Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 4 July 2006
6 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he is satisfied that all the recommendations made in the 1994 report of the review group on the Office of the Attorney General have been implemented and remain in operation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21867/06]
View answer7 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if the recommendation contained in the 1994 report of the review group on the Office of the Attorney General that important and sensitive issues be brought to the attention of the Attorney General remains in operation; if so, the reason a case (details supplied) was not brought to the attention of the Attorney General; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21868/06]
View answer8 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the changes in procedure that have been introduced in the Office of the Attorney General; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22766/06]
View answer9 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if the recommendations implemented following the 1994 report of the review group on the Office of the Attorney General remain in operation. [23320/06]
View answer10 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the changes in procedures which have been introduced in the Office of the Attorney General following the recommendations of the 1994 report of the review group on the Office of the Attorney General; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24574/06]
View answer11 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the remit of the internal review into the procedures within the Office of the Attorney General; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25544/06]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 11, inclusive, together.
All the recommendations of the 1995 report of the review group on the Office of the Attorney General have been substantially implemented. In some cases, further developments have occurred in the intervening 11 years to enhance the means by which those recommendations were implemented.
One of the recommendations of the 1995 report was that "all important and sensitive cases (including every extradition case and cases involving minors) should be brought to the personal attention of the Attorney General". That recommendation was implemented by way of a number of protocols and practice directions within the office. They have been supplemented and updated since, notably in 2002 and 2004.
Following the recent Supreme Court decision in the CC case, additional procedures have now been put in place to address a communications failure that resulted in the Attorney General not being informed about that case other than in the context of nominating counsel on 5 December 2002 to represent jointly the interests of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General. Details of those are contained in the document I circulated to Deputies on 7 June 2006. Copies of that document have also been placed in the Oireachtas Library.
As I informed Deputies in the course of the detailed discussion about the communications failure during Leaders' Questions on 7 June 2006, a review was instituted to identify any aspects of the organisation structure, systems, procedures or staffing arrangements within the Office of the Attorney General that may require to be amended to ensure that an information and notification deficit does not recur. The report of that review will be published shortly.
Does the Taoiseach accept it is difficult for anybody outside Government to understand why, if the 1995 reforms had been implemented and policed, there should have been what he calls a "communications failure" in the CC case? I am sure he will accept there is scarcely anything more serious than the protection of our children yet, despite the commitment that cases affecting minors would be brought to the personal attention of the Attorney General, that did not happen on this occasion. Other than the Taoiseach pre-empting the inquiry by Mr. O'Sullivan by laying the blame at the door of an official, I am still unclear how this communications breakdown could have happened. We have established that there was a note for the attention of the Attorney General about the implications of the CC case but we do not know if that note ever got to him.
I refer to section 2(6) of the 1974 Act establishing the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, which states, "The Attorney General and the Director shall consult together from time to time in relation to matters pertaining to the functions of the Director". That statutory obligation states the director and the Attorney General "shall consult", not "will consult". As the Taoiseach is responsible for both offices, will he indicate whether there is regular consultation? If so, how could what happened in the CC case have transpired?
The Minister of Justice, Equality and Law Reform informed the House he had set up a committee, stating, "I have established, following discussions with my officials, a criminal justice group comprising representatives from the main agencies working in the criminal justice sector. . .". The committee is chaired by the Secretary General of his Department and meets regularly to discuss matters such as this and especially matters of litigation relating to constitutional and policy considerations. I am entirely bemused that if the Minister had done that and if the group meets from time to time how this breakdown could have happened.
In respect of the 42 cases in which charges must be withdrawn following the Supreme Court decision, which it apparently took four weeks to compile information about, has there been contact with the DPP or arrangements put in place with the DPP that will ensure the Government is informed of progress in each case? As I understand it, what happens in any given case will not necessarily easily come into the public domain. Having regard to what happened, does the Taoiseach accept it is desirable that a channel of communication be created so that as these cases are gone through individually, the House is advised on progress on each one?
On the final question, in the normal course, I never get a report on cases the DPP takes against individuals. I am not advised by the DPP or the Attorney General. The Attorney General has regular communications with the Director of Public Prosecutions on various issues under the 1994 Act. For convenience purposes in many cases they use the same team, as they did in this case. That is a regular occurrence.
Regarding whether the Attorney General is advised on operations, I understand in many of these cases the DPP takes the lead and the DPP staff and the Attorney General staff co-operate. It is not the norm that I receive reports because at any time hundreds of cases are going through the process. I will ask whether a process on these cases can be outlined because they were the subject of considerable controversy.
Is the Taoiseach stating that somebody could be free to walk as a result of the charges being withdrawn and new charges not being capable of being preferred and that we would not know about it?
That is well outside the scope of the question.
In the normal course, not like this particular case but in any other——
This is not normal.
It is not normal. However, it is not that abnormal either, unfortunately, that the Supreme Court strikes down law we pass in this House. We could have a long debate about who is right and wrong.
I think they are having a long debate.
Allow the Taoiseach to speak. We must move on.
In the normal course, I have to accept the position and that is how it operates. I would not normally know the results of any of these cases. Even when my inquisitive mind might know it, it is not the easiest way to find out information on these cases. The reason there was a delay in finding even this information — I know perhaps some people thought it was peculiar — was because it had to be trawled through and checked with every State solicitor in the country. It is not a process I have to go through too often but it is a fairly tortuous process to provide this House with information. I apologise for the length of time taken. It was not from lack of asking for the information for the House. I understand there is nothing to prevent the DPP from preferring charges on the 42 cases and I understand that is what will happen. Severe issues are raised. I will ask whether there is a process through which we could know. I do not know the answer to it.
Regarding Deputy Rabbitte's question on procedures, I had a chance over recent times, not only this month but also when other issues arose approximately two years ago, of looking back to changes made on extradition in what became known as the 1995 report and the additional protocols. Considering the volume of international and European Court of Justice cases, ongoing litigation and other issues in which the Office of the Attorney General is involved, it works well.
Since the 1995 report, there have been an enormous amount of protocols, rulings and issues and I suppose all of that has built up. When something goes through the net there is a hell of a fuss about the matter, and we can all understand that. However, although none of these things should happen, it is not that hard to see why people get on with their jobs, undertake their tasks and perhaps do not go through all of the procedures they should. That is not to give it justification. The protocols and procedures are there. However, I suppose people try to get on with their work.
In fairness to the staff, I acknowledge and appreciate the huge amount of successful work they carry out every day in the vast range of cases they process themselves in the Attorney General's office and which are also processed in conjunction with the DPP. I acknowledge all of that work. In this case they also carried out and completed their work well. The difficulty was with one of the protocols which required that the Attorney General should have been kept in touch. I understand approximately seven or eight processes, by which the Attorney General is informed, should have been covered. In fact, there was only consultation on one of those, which was the nomination of the counsel, and it did not happen after that. The person involved said that from day one and that is the reason I was able to tell the House on 7 June.
The work is finished on the report, suggestions, recommendations and further issues to try to tighten up and follow the procedures. I promised I would do my best to have that report published before the House adjourns and I still hope I can do that. I appreciate the fact that people worked last weekend to do that. I hope to be able to publish the report before we break up on Thursday.
I do not believe there is anything sinister in all that. It was just that the procedures were not followed to the extent they should have been followed. We can have as many procedures as we like in place but human oversight in a procedure can happen. It is not that the person did not do their job; they did not do that element of their job. They got on with the job but did not inform the Attorney General.
I understand quite a number of recommendations will be put forward to improve matters and examine measures. I am told there are 19 new measures to try to minimise the risk of recurrence of these issues, as well as other improvements, and the Attorney General has told me he will implement those immediately.
I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.
I have one supplementary——
There are two minutes remaining and I have called Deputy Ó Caoláin who submitted a question.
I have a second question.
I ask Deputy Rabbitte to have some respect for the House. Two of his colleagues have questions submitted. They are entitled to ask a supplementary question but, unfortunately, we will not be able to take the two of them.
Perhaps the Taoiseach will give the same interest to this question as it is a follow-on. He indicated 19 recommendations for changes. Are they in existing procedures that have applied heretofore or are they new procedures and ideas to avoid a repetition of the deficit of information flow to both the Attorney General and to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform? In this instance, when does the Taoiseach expect that all these recommendations will be in place and can he assure the House that the deficit of information will not be repeated?
Regarding what has happened heretofore, do I understand from the response the Taoiseach has given that it was not a case of a procedure not being in place but a failure to carry through on that, given that both the Attorney General's office and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions were represented in the Supreme Court case and therefore the information was in both critical offices. Is it the case that we are looking at an uncharacteristic glitch regarding this particular case or is it that the deficit of information flow would have presented itself in any and all cases presenting to the Supreme Court in the way that it showed in this instance?
The Deputy will appreciate that following a case such as this, the Attorney General's office advised me on every case for a few weeks. It gave me 1,000 pages on every case to read over the weekend. It is clear there is a huge number of cases——
The Taoiseach had no time to follow the Dubs.
Not if I was to read them all. A substantial number of complex cases go through the system all the time and, in fairness, of literally hundreds of cases, whatever case goes wrong will be a huge one. There is a vast array of cases and while procedures are in place to ensure every issue goes through the Attorney General, and it should under the protocols, people probably just follow a system, get careless about a system or whatever. That did not take from them doing their job in an excellent way. The 19 measures are new and are in place to minimise further the risk of recurrence, although when one considers the volume of submissions and cases, including cases to the European Court of Justice, compared with even five years ago, the volume and complexity of the cases, ones going on in so many other areas——
It is enough to give one a heart attack.
I was never known or never purported to be a legal wizard in any form. I always had great difficulty grasping or understanding the law.
The Taoiseach gets palpitations about it.
——signing all those blank cheques.
That was not a breach of the law. It was trusting people maybe more than I should have. At least we have followed the procedures and there are new measures. I will, as I promised Deputy Rabbitte some weeks ago, publish that report this week if I can.
