Vol. 672 No. 3
1 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if it is intended that the reduction of 3% in payroll costs will apply to the Offices of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief State Solicitor; the number of jobs that are expected to be cut as a result; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32375/08]
2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if his attention has been drawn to the concerns expressed by the Director of Public Prosecutions that the imposition of cutbacks on his office may limit its capacity to prosecute cases, particularly in the District Court; the steps he is taking to ensure that the DPP has sufficient staff and resources to discharge his duties; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37953/08]
3 Deputy Charles Flanagan asked the Taoiseach his views on reports that recent budgetary changes will result in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions being unable to process criminal cases in 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40456/08]
4 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if pay cuts and job cuts are planned for the Offices of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief State Solicitor; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1776/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.
The Government announced in July 2008 that Departments and State agencies in general were to make a 3% payroll reduction by the end of 2009. The Office of the Chief State Solicitor and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions have informed me they can meet this reduction without affecting existing levels of service.
I am aware of what the Director of Public Prosecutions said in the media in October 2008. Contrary to the claim made in Deputy Flanagan's question, he did not say that he would be unable to process criminal cases in 2009. What the DPP said related to the Government's announcement in October that no specific provision would be made for the 3.5% increase to be paid from September 2009 under Towards 2016. In that context, the DPP said that from the end of 2009, "some cases prosecuted in the District Court may have to be handed back to An Garda Síochána for prosecution".
I am confident that the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief State Solicitor will, throughout 2009 and beyond, continue to achieve the best level of service possible from the resources available to them.
I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.
Ní mise an chéad ceisteoir. I am not the first questioner.
The Deputy is, on my list.
I beg the Ceann Comhairle's pardon. On the Order Paper, Deputy Gilmore is first. I am happy to take the opportunity but I do not think that would be fair.
There are conflicting lists.
I thank Deputy Ó Caoláin for his courtesy.
I do not wish to get into the area of "who said what" but it is on record that the Director of Public Prosecutions signalled that the 3% cut will create difficulties for him in terms of staffing and that there is a possibility he may have to ask gardaí to take cases that otherwise would be taken by his office.
Can the Taoiseach assure the House that no criminal case will be delayed as a result of shortage of funds and resources being made available to the DPP's office, or as a result of the DPP's office being short of staff? I appreciate there are difficulties in the public finances but there is also a serious crime problem in the country. We know that the conviction rate is very low, particularly for serious crimes. The last thing we want is a situation where crimes go unpunished or are not adequately prosecuted because of a shortage of staff available to the DPP. Neither do we want to have gardaí sitting around all day in a court room waiting for a case to come up when they might be deployed more usefully in detecting crime. That is what would result if more cases are to be handed back to the Garda for pursuance in the court.
We must have an assurance from the Taoiseach that no criminal case will be delayed, held up or handed back to the Garda because of shortage of staff or resources in the DPP's office.
The DPP indicated it is not the case that he will not be able to function, but that he will be forced to hand back District Court prosecutions to the Garda. He went on to say that this was "not desirable". We do not have provision for making up the 3.5% increase that currently stands in the pay agreement and which is to fall due from September. We must continue to monitor the situation as best we can with the Chief State Solicitor.
The Chief State Solicitor's office has four vacancies at present. However, following a review of that office, an additional 16 staff were approved in January 2007. The office has a staff complement of 249 whole-time equivalents. The DPP's office states that it is important to emphasise the Director is satisfied there is no danger at present that his office will be unable to deal with the prosecution file submitted to him. He made the point that he felt that problems might manifest themselves towards the end of 2009 and onwards, as he outlined in the statement to which I referred. We will continue to monitor the situation and see how that pay commitment evolves.
The difficulty lies in that reply. The problem is that the 3%-3.5% cut across the board is a very crude instrument. Whatever one might think of the measure, if it results — and it has been signalled to us in this instance that it will result — in the DPP having to ask the Garda to pursue cases in the District Court, that is not a good use of public resources. It will mean that gardaí who should be out detecting and preventing crime will spend a lot of time sitting around District Courts.
The Government must take a much more targeted approach to ensure that essential services, those that are important to public safety, are not undermined or weakened. In this case, it would be accepted generally in the country that the DPP must have the resources with which to do the job, namely, to prosecute crime and ensure that offenders are brought to justice. This is an area that the Taoiseach and the Departments of Finance and Justice, Equality and Law Reform must sort and work out with the DPP's office. They must ensure that the office is enabled to operate efficiently and that the cutbacks and restrictions on availability of finance and the curtailment on recruitment of staff do not mean that, ultimately, criminals will walk free or will walk around free for longer than they should.
The Deputy's final contention has not been suggested by anybody, even in the context of outlining whatever prospective difficulties and problems those offices may have. What was suggested is that instead of the DPP taking certain prosecutions those would be handed to the Garda to prosecute. That is what was said. The DPP indicated that this is not the optimum position. I acknowledge and understand what he says. I make the point that the administration of justice is not being compromised by this.
The other point made concerned the bluntness of the instrument. A far more blunt instrument would be an across the board embargo. Last July, for instance, when a direction was given to all Departments to cut payroll costs by 3% for the remainder of the year, this outcome was achieved by them. It was achieved with the flexibility of management given to people by that direction rather than by another way used in the past whereby a centralised embargo was imposed that required the approval of the Minister for Finance in each individual case of prospective recruitment. By allowing managers and Accounting Officers of Departments deal with the situation in that way, one enables them to work out, through term time and overtime, a full range of ways of reorganising their offices that achieve the savings without diminution of levels of service to any significant degree, or to any degree at all.
We have put forward to Departments the most flexible mechanism available to us, while insisting on obtaining the savings required. This contribution, in terms of staff costs, goes towards making the savings and the economies required in the light of the reduced revenue we now have.
I remind the Taoiseach that the public statement made by the Director of Public Prosecutions last October was unprecedented. A chief prosecutor has never before had to resort to making public comment that so great was the cut inflicted on his office that he would find it impossible to deal with its day to day business.
In response to Deputy Gilmore, the Taoiseach spoke about the bluntness of the instrument. This 3% cut across the board could not by its very nature have been based on any objective criteria and absolutely no consideration was given to the fact that Ireland has the lowest prosecution rate per head of population of any EU state. In terms of convictions, which is where the office of the DPP plays a most important role, our conviction rates are such that out of 166 gun murders, only 22 successful prosecutions have been brought to date. There is a very serious problem given that the DPP will confirm the work in his office increases at a rate of 5% per annum.
In addition, no consideration is given by the Government to the new phenomenon of credit crunch crime, which will give rise to an even greater level of pressure on the office of the State prosecutor. What steps are being taken to ensure the drastic effects are being minimised? It is giving rise to serious public concern when one of the most important crime enforcement offices in the State is being seriously affected by a cutback.
I do not accept that the 3% payroll cost reduction is a drastic cut. In fact, some of the criticism from the other side of the House has been that it is insufficient. I know Deputy Flanagan's interest as justice spokesperson for his party is with regard to the efficacy of the prosecution service, and he makes the case. The point we would make is that in late 2006 the Department of Finance carried out a review of staffing in the DPP's office and 28 extra posts were approved, bringing the staff complement to 106. The office is carrying 5.8 whole-time equivalent vacancies within the 2006 sanctioned posts and this is expected to reduce to 4.8 whole-time equivalent posts with the filling of a library post in late February or early March of this year.
The DPP's office states it will be able to meet that 3% payroll expenditure cut without affecting service levels, so it is not accurate to describe it as drastic. The office will be able to do this because it is operating from only two buildings rather than the expected three, which means it does not need to fill three permanent posts and two contract posts that had been sanctioned, and there will also be savings in respect of heat and lighting and other expenses. In addition, it is introducing a range of measures such as changes in work practices and the level at which work is performed, delays in filling vacancies and tight control of overtime payments.
Also, in regard to fees which the DPP pays barristers, a planned 2.5% increase from September 2008 for such fees was not implemented and the payment of refresher fees after 5 p.m. has been suspended. Those are the practical steps that were taken to accommodate the direction and it was done in a way which did not affect service levels.
By way of background, during the previous year the approval of 28 posts was an indication at that time of the need to deal with the increased workload. Through good management, information technology and higher productivity, these caseloads are being met and can be met. We candidly acknowledge what the DPP had to say regarding what he sees as possible difficulties later on in the year. This is something we must monitor.
On the specific point regarding offices and personnel, how many vacancies are there currently in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions? If vacancies are not filled, does the Taoiseach not accept this gives rise to a situation where the office cannot function to maximum capacity?
I do not accept that. The vacancy that is being filled in late February or early March is a librarian post, which I am sure is important in itself in terms of organising data processing, the availability of case law and so on. That is the position——
There are still vacancies in the office.
That has been filled. It is often the case, given that approved posts and casual vacancies occur all the time for a whole range of reasons, that whole-time equivalent vacancies are available. Obviously, people work within their budgets, which is a common feature of all HR issues in Departments.
Does the Taoiseach accept there is growing concern within wider society at the level of crimes committed by persons on bail and that there has to be a direct relationship between the resourcing of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and this very worrying statistic? Does the Taoiseach accept that rather than the argument of creating further restrictions on the right to bail, the key address of this must be to facilitate a speedier processing of all the required preparations from the decision to prosecute to trial? Does he accept that we need to see the period of bail shortened significantly to ensure that there is less prospect of a continuation of the extent of recidivism that is currently demonstrating itself?
Does the Taoiseach not accept, given that the DPP, Mr. James Hamilton, has stated this means fewer prosecutions will be undertaken, that this 3% reduction in the budget of the office runs directly contrary to the stated objective I have just recounted? Does the Taoiseach not accept that in these times of very obvious crime and given the extent of serious crimes, including murder, that are being carried out by people while on bail, further investment and resourcing is what is needed rather than a reduction in the DPP's budget? Does the Taoiseach not accept there are far less damaging areas for savings to be made within the overall outlay on the justice system, which, for example, could include tighter regulation of legal fees and costs?
Obviously, these are all issues that will be considered closely by the Minister concerned, by our Department and by the Minister for Finance on an ongoing basis as we seek to effect economies and savings across a whole range of activities. The 3% payroll costs cut, compared to what will be required in the years ahead, is a minor imposition, to be frank, and we must see it in that context.
The challenge before us in terms of the public finances is a very large one, and one that will require ongoing consideration. The Minister has appointed people to consider public expenditure in all of its aspects, in every respect, in every Department, both in terms of the numbers employed and whether programmes which are attracting funding are critical, core or necessary in the new context in which we find ourselves. As the Deputy knows, stability in our public finances is an absolute prerequisite for a sustainable level of service. We must re-adjust our expectations, I am afraid, and re-adjust what is possible given the overriding importance of showing a determination to address the instability in the public finances that has arisen, particularly in the last six months of last year and continuing this year, as a result of the international recession and the financial crisis with which we are contending.
From our point of view, while difficulties will arise in various Departments at various times, and pressures will increase, it behoves us all to bring about whatever change we can in how we do our business to drive efficiencies and raise productivity everywhere we can.
Does the Taoiseach not believe that it would be a useful exercise to inform himself and Members of the House of the factual situation regarding the cost to communities and the economy of serious, repeat offences by people already on bail, which occur on a frequent basis? I argue for the right to bail, but the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions does not have sufficient resources and there is a long, inordinate delay in moving from the decision to prosecute to the trial. This is a very serious problem. Examining the 3% cost in terms of the immediate saving is a simple book-keeping exercise. However, we should consider it in a more holistic way and examine the real cost. I believe it is arguable, and the facts will sustain the case I am making, that if we were to examine the real cost of what is occurring, further investment rather than a reduction in payroll allocation to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions would yield a much more significant overall saving. Such a saving would be apart from the cost of great human misery that is brought to individuals' families and communities by the actions of certain people.
We examine all these issues, but the question is put in terms of people re-offending on bail. One of the criteria laid down for the refusal of bail is the prospect of re-offending. Under our system, the decision of whether to grant bail is made by an independent judge. We cannot decide on that. If such a danger exists, the case is made to the court. It is a matter for the Judiciary to decide whether detention is warranted. These are issues related to constitutional rights, which have been tested in all the courts over a long period. While people may believe that certain things should occur in the Legislature, these matters have been reviewed in the courts in terms of compliance with constitutional rights and obligations, which must also be observed by this Legislature. This is an ongoing debate, but I make the point that the question of how we organise offices in the future in the context of the very tight budgetary situation which we are facing is something which must be taken on board by everyone. It is a reality which cannot be avoided by anyone.
5 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the priorities for his Department in regard to its Estimate for 2009. [32380/08]
6 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his Department’s Estimate for 2009. [35744/08]
7 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he expects to publish a Revised Estimate for his Department for 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1003/09]
8 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his Department’s Estimate for 2009. [1777/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 8, inclusive, together.
The total allocation for my Department in the Estimates set out in the budget for 2009 is €36.269 million. This is an overall decrease of 14%, some €5.871 million, on the 2008 Revised Estimate allocation. This decrease includes the transfer of the information society and e-inclusion functions and associated funding of €3.507 million from my Vote to the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and the Department of Finance.
I look forward to addressing specific issues relating to the Estimates provisions when they are considered in the usual way by the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. I also look forward to responding to questions which Deputies may wish to table separately regarding specific aspects of the work of my Department. It is envisaged that Revised Estimates for 2009 will be published in March this year.
Does the Taoiseach expect to amend the Estimate for his Department shortly? By what amount does he anticipate the Estimate will be amended? With regard to the provision for the payment of staff, which I understand is in the order of €14 million——
Can the Deputy repeat that, please?
There is approximately €14 million allocated for staff costs in the Department's Estimate. How much of that is in respect of the staff of the private and constituency offices of the Taoiseach and the Ministers of State attached to his Department? With regard to the provision in the Estimate for the Moriarty tribunal, we are told the tribunal is to hold a renewed round of public hearings. Can the Taoiseach confirm whether this is the case, or if he knows anything about that? Will the Taoiseach explain what the implications will be for the Estimate which has been provided for the Moriarty tribunal?
I do not have the specific information available in terms of the Minister for State and my constituency office. I will have to get that for the Deputy and correspond with him. I cannot anticipate Government decisions regarding any savings made in the days ahead until they are made. There was a small provision for the Moriarty tribunal. I am not aware that public hearings are being provided for again. We must deal with that situation again, should it arise, by way of a Supplementary Estimate later in the year.
Those three replies can be reduced as follows: the Taoiseach does not know the answer to one question, he will not provide the answer to the second question and he has not properly heard the third question. I wish to concentrate on the third question, because I find the matter somewhat strange. I recall the Taoiseach told us on a previous occasion, when I put questions concerning the Moriarty tribunal, that he anticipated there would be a renewed round of hearings. I remember this because it surprised me at the time, and it was the first occasion anyone heard that the Moriarty tribunal was going to hold further public hearings. It is now in the public domain, or at least it has been reported in newspapers, that it is expected the tribunal will convene further public hearings. I wish to know if that is the case. The finance for the tribunal is provided for in the Taoiseach's Estimate. There is a reduction in the 2009 Estimate to €7.5 million. If there are to be new public hearings of the tribunal, is it not fair to assume the cost is likely to increase? Has any consideration been given to this in the context of examining anticipated expenditure by the Taoiseach's Department in the coming year?
I refer to subhead F and the costs of the Moriarty tribunal 2009. As the Deputy stated, €7.516 million was provided. That provision relates to the running costs of the tribunal in 2009 and the costs which are estimated to arise in 2009 regarding the completion of the tribunal's work. It is expected to include reporting costs and some element of award of legal costs. As it is not possible to definitively assess the amount of legal costs which may be awarded by the tribunal or the timing of these awards, a provision of approximately €7.516 has been included. However, this is only an estimate of the costs. This is a reduction of the 2008 allocation due to the fact that there is a reduced provision for legal fees in 2009, given the intention of the tribunal to conclude its work as early as possible in 2009. In a recent commitment to me, the sole member of the tribunal stated that he may need to convene a sitting to take a limited amount of further evidence, and that he would keep me informed of the likely developments and the likely impact on the timetable.
There has been a cut of 14% in the Taoiseach's Department. What is the Taoiseach's view on the future of the National Forum on Europe, the allocation of which has been cut by 42%? Is it in suspension, or does the Taoiseach see it having a role to play in the future programme for the next Lisbon referendum? Does the Taoiseach envisage a change in the role and status of the forum?
In respect of the Moriarty tribunal, Mr. Justice Moriarty can only write the report based on what he has heard. Does the Taoiseach have information as to the provision for lawyers to write up other sections of the report? Is that work continuing, pending the possibility of further public hearings?
What is the organisational review programme for which €686,000 has been provided this year, and what is that programme supposed to do?
I refer to the first question regarding the forum. It will meet in working group session. I understand it has decided to meet in a working group session rather than in plenary session as it is more effective.
Obviously, an allocation has been made to it this year, within which one hopes it must operate. Second, in respect of the Moriarty issue, that matter is being dealt with by Mr. Justice Moriarty himself. As I have indicated, he has organised this to minimise the number of public hearings to avoid unnecessary costs, as he saw it, to the public. Obviously, however, he has indicated that he may need to deal with that issue again and we must wait and see whether that is the case.
The allocation for the organisational review programme, subhead a9, is a sum of €686,000. As the Deputy noted, it is being provided to cover the costs associated with that programme, including salaries, publication of reports and consultancy. The funding allocation in respect of consultancy has been halved, following the Government's decision in July 2008, to €46,000. This programme is about trying to ascertain how the Government can reorganise programmes in various Departments in a more cost-effective manner. It constitutes a strategic overview by the Department of the Taoiseach to try to drive efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of programmes.
A good public servant with some experience would do that on his or her own. As the Taoiseach is aware, such expertise exists within the public service.
Last year, the Comptroller and Auditor General issued a damning report on the Government's strategy for what it calls e-Government. He described the target of having all public services capable of being delivered on-line by 2006 as being clearly unrealistic and the roll-out as being average. Despite the existence of a Government subcommittee on e-Government, no strategy has been in place since 2006 and Ireland's position has fallen from first in 2001 to seventeenth in 2007. While a total of €420 million was spent, which was 20% over budget, it yielded only half the on-line services that were set out. Of the 141 flagship projects to provide Government services, 23 were abandoned and a further 44 were only partially implemented by mid-2006. Moreover, only half the projects were fully operational six months after the deadline had passed. When will the Government produce an updated and credible strategy for the delivery of e-Government and when will such a strategy be published?
Second, this is an area in which the Government set out to increase competitiveness. Does the Taoiseach accept that the failure in his Department in this respect goes to the heart of what has been debated in this House, namely, the lack of capacity to be competitive on the part of the Government? My understanding is that the e-Government programme was approved by the Department of the Taoiseach and was run by an assistant secretary from that Department. Given the litany of failures outlined by the Comptroller and Auditor General, was a bonus paid to that section of the Department for this work? The last report of the committee for performance awards relates to 2006, at which time all 205 people who were eligible for bonuses received them. As the person who is doing it his way and is driving this on, is the Taoiseach satisfied with the findings of this report on delivery? Is the Taoiseach satisfied that Ireland has slipped from first position to seventeenth? Is he satisfied with the comments made by the Comptroller and Auditor General? When does he propose to have someone take charge of this issue, publish an updated credible strategy for e-Government and deliver it in the interest of efficiency, to which he referred in respect of the previous question?
As I pointed out, part of the decrease in my Department's Vote pertains to the transfer of the Information Society and e-inclusion functions from its Vote to those of the Departments of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and Finance. The Government considers that the funding would be better expended on the workload in which people in those Departments are involved in this regard. Obviously, the Government will continue to seek to implement this policy to the best of its ability. The transfer has been about ensuring that activities that are under way in other Departments are joined up with that specific project.
I note that the pay and pensions Estimate for 2009 published for the Department of the Taoiseach in tandem with the budget shows a 9% decrease over the 2008 forecasted outturn. Can the Taoiseach explain to the House how this figure is arrived at? What are the specific reductions, cost savings, etc., that give rise to a 9% decrease in respect of pay and pensions? Does it include address of the extent of the non-Civil Service advisers within the Department of the Taoiseach? Has the Taoiseach carried out a review of their relevance or an assessment of the availability of at least equal advisory capacity within the Civil Service itself?
I note the Moriarty tribunal has been mentioned by other Members. Certainly, the provision of €7.5 million in 2009 for a tribunal of inquiry that already has presented its so-called final report after 11 years of sitting, which is even longer than the last Taoiseach sat in office, is hardly credible. This has contributed greatly to the undermining of public confidence in the entire tribunal of inquiry process. I refer to the amount of time, the years involved and the overall cost. Surely it is time to bring this matter to finality.
Can the Taoiseach indicate whether it is intended to retain the steward's house at Farmleigh, which has been refurbished at a cost of €600,000? At the time, Members were told by the former Taoiseach that it was intended to be a Taoiseach's residence. Is the Taoiseach considering taking up occupancy of the property at any time? I understand that since 2006, this facility has only been used for overnight purposes 11 times. To what other uses does the Taoiseach intend to see this property put, if it is not to be a city residence for the Taoiseach while in Dublin on business?
Specific questions on pensions issues and similar matters should be tabled as I do not have such information to hand. As for the Mahon tribunal, the question of bringing such tribunals to a conclusion is a matter that has been dealt with by the various responsible Ministers by interacting with the tribunals themselves. As the public hearings now are over, one would expect the commensurate costs to reduce greatly and they are being reduced. This is being done in an effort to finalise the drafting of the reports by those who were appointed by this House to draw up the reports, that is, the judges themselves, and to enable this to happen as soon as possible. Given the lengthy hearings that have taken place over many years, it will be a matter for them to pull together and collate the relevant evidence and to provide their findings in due course.
As for the question on Farmleigh, I have used it from time to time.
I referred to the steward's house at Farmleigh, as it was formerly known.
Yes, I have used the steward's house from time to time, as I have required it. While I have not used it regularly, I have used more frequently in the new year than was the case previously.
The Taoiseach has indicated that he will use the facility, which is fair enough. However, given 11 nights' occupancy over the period of almost three years since 2006, good value for money does not appear to have been achieved heretofore.
The Deputy will not mind if I go home every now and again.
Perhaps, as a country-based Deputy like me, the Taoiseach might have more need and use of the facility during his term in office.
In respect of the 9% reduction in the pay and pensions Estimate, I appended a further question. I can understand if the Taoiseach does not have the information to hand immediately. However, can he respond to the query on the non-Civil Service advisers that I appended to the initial question? Has a review being carried out regarding their relevance or the need to continue to have whatever is the number of such non-Civil Service advisers within the Taoiseach's Department? Has he made an assessment of the equal quality of advice available to him from within the Civil Service, within his Department? Has he taken any such steps to examine the savings that might result from such an exercise?
Given my overriding responsibilities as Taoiseach, the number of staff I have are required to help me do the job given the range of responsibilities that it entails. They are appointed for that purpose and serve me for that purpose.
Sin deireadh le ceisteanna chun an Taoisigh. That is the end of questions to the Taoiseach for today.
