of the details are being discussed with Departments. In such circumstances, the meeting would be attended by the Secretary General or whoever the relevant person is under the divisions of EU law or criminal law.
I can correct what I may have said by confirming that personnel from the Office of the Attorney General were present at the 12 meetings. That is how the system operates. I am not quibbling about this, but it is not the case that the Attorney General has to be present when Ministers are dealing with or having a discussion on any issue. Of course they should answer the letters and their Departments should not ignore the Attorney General's letters. There should be communication. In any event, each Minister meets the Attorney General at least once a week. The Attorney General probably meets those Ministers who are involved in Cabinet sub-committees two or three times each week. There should not be delays or difficulties in either response or correspondence.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the role of Attorney General should be more transparent? Is he conscious that, more often than not, his references and those of his Ministers to the advice of the Attorney General relate to political decisions rather than legal decisions? Does the Taoiseach not agree that there should be greater openness and a greater opportunity for public access to the advice of the Attorney General so that we can know, or we can have some sense of, where his advice is coming from?
I do not really agree. I have had a fair amount of experience in this regard over the years, thankfully. The Attorney General gives legal advice to the Government, which has to make decisions on policy issues. Of course the Government will take account of the Attorney General's advice. It has been the practice since the foundation of the State, however, that the advice given by successive Attorneys General has not been placed in the public domain. It often happens – I have seen it happen – that different Attorneys General take a different view on the same issue. There have been many such instances. Attorneys General appointed by the same Government have taken different views on the same issue. It often happens – I encountered such a case recently – that an Attorney General asks for counsel opinion in respect of a major case. I have encountered four different views on one issue. One can imagine the fun and games if one placed all the legal advice in the public domain.
The Government has to make a decision at the end of the day. It would normally ask the Attorney General to state his final legal view on the matter. That has happened on many occasions. I see such cases in files day in, day out.
It was all fun and games with the last Attorney General anyway.
I do not think so. The Attorney General does not have an easy task nowadays because there is so much litigation in respect of practically everything. It was not the same in the early years of the State, or even 20 years ago. I think the procedure is correct. The Attorney General of the day gives advice to the Government and the Government, of course, has to take account of it. I cannot imagine a position in which the Government would go against the final advice of the Attorney General. The legal advice that is given evolves, as people who are brought in to consider cases may give contrary views. It is a regular occurrence, particularly in respect of constitutional issues. The Deputy is aware that it is almost inevitable that there will be different views in respect of constitutional cases.
Can we be clear on this issue? Do I understand the Taoiseach to say that Ministers may engage in policy matters that have legal and constitutional implications while excluding the Attorney General and his office? Have any changes been put in place arising from the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the matters to which I referred? Did I understand him to say to Deputy Boyle that whereas the Attorney General was excluded from the two critical meetings in this case, the Office of the Attorney General was represented?
No.
The Taoiseach must know that the Office of the Attorney General was not represented.
No, it is a different point. That was not the question Deputy Boyle asked. We were talking about the other meeting.
Neither the Attorney General nor his staff were present for the critical meetings.
That is correct.
That is established. The Taoiseach might take this opportunity to correct the record in respect of what he said to the House on that matter last February.
A question please, Deputy.
He said that the Attorney General and his staff were involved at all times.
Sorry, Deputy, we cannot reopen that debate under these three questions. There are other ways of raising the matter if the Deputy wishes to do so, but we cannot have a debate on it now. We want to deal with other questions today.
Given that the Taoiseach has conceded for the first time that—
Sorry, Deputy, we cannot have a discussion on it now.
—he was wrong in February, surely now is the time to correct the record.
We cannot have a discussion on it now, Deputy. You are being disorderly. Your first question was in order and I ask the Taoiseach to answer it.
I will be disorderly, because Deputy Rabbitte is trying to say I said something I did not say. He always gets annoyed when I say that about him. There were 16 meetings and the Attorney General, or staff from his office, were not present at four of them. That was Deputy Boyle's point. If the Deputy wants to say that there were four critical meetings, I will say that there were 16 critical meetings. That will not get us anywhere. I am not saying anything different.
The Government will always take account of the Comptroller and Auditor General's reports. Deputy Rabbitte will say that these meetings dealt with constitutional matters or legal issues. It would not be correct if he were to say that the Government will not ensure that the Attorney General's office is involved, for example, in consultation or in checking back, in meetings in which constitutional or legal issues are being discussed. Of course it will be involved. It is a different matter in respect of policy issues.
In this case the talks had broken down, no progress whatever was being made and there was a total stand-off. The meetings in question did not deal with constitutional or legal issues, but with the fact that no progress was being made. The Government had decided to proceed with the redress board one way or the other. The Government wanted a contribution, but it was not getting it. The then Minister wanted to break that logjam. He did not need any constitutional or legal advice for that. All he needed to do was to go in—
How can the Taoiseach say that when he—
Allow the Taoiseach to conclude.
All he had to do was go in and make an argument to ensure they made a contribution. That was the issue. There is nothing legal or constitutional about saying to a group of people—
Did he not report to the Cabinet in January?
—that one wants it to make a contribution.
I want to move on to other questions.
That was the issue. The then Minister, Deputy Woods, was trying to get the congregations to make a contribution. That is not a constitutional or legal issue. It is not even an administrative issue, it is merely a negotiating point. They are the meetings the Attorney General attended. I am not defending the failure to answer letters. I have never done so.
The Government always takes account of any recommendations of the Comptroller and Auditor General. If changes are necessary the Government makes them.
A Cheann Comhairle—
I am sorry, Deputy. We cannot have a debate on an issue that does not even arise.
I am not asking for a debate.
That is what will happen. The matter should be the subject of a question in its own right.
I am posing a question. How can the Taoiseach possibly say this was only a policy issue when the Comptroller and Auditor General—
That does not arise. We must move on to Question No. 4.
—exposes the letter of 6 November where an indemnity was offered with unlimited exposure to the taxpayer—
That does not arise out of the three questions.
—and the Taoiseach says that has no legal or constitutional implication?
Deputy Rabbitte, I ask you to respect the ruling of the Chair.
A Cheann Comhairle, you allowed the Taoiseach to put something on the record of the House that is patently at variance with the facts.
That was in response to a question I had already pointed out to the Deputy was not in order.
You did not interrupt the Taoiseach when he put on the record something that is not in accord with what is in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report.
I did interrupt the Taoiseach. I told him I wanted to move on to Question No. 4. We cannot have an argument on this matter. The Chair has ruled.
We have rights on this side of the House too, a Cheann Comhairle.
You have the same rights as other Members who submitted questions to the Taoiseach today and are entitled to have their questions answered. We cannot have a situation on Question Time where we move off the question before the House and debate another issue. The Chair pointed out to you that you were out of order and you ignored the Chair.
You are entirely agnostic about whether or not we get answers.
The Chair has no control over the answers.
We put down questions because we are seeking to get answers. You just want to move on to the next question, in whoever's name it is. It might be in my name for all you care. You just want to move on. We put down questions to get answers and you are agnostic on that point, which is the kindest word I can use.
Deputy, I ask you to resume your seat when the Chair is speaking.
The position is clear. Three questions were submitted to the Taoiseach. The Standing Order is that the Taoiseach answers those three questions and Deputies are entitled to ask supplementary questions. This Chair allows as many supplementaries as Deputies like, which is different from his predecessors who cut them short much earlier.
Deputies are not entitled to use a question to move on to another issue and to take up the whole of Question Time debating an issue that is not included in the question. That has been the ruling of all my predecessors. That is the Standing Order and the Chair has no choice but to implement it.
If the Deputy wishes to see that changed I suggest that he go to the Sub-committee on Dáil Reform and arrange to have it changed. The Chair will be very pleased to implement whatever changes are made. The Chair does not have a choice in the matter. I cannot allow Question Time to degenerate into a situation where any question that is not even remotely related is allowed.
The question reads, "To ask the Taoiseach if administrative or organisational changes are planned within the Office of the Attorney General". I am asking the Taoiseach if any changes are planned arising from the circumstances in which the then Attorney General was excluded from two meetings that clearly had legal and constitutional implications.
That question has already been asked.
I am asking the Taoiseach if he is saying to the House that the two critical meetings from which the then Attorney General and his staff were excluded had no legal or constitutional implication. That is what I want to get clear.
A Cheann Comhairle, may I answer that question?
There were 16 critical meetings. The Attorney General or officials from his office attended 12 of those. He was not invited to two meetings and he did not attend two others because letters were not answered. There were two elements to the negotiation of the agreement. The first was an agreement in principle about the amount of money the religious would contribute. That was a policy issue. It was not constitutional, legal or administrative. The second element was the detailed discussion of how the agreement would be worded. For the six months after January, when Deputy Woods had reached the stage where the agreement was worked out, the Attorney General's office was involved.
There was no difficulty in the Attorney General not being at the meetings. I agree that the letters should have been answered. There were two separate issues. The policy issue, which was to try to get the orders to agree in principle to pay resources, was separate from the working out of the legal issues. That was done subsequently. That is the position.
Neither the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform nor I agrees with that. The Taoiseach knows he is distorting the facts. They were the two critical meetings.
They were not.
The Comptroller and Auditor General also disagrees with him.
There were 16 meetings.
There were 16 meetings that got nowhere. The two critical meetings were the ones being addressed here and the Taoiseach knows it.
Deputy Rabbitte, there are other ways of raising this matter. It cannot be raised during questions of a general nature to the Taoiseach.