COMMITTEE of PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht -
Thursday, 3 Feb 2000

Vol. 2 No. 4

1998 Annual Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and Appropriation Accounts.

Vote 19 - Office of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Resumed).

Vote 20 - Garda Síochána.

Vote 21 - Prisons.

Vote 22 - Courts.

Vote 23 - Land Registry and Registry of Deeds.

Vote 13 - Office of the Attorney General.

Vote 18 - Office of the Chief State Solicitor.

Vote 14 - Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Vote 2 - Houses of the Oireachtas and the European Parliament.

Mr. S. Aylward (Director General, Irish Prison Service), Ms F. Flanagan (Director General, Office of the Attorney General), Mr. M. Buckley (Chief State Solicitor) and Mr. B. Donoghue (Deputy Director, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions) called and examined.

Chairman

Today we were due to deal again with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, together with the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. The Secretary General of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform unfortunately cannot be here for good national reasons, so we will not deal in the main with Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform issues. However, Mr. Seán Aylward, Director General of the Irish Prisons Service, is in attendance so we can deal with paragraph 20, which affects the Prisons Service and also has implications for the Office of the Chief State Solicitor and the Office of the Attorney General. We will then deal with paragraph 14 in addition to the Votes for the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of the Chief State Solicitor.

I welcome Ms Finola Flanagan, Director General of the Office of the Attorney General, to the committee. As this is your first time to attend the committee we will be easy on you. Please introduce your officials.

Ms Flanagan

I am accompanied by Eileen Keogh, head of administration, Liam O'Daly, the Deputy Director General, Paul Gibney, office manager, Victoria Cahill, executive officer in charge of the finance unit, and Ruth Fitzgerald, a leading adviser in the office.

Chairman

You are all welcome. I also welcome Mr. Buckley, the Chief State Solicitor. As you have attended the committee previously we will not be easy on you. Please introduce your colleagues.

Mr. Buckley

I am accompanied by Mr. Seámus Crowe, head of administration, Mr. Dermot Russell, chief clerk, and Ms Bernie Flynn, executive officer, accounts.

Chairman

You are all welcome. I also welcome the Director of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. Barry Donoghue. I gather this is your fist time to attend the committee?

Mr. Donoghue

Yes.

Chairman

You are welcome. Please introduce your colleagues.

Mr. Donoghue

I am accompanied by Mr. Joe Mulligan, office manager, and his two assistants, Mr. John Byrne and Ms Maureen Stokes.

Chairman

You are welcome. I also welcome Mr. John Aylward from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. By whom are you accompanied?

Mr. Aylward

Mr. Ken Bruton, principal officer, Mr. John Kenny, principal officer, and Mr. Máirtín de Burca, principal officer.

Chairman

We have a few of our old friends from the Department of Finance, Mr. Jim O'Farrell, Mr. Howard and Ms Hogan. They are all welcome.

Paragraph 20 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

Compensation

In June 1998 the High Court at a sitting in Ennis awarded £796,654 plus costs, against the State in special and general damages on foot of a personal injuries case brought by a former prison office following an accident at work in 1995. At the opening of the trial, the plaintiff made an offer to settle on £300,000, plus costs. However, despite the repeated advice of its senior counsel to accept this offer, the Department refused to concede liability and, on the advice of the Attorney General, responded with its own offer of less than £200,000. The offer was rejected by the plaintiff and the Department conceded liability on the third day of the trial. Following the High Court award the Department and the Attorney General considered an appeal to the Supreme Court but following negotiations between the plaintiff and the Attorney General a settlement of £550,000, plus plaintiff's costs of £150,182, was agreed in July 1998. As the State costs came to £37,790 the overall cost of this case was £737,972.

The following matters were noted during audit review of the case. The senior counsel for the State had advised on every occasion that he was consulted before and during the trial that, on the basis of the evidence available to him, the court was very likely to find in favour of the plaintiff, damages were likely to be substantial and settlement on the best terms should be considered.

There were no defence witnesses in court who could contradict the plaintiff's statements on the circumstances of the accident, nor was there any evidence to contradict the charge of negligence on the part of the State. The defence evidence which was available tended to support the plaintiff's case.

There was no medical evidence available to the defence which could challenge the plaintiff's evidence in relation to injuries suffered as a result of the accident, or which could challenge his claim for damages. The medical expert retained on behalf of the defence was not present in court. The defence rehabilitation expert, who was present, advised that he could not contradict the plaintiff's claim that he would never be employed again in any capacity.

Counsel's initial damages estimate of £150,000 was revised to £300,000 days before trial, but was qualified by his statement that he still did not have any proper information on the plaintiff's loss of income to date, what he would be earning if still employed, or the capital value of his loss of earnings into the future. He reiterated his advice that the State was likely to lose the case and warned that the Department's termination of the plaintiff's employment some nine months previously on grounds of permanent ill health, of which he had just been informed, would have a disastrous effect on damages, particularly his claim for loss of earnings into the future.

The plaintiff's claim for special damages was based on an actuarial report on loss of income, which, together with the evidence of the plaintiff's actuary, was accepted by the court as providing the basis for the special damages award of £496,654. An actuarial report was provided for the State just before trial but, according to the senior counsel, it did not differ in any significant way from that of the plaintiff. The defence actuary was not present in court. The senior counsel advised that he did not have and was not given any instruction, information, material or witnesses which would have enabled him to present any challenge in court to the plaintiff's claim.

The senior counsel concluded that the true extent of the plaintiff's condition was not appreciated by the Department and the Attorney General's office.

As it appeared that the failure to prepare adequately for the case, to assess its full implications and to disregard its senior counsel's repeated advice to settle the case when the opportunity to do so was available resulted in significant additional costs for the State, I sought the views of the Accounting Officers of the Department and of the Attorney General's office.

The Accounting Officer of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform informed me that though the senior counsel had advised at an early stage that a court was very likely to find in favour of the plaintiff, this was not accepted by the Department as there were areas of concern in relation to some aspects of the case, principally regarding the circumstances of the accident; the attendance by and reports of expert witness were a matter for the Office of the Chief State Solicitor - CSSO; on Thursday,18 June 1998 the Attorney General requested the Chief State Solicitor to obtain a settlement figure from counsel and to see about settling the case. On Monday, 22 June 1998, the Department was advised by the CSSO that counsel said that plaintiff's counsel was looking for £500,000 but might settle for £300,000. The CSSO also said that the Attorney General was not in favour of settling for £300,000. In the absence of the agreement of the Attorney General it was not open to the Department to agree a settlement; the State's senior counsel contacted the Department directly on Tuesday, 23 June 1998, the first day of the trial. He said that due to the plaintiff's condition he would get well in excess of £300,000, possibly £400,000 and that there might be contributory negligence of 25%, but he was not sure. Counsel said that the State would definitely fail on liability. With the agreement of the Attorney General's office an offer to settle up to £200,000 was made on Wednesday, 24 June 1998. The Attorney General advised, via the CSSO, later that day to concede liability, in order to prevent an escalation of legal costs, thus leaving it to the court to assess damages. At all stages the advice of the CSSO and the Attorney General's office was followed; it should be noted that the award of the court was considerably in excess of the highest estimate from the State's counsel. In addition, the counsel's views on the question of an appeal were not accepted by the Attorney General. By following the advice of the Attorney General a reduction of £246,654 was achieved on the High Court award of £796,654, whereas the counsel's advice was that a reduction of less than £150,000 was likely.

The Accounting Officer of the Office of the Attorney General stated that: the information about the termination of the plaintiff's employment on medical grounds and the actuarial and medical reports on the case were only received by his office just before the case commenced. The rehabilitation evidence and the prison governor's report on the plaintiff and the veracity of his claim only became available on the day of the hearing. The last minute provision of information and the lack of communication from the local State solicitor on how the case was faringmeant that those in a position to sanction a settlement were not up to date with the dramatic escalation in the value put on the case; liability is kept as an issue in a case for tactical reasons. It is the recollection of the Attorney General's office that it advised the Department via the CSSO on the day before the trial - 22 June 1998 - that liability should be conceded. The advice was given at the same time that an offer of £180,000 was suggested; the time available to settle the case for a sum of £300,000 was brief. The late delivery of information and the lack of communication meant that the Department had only a short time to obtain sanction. This also meant that those responsible for sanctioning a settlement were not aware of the impact the plaintiff's evidence was having in court. There was no appreciation of why the settlement figure could move so dramatically from £200,000 to £450,000 in the same day; the two areas of difficulty, the late delivery of information by the Department and the failure of the local State solicitor to communicate information, were discussed at a meeting held in the wake of this case which was attended by representatives from the Office of the Attorney General and the CSSO. Proposals were discussed as to how procedures in these two areas could be improved. However, the proposal to establish a claims agency has since been developed.

The deficiencies identified by this case will need to be tackled by the new agency. In particular the agency will need someone with the authority to sanction settlement available at pre-trial consultations and during the hearing of the case to give a speedy response to any settlement proposal. He also stated that: neither the defendants nor the plaintiff in this case appreciated how great an award the judge was prepared to make; the award was based on the favourable impact which the plaintiff made on the court in giving evidence. The impact of a witness in a case is unpredictable and can only be taken into account as the case progresses. In general there is nothing to suggest that a settlement is always more favourable to a defendant than a judge's evaluation in a case; the medical expert retained on behalf of the State was not present in court and senior counsel did not, as in the opinion of the Office of the Attorney General he should have done, seek instructions as to whether to proceed or to seek an adjournment of the case. The view of the senior counsel on the medical evidence is not shared by the Attorney General's office; senior counsel's advice on the offer which should be made was couched in very vague terms which were difficult to act on. Nor was it clear from his advice what new information or evidence had changed so as to alter counsel's original advice which set a figure of £150,000 as the full value of the case. The difficulty could have been remedied by having someone on the ground at pre-trial consultations who would be aware of all the last minute detail emerging. This is the function of the local State solicitor. Because of the Department's failure to have someone present in Ennis court and the failure of the local State solicitor to make contact with officials in Dublin it may be understandable why these officials did not understand why the figures were changing so rapidly; it is the opinion of the Office of the Attorney General that the amount in fact awarded by the judge was excessive. This is borne out by the fact the case was settled for much less before the Supreme Court appeal.

Mr. Purcell

As the Chairman said, we are revisiting this paragraph. In it I draw attention to the financial consequences of the mismanagement of a compensation case. The case involved a personal injuries claim brought by a former prison officer following an accident at work in 1995. As I said at the meeting on 2 December last, there appeared to be a lack of co-ordination among those involved in defending the case, that is, the Department, the Attorney General's office, the Chief State Solicitor's office, the local State solicitor and the senior counsel who was engaged. This seemed to result in the late provision of information vital to the State's case, some communication problems, failure to ensure that defence expert witnesses would be in court and failure to appreciate how the case was proceeding. To one degree or other, this all culminated in a situation where the recommended settlement figure was not approved. In the event, this figure turned out to be £250,000 less than that ultimately agreed. The Accounting Officer of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform accepted that there were lapses all round, including in the Department, but stated the previous day that he was not in a position to speak for the others involved in defending the case, hence the gathering here today.

There would be serious implications for the public purse if this case was in any way symptomatic of the general conduct of the State's agents in the defence of personal injury cases against it. In this regard the Accounting Officer from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform told the committee the last day that he was satisfied it was an isolated case of its type.

The committee will note from the paragraph that the Accounting Officer from the Attorney General's office informed me that the difficulties which arose were discussed at a meeting held in the wake of the this case and proposals were discussed as to how certain procedures could be improved. However, it was Mr. Hamilton who pointed out at the time that any such improvements will have to be considered in the context of the proposed new State claims agency which it is intended will be handling this type of case in the future.

Ms Flanagan

Unfortunately, there was a lack of communication between the various parties involved which resulted in, as the Comptroller and Auditor General said, a lack of awareness as to how the case was proceeding in court in Limerick. This resulted in the case going to hearing and the award of more than £796,000. That award was far in excess of the plaintiff's estimation of the case and anyone else's valuation. It was ultimately settled for £550,000.

People take extremely seriously their responsibilities in these matters and the spending of public moneys on these cases. The difficulty was that the information which showed that the case should have been settled at the amount suggested was not in the Attorney General's office on the occasion. I agree this is an isolated case with Secretary General Dalton and in response to it various things have happened. As you are aware, there is a proposal to set up a State claims agency. There is no claims management system in place. That is not the function of the Chief State Solicitor's office or the Attorney General's office. Cases are handled on a litigation basis, but pending the establishment of a State claims agency the Attorney General wrote to the Minister for Finance suggesting that some interim measures should be taken which would avoid this sort of thing happening. He suggested that a claims manager, who is employed currently in the Chief State Solicitor's office, would address the Departments on the steps that should be taken immediately when an incident occurs that might lead to a claim for personal injury or damage to property, such as taking statements or photographs, getting engineers' reports, looking at the safety statement, considering the issue of contributing negligence and so on. If these things were done there would be earlier decision-making and better briefing which would perhaps ultimately lead to earlier settlement and savings to the State.

We have heard from the Department of Finance and there was a meeting of personnel officers in mid-February. The claims manager in the Chief State Solicitor's office will address the personnel officers on these issues to try to develop systems of that kind.

The other item that was suggested by the Attorney General to the Minister was that it would be very helpful - this is something we are keen to have - if an official from the defendant Department attended consultations and court, where necessary, and that person would have authority to take the necessary decisions. This would certainly mean that developments in court would be fully appreciated. This is something that we advise and would be welcome.

In addition, as regards the National Treasury Management Agency (Amendment) Bill to establish the State claims agency, this is being dealt with as a matter of priority in the office. We transmitted a first draft of this Bill to the Department of Finance on 18 January. I made it clear again that legal advisers in our office should, at all stages, consult with counsel and so on if necessary for the handling of cases. There was no consultation in this case between counsel and the adviser in the Attorney General's office.

Mr. Buckley

Obviously this case was discussed at length within the office after it happened. We considered the situation of the witnesses. One of the problems highlighted was that the psychiatrist was not available in court. With professional witnesses it is not usual to serve subpoenas on them unless you have reason to believe they will not turn up and we did not have reason to believe that would happen in this case. He had been phoned twice in the previous week and had agreed that he would be on standby. We did not realise until after the case that he had not appeared. On consideration, I do not think that we should subpoena professional witnesses. They take exception to being subpoenaed and you lose their goodwill. I think this is an isolated case. In my experience I cannot recollect a case like it where the professional agreed to turn up and did not.

Chairman

I do not understand what that has to do with the failure to make a settlement.

Mr. Buckley

His evidence was not available in court and had it been available perhaps we would have been in a better position to defend the case. We could not counteract the evidence of the plaintiff who also had a psychiatrist.

Chairman

You are not persuading me.

Mr. Buckley

I see.

Chairman

I will come back to Mr. Buckley in a few moments. Mr. Aylward, this is a matter for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I know you are the legal adviser but you are the client in the case. Have you anything to say about the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform's handling of this?

Mr. Aylward

I echo the remarks of the Secretary General the last day to the committee that we have a number of concerns about the way we managed the matter - I am not pointing the finger at anybody. It was a highly unusual claim. Someone claimed they had slipped on a floor, got up, hit their head as they did so, fell again and hit their head off something else. It was an extremely unusual claim. Engineers and people who looked at the setting where this happened, while they acknowledged that the events claimed were not impossible, felt that they were extremely unlikely. We are discussing a claim where the plaintiff claimed he received one injury falling forward and a second one when he fell backwards. It was outside the experience of our engineer that someone would fall backwards and forwards in the same location in the same minute. It really was unusual. That said, however, there were failures on our part.

Looking forward, which is something the committee would expect us to do, the Secretary General undertook to direct me to consider the issue of streamlining civil compensation cases from the point of view of the client, which in this case would be the Prison Service-Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I have undertaken a review of all the civil actions on hand against the prisons, both in our headquarters, which is still situated at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, and at local level. I have directed that responsibility for the management of civil compensation cases be assigned in the future to a principal officer within the prisons area. That officer, John Kenny, is with me today.

All the cases on hand at Prison Service headquarters have since been reviewed. Every governor has been asked to review all civil compensation cases on hand particular to their institutions and to furnish to headquarters any outstanding documentation, material etc. as a matter of urgency. This review is well advanced.

The review of civil compensation cases on hand at headquarters level has, inter alia, looked at each case with a view to determining its current status and establishing what remains to be done in terms of dealing with outstanding queries, correspondence, documentation etc. At present there are approximately 75 active civil compensation cases against the Prison Service and these are at various stages of processing. All have been accorded appropriate priority ratings and all are being processed. To eliminate the potential for delays in the transfer of documentation between the Chief State Solicitor’s office and Prison Service and onto the prison governors, measures have been put in place to enable enclosures to be forwarded on the day of receipt. I have been personally involved in devising some of the manual mechanisms to facilitate this.

Moving forward, the Prison Service has entered the IT era in a major way - an officer from the IT division of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has been specifically assigned the task of putting in place a case management tracking system for civil compensation cases against the prisons. I expect early progress on this. I have a number of other points to make but that is enough for now.

Deputy Cooper-Flynn

Mr. Dalton stated that there are 75 active cases at present. Am I correct in thinking that until the new procedure was put in place the Attorney General was responsible for approving compensation payments in cases where settlements were made?

Mr. Aylward

I am speaking on behalf of Mr. Dalton who is unavoidably absent. My name is Seán Aylward.

Deputy Cooper-Flynn

I beg your pardon.

Mr. Aylward

The Attorney General's office remains the key legal adviser to the State and State bodies. However, the deficiency I was addressing was one which existed at our end in respect of processing some of the material coming in and going out. That situation and those arrangements remain in place. There were defects and system failures on our side and we are moving to address them. The director general of the Attorney General's office has dealt with the other institutional issue involving the establishment of a State claims agency which would, perhaps, change relationships. While the relationships have not changed, the system failures that emerged in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General have been addressed in a serious way by me and the staff who report to me.

Deputy Cooper-Flynn

Ms Flanagan stated that the key problem in this case appeared to be a lack of communication. Given that the information required by the Attorney General to enable him to make the proper decision seemed to arrive very late, why would one not adhere to the advice given by one's senior counsel in that instance? The senior counsel was very specific, he stated that he did not have the information or witnesses available to him to present any challenge to the plaintiff's claim. He went on to say that the plaintiff's condition was not appreciated by the Department or the Attorney General. Surely in a case like that, where a senior counsel is being paid to provide expert advice, attempts should have been made to negotiate a settlement. Why did that not happen?

Ms Flanagan

Offers were made. On paper the case was valued at £200,000 and an offer in that region was made. However, as the Deputy said, the prison governor's report and the rehabilitation report did not arrive until very late. The key report was the rehabilitation report which showed that there would be a significant loss of future earnings, a vital element in terms of the award of damages. The value of the case was not appreciated in regard to what was happening in court and, on that basis, it was decided to leave it to the judge to make a decision. It is not necessarily the case that a court will arrive at a decree which is way in excess of the value. It just happened to occur in this case and it was ultimately accepted by all parties that it was far in excess of the value. That is one of the reasons I have reminded people that they should speak directly to counsel if that arises because full understanding of the way a case is progressing can be obtained. Things happen very rapidly in court.

Deputy Cooper-Flynn

If counsel does not contact the office, how are the lines of communication kept open?

Ms Flanagan

Normally communication would be between counsel and the solicitor who, in turn, would then deal with someone in the Attorney General's office in Merrion Street.

Deputy Cooper-Flynn

That is the normal procedure? I would have thought the Attorney General's office would want to hear the advice of senior counsel rather than obtaining it second-hand from the solicitor.

Ms Flanagan

The solicitor would be in court and he or she would be able to do that.

Deputy Cooper-Flynn

It appears that in this instance the State solicitor was not present for some of the pre-trial submissions and they were not able to inform Ms Flanagan's office that the case was quite serious. As matters proceeded over a number of days it seemed to become clear that the case was a great deal more serious than the office understood. The original offer to the plaintiff was "off the wall" when one considers the way the case was progressing. Why was that information not communicated to the office? Where was the local agent of the Attorney General's office?

Ms Flanagan

This case was heard in Limerick and the State solicitor for Limerick dealt with it on behalf of the Chief State Solicitor's office. He was in Limerick and was present for a certain amount of the case. I understand that counsel spoke to the Chief State Solicitor's office directly.

Deputy Cooper-Flynn

At what stage? Did discussions take place every day? What was the level of communication?

Ms Flanagan

I understand that discussions took place every day.

Deputy Cooper-Flynn

There were communications with the Attorney General's office every day with regard to how matters were progressing?

Ms Flanagan

Apparently so, yes.

Deputy Cooper-Flynn

However, nobody seemed to realise the seriousness of the case. Why was that?

Ms Flanagan

This is the difficulty that arose. The Attorney General advised on it based on what he was told, but it was not clear from the information and original advice we received that there were grounds for the case going from a valuation of between £200,000 and £300,000 to £450,000.

Deputy Cooper-Flynn

What information does the Attorney General need to make decisions in this or any other case?

Ms Flanagan

The Attorney General has the information furnished by the Chief State Solicitor's office and other information he might have received. It included, for instance, the rehabilitation report which was not furnished until after the case.

Deputy Cooper-Flynn

Why not?

Ms Flanagan

I understand that part of the reason may have been a delay in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, which was referred to by Mr. Dalton earlier. I am not sure whether that was the only reason for it but the reports did not come from Limerick and they were dealt with there. That was why it was not appreciated in our office.

Deputy Cooper-Flynn

I cannot imagine what use the rehabilitation report would have had after the case concluded. It would only have value prior to or during the court case. In such a case where it is asserted that an individual will not work again, that information would have been vital in assisting the Attorney General to make his decision.

Ms Flanagan

Yes, I understand that the information we had was that a greater offer was required, more than had been considered before, but we were not aware that it was related to future loss of earnings.

Deputy Cooper-Flynn

Did the office make a greater offer or did it leave it to the judge to make a decision?

Ms Flanagan

It was left to the court at that point.

Deputy Cooper-Flynn

Even though the officer knew that the original offer was not satisfactory, the office still decided to take its chances against the advice of senior counsel?

Ms Flanagan

We decided not to make a greater offer and leave it to the court in the absence of an understanding as to why a greater offer should have been made. That effectively was the reason.

Deputy Cooper-Flynn

Is that normal procedure?

Ms Flanagan

I agree it was not satisfactory. An offer which was acceptable to the plaintiff would have meant that the case would have been settled, we would not have gone through the procedure of having a decree and then a further settlement afterwards. The more communication there is, the better and more effective the attention that can be given to these cases. I agree that all the information should have been with the decision makers who advised the Department and so on.

Deputy Cooper-Flynn

Is this senior counsel often used by the State?

Ms Flanagan

I do not know. I can check and give the Deputy the information.

Deputy Cooper-Flynn

In normal circumstances, would the State settle cases or is it our policy to fight cases? Where a senior counsel is retained on a regular basis, we would value his judgment and go with his decision. In this case a decision was taken without all the information and senior counsel's advice was ignored. I cannot understand why that happened.

Ms Flanagan

I agree it is difficult to understand. The counsel involved is used a certain amount. I can check just how often. We take his opinion into account and we take counsel's views on board. After all, they are employed to fight the case. They have the expertise for which they are employed.

Deputy Cooper-Flynn

Yes.

Ms Flanagan

As I said, there was a hiccup in this case. It was an isolated case and certainly we have made considerable efforts to make sure such a thing does not happen again.

Deputy Cooper-Flynn

Ms Flanagan said that deficiencies identified in this case will be dealt with by the new claims agency. What deficiencies will be addressed?

Ms Flanagan

The claims agency is being established by the Department of Finance and, ultimately, it is a matter for it. The position is that cases are dealt with on the basis of litigation that arises. We are not aware that an incident has occurred until a pre-litigation letter is sent by a plaintiff or the proceedings arise. They are served on the Chief State Solicitor's office. We do not receive notification from the Department or office for which we defend the case that anything has arisen. The litigation is pursued once it has started. The claims management basis is that incidents, when they occur, which might give rise to litigation would be handled from that point and that the important steps, for example, which an insurance company would take when an incident occurs such as witness statements, taking photographs, examining the safety statement, making an assessment of contributory negligence and looking at the scene, would be taken and an assessment would be made. I understand that will be one of the functions of the claims agency which will be established.

Deputy Cooper-Flynn

Will it have any other functions or will that be its main responsibility?

Ms Flanagan

That will be its main responsibility. It will be a unit in the NTMA.

Deputy Cooper-Flynn

The judge awarded £796,000 and then there was an adjustment downwards. Who negotiated that?

Ms Flanagan

It was negotiated on the advice of the Department, the Attorney General and counsel. It was a different counsel. I understand possibly counsel was not free on the day.

Deputy Cooper-Flynn

Was it decided that somebody new was needed on the case?

Ms Flanagan

No.

Chairman

The claims agency was proposed and agreed more than four years ago. Why has it taken so long to establish it?

Ms Flanagan

Again, this is a matter primarily for the Department of Finance.

Chairman

Can the officials tell me what is holding this up?

Mr. Howard

The decision by Government to set up the claims agency in the middle of last July, based upon a memorandum which was submitted to it and a scheme of a Bill setting out various heads that were considered appropriate. That then went to the parliamentary draftsman's office for drafting of the necessary legislation and again, as decided by the Government, that was to be done on a priority basis. We got in the middle of last month a first draft of the sections based on the heads that the Government had decided and we are discussing them with the parliamentary draftsman's office, the NTMA and some other Departments. It is difficult for me on the outside but I hope a final version of the text might be available in the next couple of months.

Chairman

There seems to be no sense of urgency about the Bill. I recall that when I was chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance and General Affairs during the last Dáil, this was raised and it was agreed in principle that there would be a State claims agency. Four years later there is still an enormous number of claims against State agencies, such as local authorities, health boards, vocational education committees, State companies and Departments. What is the annual number of claims against State agencies?

Mr. Howard

There is no central database. There might not be wholly reliable estimates in respect of claims against Government offices and Departments, but there is nothing available in relation to local authorities, health boards, vocational education committees or State boards.

Chairman

Has any study been done of overall claims against the State?

Mr. Howard

The Government intends to set up a claims agency through extending the functions of the NTMA that would manage claims made against Government offices and Departments, community and comprehensive schools and residential centres for young offenders. It will begin its business with that remit. Provision is to be made in the legislation to allow for its operations to be extended to, for instance, local authorities and others. In fairness, local authorities have for many years, as the Chairman is aware, had their own arrangements through Irish Public Bodies Mutual Insurances. They may or may not wish to change that arrangement. Clearly that is something on which a view can only be taken when the claims agency, under the NTMA is up and running and has established some track record in this area.

Chairman

Nonetheless, this committee has long expressed concern about the State's handling of personal injury claims, their escalation and the slowness in dealing with them. It has been represented to us for several years that if the State could settle some of these cases at a much earlier stage, there would be cheaper settlements and costs would be avoided. The case before us is a classic example of how the State does its business badly which costs a fortune. This has cost twice as much as it need have done if somebody of a sufficient rank was able to make a decision to settle. That is the problem. This is only the tip of the iceberg as it is across the panoply of the State. It is costing a fortune. Something more needs to be done quickly. I am surprised to hear there is no study of the costs right across the State. We should ask the Department of Finance to come back to us in three months, the first week in May, with a report of the number of claims against the State, including local authorities, health boards, commercial State bodies and State Departments and agencies, for each of the past five years, the cost of settlements and the legal costs.

Mr. Aylward

If it helps the committee, I have some information on prisons for the past three years which may be of interest.

Chairman

Certainly, yes.

Mr. Aylward

I bring it up because it shows a temporarily encouraging trend which might be of interest.

Chairman

It may be temporary but you hope it is not.

Mr. Aylward

Absolutely, but one is careful not to raise hopes or expectations. In 1997, 48 cases - I am talking about cases processed because sometimes a claim does not move to a court hearing because it is abandoned or whatever - were settled, in 11 cases a court award was made against us and 24 cases were dismissed. I was around during that year, in the position of my colleague, and we tended to try to resist fraudulent claims. As a client, you can push in a certain direction and in the Four Courts, under a lot of pressure, the legal people may feel differently. There is always tension between the client and his legal advisers.

In 1998, the year on which the committee is focusing this morning, 37 cases were settled. There were only eight awards made against us, albeit one of them a high award, which we are talking about today, and seven cases were dismissed. We do not have absolutely final figures for 1999 but the latest figures available to me suggest that 16 cases were settled, eight were awarded against us and eight were dismissed. On costs arising, the total amount paid out by us in relation to claims against us was £883,037 in 1997. In the year under review it was £1.729 million, of which this was a very big component. The latest figure - we do not have an absolutely final out-turn - for 1999 is £699,000. I know this is not the full information to which the Chairman referred. We should furnish what we have.

Chairman

It is one area. We should now ask for that report - that is decided. In the first week of May, the Department of Finance will come back to us with a full report of the entire public sector for the past five years - the total number of claims, the total cases won, settled and dismissed and total awards and costs, as well as what progress has been made in establishing the State claims agency. Are there any other questions on this?

Deputy C. Lenihan

The way the report is framed does not lend itself to interpretation or understanding. I am curious about the meeting held after this claim, where the two areas of difficulty, that is, the late delivery of information by the Department and the failure of the local State solicitor - I presume that is the State solicitor of Limerick county or is there another one for the city——

Mr. Buckley

It is the State solicitor for Clare.

Deputy C. Lenihan

It refers to Limerick here.

Mr. Buckley

It should be Clare. It was a Clare case and he was attending in Limerick High Court.

Deputy C. Lenihan

What was his explanation for the delays? I would imagine that evidence is vital to any civil proceedings. What was his explanation for the lateness of the delivery to you or whoever was investigating this issue?

Mr. Buckley

His function was only to attend on counsel in court. The work on the case was done in my office. Counsel and the State solicitor were briefed with the information. He attended on counsel and made sure the witnesses were there, that was his role. His explanation of why he did not communicate was that counsel was doing it and did it more regularly than in other cases.

Deputy C. Lenihan

I am not sure. It refers here to two areas of difficulty, the late delivery of information by the Department and the failure of the local State solicitor to communicate information were discussed at a meeting held in the wake of this case, which was attended by a representative of the Attorney General and the CSSO. What information was badly communicated or delayed by the State solicitor for County Clare?

Mr. Buckley

Expected from him was communication about how the case was developing and going. You can tell whether the plaintiff's case is going well or whether they have difficulty. In this case, the case was going well for the plaintiff.

Deputy C. Lenihan

How did he explain why he was not able to communicate, presumably how the case was going, to your office? It is only a phone call away from Dublin - you pick up the phone and say it is not going well for the following reasons.

Mr. Buckley

His explanation was that counsel was doing that. The barristers were doing it from Limerick, to my office.

Deputy C. Lenihan

Were they doing it?

Mr. Buckley

They were, yes.

Deputy C. Lenihan

That is contradictory because then there was not a failure to communicate by the State solicitor because it was occurring. I have a problem with the wording of the report which refers to the failure of the local State solicitor to communicate information. However, you are telling me the State solicitor did not fail to communicate because the information was communicated in any event. There is a contradiction there.

Mr. Buckley

It came but not from the local State solicitor. I do not think it affects the matter. The information did come through.

Deputy C. Lenihan

Whose report is this, is it yours? Perhaps the Comptroller and Auditor General can explain this. It states in black and white that the State solicitor failed to communicate and now we hear he did not fail to communicate.

Mr. Purcell

The normal format of paragraphs is that I set down the facts as I see them and then I give an opportunity to the relevant Accounting Officers to make whatever points they wish in relation to those facts, usually in response to questions put by my office to them by way of an audit query. If one looks at the bottom of page 32, it is clear that statement is attributed to the then Accounting Officer of the Office of the Attorney General. In fairness and in keeping with a long standing tradition, I incorporate those replies in my report to show the position from both sides. However, that is attributable to the then Accounting Officer of the Attorney General's office.

Deputy C. Lenihan

That is presumably Ms Flanagan's view. Who was that?

Ms Flanagan

I am now the Accounting Officer.

Deputy C. Lenihan

I know that, but who was it then?

Ms Flanagan

The Accounting Officer then was James Hamilton, the former Director General.

Deputy C. Lenihan

He stated it was a failure by the State solicitor's in Clare to communicate, but the Chief State Solicitor's office in Dublin said there was no failure to communicate. Is that the position? I am confused. The Attorney General invoked Ms Flanagan's predecessor. The Comptroller and Auditor General states that Ms Flanagan's predecessor was clear that there was a failure on the part of the Chief State Solicitor to pick up the phone, to e-mail or to send a fax.

Chairman

Are you dissenting from Mr. Hamilton's view, Ms Flanagan?

Ms Flanagan

Neither the rehabilitation report nor the prison governor's report came up.

Deputy C. Lenihan

What does Ms Flanagan mean by "never came up"?

Ms Flanagan

They never came up from Ennis where the case was being heard. While counsel——

Deputy C. Lenihan

Is it true that they never arrived at the court case and that senior counsel did not have access to them?

Ms Flanagan

I think senior counsel did. They arrived late when the case was about to be heard. They were there but they were late. That was one of the reasons full information on the case was not held in the Attorney General's office or in the Chief State Solicitor's office.

Deputy C. Lenihan

Maybe I am stupid. The sequence of events is that the information on the rehabilitation - the state of the prison officer, whether he was bruised or badly injured and whatever the prison governor determined in this unusual case - did not arrive until the day the court case began. Is that correct?

Ms Flanagan

Possibly shortly before the court case began. Sorry, it was the day the court case began.

Deputy C. Lenihan

Was it five minutes, ten minutes, a half hour or two hours?

Ms Flanagan

I am not sure exactly.

Deputy C. Lenihan

Perhaps the other lady might know because she is prompting Ms Flanagan. Does she know was it two hours before the case began?

Ms Fitzgerald

No, I understand that those two reports were received on the day the case came for hearing.

Deputy C. Lenihan

In Limerick?

Ms Fitzgerald

Yes.

Deputy C. Lenihan

Was it two hours before the case began?

Ms Fitzgerald

I do not know.

Deputy C. Lenihan

Is it possible to find out? I would have thought if one did not have vital information such as that, an adjournment would have been sought.

Chairman

Let us bring some clarity into this. Did Mr. Buckley wish to say something more?

Mr. Buckley

If the Deputy wished to phone me, he could find out, perhaps.

Chairman

Sorry?

Mr. Buckley

We could make a phone call to the officer who dealt with it in my office and find out when that information came.

Chairman

Yes, we can revert to it in a few minutes.

Deputy C. Lenihan

It is not really relevant. It is difficult to understand how, in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, the local State solicitor failed to communicate yet someone else had. I do not understand. Is it correct that the senior counsel told Ms Flanagan's office that the case was proceeding badly after a day or two?

Ms Flanagan

I understand so, yes. The senior counsel was on the telephone to the Chief State Solicitor's office on that.

Deputy C. Lenihan

On a regular basis of twice a day or something similar?

Ms Flanagan

I am not sure how many times but certainly the counsel did communicate directly.

Chairman

Who was the senior counsel?

Deputy C. Lenihan

So Ms Flanagan's office was under no misunderstanding that this case was proceeding badly?

Ms Flanagan

The difficulty regarding the handling of the case was that, while we had been told the case was going badly, on paper, we did not have the information which would have shown that a seriously larger offer should have been made. In particular, the rehabilitation report, which was the one which arrived late on the day, indicated that there would be a serious future loss of earnings which comprised the bulk of the award.

Deputy C. Lenihan

Returning to what the Comptroller and Auditor General said - feel free to contest what he said because he is only the Comptroller and Auditor General - one factor was the failure of this famous county solicitor in Clare to communicate and the second factor was the delivery of information by the Department. We will ask Mr. Aylward that question. What delivery failure happened there? Is this the report to which Ms Flanagan refers? Is it the report from the prison governor?

Mr. Aylward

Reports and documentation in this case were received in January 1998 and were not acted upon for some months. There were delays and the matter was overlooked. We have put up our hands and said that, from our side, it was a systems failure and we are installing a tracking system. We have put up our hands; we do not point the finger at anyone else. This was a complex case which went very badly for us. We made mistakes and there are possibly lessons for others. As far as we are concerned, we had a systems failure and we admit it. We have acted to put things right.

Chairman

What systems failure?

Mr. Aylward

The systems failure was the failure by an official to pass on documentation in a timely fashion.

Chairman

However, in addition to that, there is the issue Deputies Lenihan and Cooper-Flynn have raised that, when it reached court, it had nothing to do with the Department. The delays occurred or the decisions were made in the Attorney General's office and the Chief State Solicitor's office. Is that right? That did not involve the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

Mr. Aylward

We would be in dialogue with the Attorney General's office and the Chief State Solicitor's office in such a case. The authorisation for a settlement in every case would have to come from the Attorney General's office.

Chairman

Would you have an official in court keeping an eye on a case such as this?

Mr. Aylward

When we can, we do. It is a small section of two people, a higher executive officer and a clerical officer.

Chairman

So sometimes you do not?

Mr. Aylward

Many times we do not because it is part of a heavily stretched prison operation which is running the prisons.

Chairman

So the client as such is often not in court?

Mr. Aylward

Only in the most exceptional cases is the client in court because of numbers.

Chairman

That is unusual. Most clients would be in court or would have someone there capable of discussing with counsel how the case was going and making decisions about whether a settlement should be made.

Mr. Aylward

It is very much about staff numbers, a matter which is being addressed satisfactorily with the Department of Finance at present. The Prison Service as managed at present is running on a shoestring in terms of staff. I do not point the finger at anyone because we have amicably resolved that with the Department of Finance.

Deputy C. Lenihan

I am curious because something similar to this problem arose in the Sheedy affair in terms of who represents who in court and who is responsible for communicating the information. I am still baffled by the Sheedy affair and am not convinced by any of the answers we received from the legal people and others. In a court case where a rehabilitation report is available to counsel and to the State team, who is responsible for conveying that report to Ms Flanagan's office? It seems that some days it is the solicitor's, other days it is senior counsel's and it might be someone else's another day. Who is responsible for sending that rehabilitation report? Ms Flanagan states that the office for which she is now responsible did not have the report and could not make an evaluation. They could only hear that the case was going badly and against the State but that they could not read the factual basis of the advice they were receiving on the level of damages to the person's future earnings potential. Who was responsible in Limerick on the day for faxing the report or sending it by courier, now that we have many communications tools available?

Ms Flanagan

I would take the view that——

Deputy C. Lenihan

Ms Flanagan is the manager. Who is responsible?

Ms Flanagan

If new information arrives in the course of a hearing outside Dublin, the State Solicitor should ensure that it gets to Dublin.

Deputy C. Lenihan

So, if the Comptroller and Auditor General and your predecessor are correct, the failure to communicate the paper information is the responsibility of the State solicitor for County Clare? You have turned around a bit.

Ms Flanagan

The State solicitor felt that the necessary communication had been made because counsel was on the telephone to the Chief State Solicitor's office.

Deputy C. Lenihan

But in your view, is it the responsibility of the solicitor for County Clare, who was and should be responsible in this and future cases of this kind, to actually send the legal rehabilitation report to your office so that you can make an evaluation on a settlement?

Ms Flanagan

Certainly it would have been helpful if it had come up.

Deputy C. Lenihan

And it did not?

Ms Flanagan

It did not.

Deputy C. Lenihan

And that is not the senior counsel's fault but the fault of the solicitor?

Ms Flanagan

No, the senior counsel would not have a function in doing that. The solicitor felt that the necessary communication had been made.

Deputy C. Lenihan

The solicitor felt he had?

Ms Flanagan

He felt that counsel had communicated the necessary information in conversation with the Chief State Solicitor's office.

Deputy C. Lenihan

So the solicitor felt he did his duty but your office felt he did not, obviously? Sorry, your predecessor did not. You take a different view on this.

Ms Flanagan

No, I do not necessarily take a different view. Certainly if all the reports had come to Dublin it is possible that this would not have happened. Things happen very quickly and there would have been a different appreciation. As it turned out, we acted on the information and reports we had which did not include those reports. It was felt that the matter would be left to the court to decide the issue of damages.

Deputy C. Lenihan

Does the responsibility now rest with the Chief State Solicitor to communicate the information back to your office?

Ms Flanagan

Yes, if there is information to be communicated back, it is the responsibility of the local State solicitor.

Deputy Bell

It is obvious, and it has been admitted, that there was a faux pas in this case. However, the question is much broader. We now find a lot of criticism from courts, practitioners and the general public concerning the lack of co-ordination in the processing of cases by the State, the provision of documentation on time and so on. Such comments have become regular and public representatives receive an enormous number of complaints about the way cases are handled.

I would like to ask Mr. Buckley about the letter to the Chairman following the recommendations and the examination of the Doolittle report which was accepted by Government in 1996. That report identified the lack of management structures, resources, staff and so on. That was 1996 and four years later we receive a detailed letter from Mr. Buckley which clearly identifies a lack of staff and facilities in the offices, staff working substantial amounts of overtime, weekends and so on. I do not see how the functions of State can operate if that is the case, and I have no doubt it is. It is no wonder that the operation of the State's legal functions cannot work. Every sector in the Department is inadequately staffed at high level. Have restrictions been imposed by the Department of Finance on staff recruitment? Is it because the level of remuneration in the public service is so miserable in many respects that you cannot get qualified staff or is it due to a delay in the training and recruitment of staff?

Mr. Buckley

There is a limit on the number of staff that can be recruited by the office. However, there is another difficulty which the Deputy has identified and that is that levels of pay are not sufficient to attract people. Because of the economy, levels of pay in the private sector are far in advance of what we can pay. We get people in, they stay for about a year and then they leave when they are trained. They get a lot more money when they go. From my perspective it is soul destroying to see good staff that one has trained leaving. People are working at weekends, on Sundays and at night. My overtime bill only goes as far as HEO level but it shows that a huge amount of overtime is being worked.

Deputy Bell

Do you accept the fact that if this was a business it would be closed down? One could not operate an industry on the basis of what is contained in this report.

Mr. Buckley

I am sure we would be close to it.

Chairman

Has the Department of Finance a copy?

Deputy Bell

May I ask some of the other directors to comment because I think this is the nub of the problem? One of them referred to it indirectly in relation to the case we are discussing. I would like to hear their comments.

Chairman

Has the Department of Finance a copy of this letter from the Chief State Solicitor to me?

Mr. Buckley

Yes.

Chairman

Would you like to comment on it, Mr. Howard?

Mr. Howard

That, I presume, is a letter written roughly 12 months ago.

Chairman

Yes, 5 February 1999.

Mr. Howard

We have a copy, yes.

Chairman

Have there been any developments since then?

Mr. Howard

A number of formal requests have been made to us by the Chief State Solicitor subsequent to that communication. I am subject to correction but on only one occasion since then we agreed to a number of contract solicitors - three I think - employed on two year contracts to handle a particularly enormous claim arising out of a fire in a meat factory where intervention beef had been stored. I think that was the only occasion.

Chairman

In other words, Mr. Buckley, the situation has not changed much since 5 February when you wrote the letter.

Mr. Buckley

I think it has got worse.

Chairman

Would you like to elaborate?

Mr. Buckley

The case referred to by Mr. Howard was being handled in the office by one senior solicitor with what help he could get from the other people in the section. I was offered three recruit solicitors to help him on that case. From my experience they would probably have stayed a few months and then gone to better things and I would have had to start again and get some other recruits who would have to read themselves into the file with consequent delays. It was resolved to pass that case to private solicitors to deal with. It is a huge case. There are ten actions involving the same cause and I am told that there are seven solicitors and nine support staff dealing with that body of work. The same body of work was being dealt with in my office by one person who almost worked himself into the ground. That is the type of problem. Solicitors' firms in private practice put in teams to deal with such cases. I just do not have those resources.

Chairman

So the State is at a big disadvantage in cases?

Mr. Buckley

It is indeed.

Chairman

Mr. Howard, do you want to comment?

Mr. Howard

Towards the middle of last year, a working group reported to Government on the idea of establishing a single prosecution service. One of the group's recommendations, which was accepted by Government, was that the criminal division of the Chief State Solicitor's office should move to the Director of Public Prosecutions and that responsibility for local State solicitors - the county solicitors - should similarly move.

Chairman

Move to where?

Mr. Howard

To the DPP. Arising out of that we have a working group representative of the three law offices and ourselves to deal with the practical implementation of moving the criminal division to the DPP. There are 55 people in that section currently, not including typists who are in a common pool. We are also looking at the implications of that move for what is left of the Office of the Chief State Solicitor and also bearing in mind the implications for that office of the establishment of the State claims agency. Looking ahead one could argue that the Office of the Chief State Solicitor will be far different in a few years times. We accept there will be, for one reason or another, a need for additional staff in the DDP's office with the move of the criminal section from the Office of the Chief State Solicitor, and perhaps back home at the ranch in what is left of the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. We have come to no conclusions on that as yet but we are pursuing it actively.

Chairman

The criminal element is about one-third of the business and the civil is about two-thirds. What are the benefits in moving the criminal element? Will we get a better criminal service? Why would we get a better criminal service in such circumstances?

Mr. Howard

This room, I think it is fair to say, is full of people who are much better qualified than I to respond to that question.

Chairman

Hands up anyone who thinks it is a good idea? This sounds like moving around the deck chairs on the Titanic; there is no great advantage to anybody that I can see. Mr. Buckley, what is your view?

Mr. Buckley

I consider it to be a good idea because where you have two major clients there is always a tension between one and the other, you are trying to rob Peter to pay Paul and vice versa, whereas if we deal only with civil work I think we will be more focused and give a better service. However, we need resources to do that.

Deputy Bell

Does the gentleman from the Department of Finance agree that it is a false economy to restrict the level of staff, equipment and whatever is required for the elements and organs of State to carry out their functions efficiently? As the report says, they require large amounts of overtime in terms of working with exhausted staff. That is a pretty dim picture which does not create confidence in those arms of the State. If this is controlled by the Department of Finance then we should be talking to it to find out if it is aware of this mess.

Chairman

We have the letter since last February. Many people are working overtime without pay and that must be a big spur to move elsewhere where they can get paid - and this is apart from being over-stretched. I know the Department of Finance has a procession of obligations for more and more staff, which is not always the answer. On the other hand, if the lack of staff can be shown to be costing us money then it is clear that something needs to be done about it.

Deputy Rabbitte

As Deputy Bell said, if the staff are underpaid and overworked to the extent which has been described, and accepting that everybody who comes before us gilds the lily a bit, it is a serious matter. How, Mr. Buckley, does transferring the criminal section to the Office of the DPP, if the same salary limits apply, necessarily help the situation? Will skilled personnel who have acquired expertise in the area still take better offers in a world where the desire to work in the public service is not what it was 30 years ago?

Mr. Buckley

Historically, when times are good people want to get into the private sector and when times are bad they want to get back into the public sector. There is security of tenure in the public service. Even clerk typists are leaving for sums of money beyond our ken. They are getting more money than our solicitors; that is pretty drastic.

Deputy Rabbitte

Some of your clerk typists are getting more than qualified solicitors?

Mr. Buckley

Some clerk typists have left the office and are earning more than I am paying qualified solicitors. I can give figures.

Chairman

We are getting a similar story from quite a number of Departments concerning professional staff and others. I think the C & AG's office is having a similar problem.

Deputy Rabbitte

It is especially serious if solicitors performing this critical function are being paid as has been suggested. Could we establish things, Mr. Buckley, on the lines of the NTMA and let rates be set commensurate with the marketplace and continue to provide the advice currently being provided?

Mr. Buckley

We would probably do well out of that.

Deputy Rabbitte

You would, but could we do it? Are there reasons you are different?

Mr. Buckley

One way in which it is different is that the office is part of the Office of the Attorney General. I would not like to make any commitments that would involve the Attorney General.

Deputy Rabbitte

Mr. Howard looks like a man who has been cogitating this for a long time. Does he think we could do it?

Mr. Howard

I would like to think so, but I am pretty sure it is not attainable.

Deputy Rabbitte

Because of the nature of the work?

Mr. Howard

Perhaps for any number of reasons. One has to bear in mind that when we approach the issue of staffing in the Department of Finance we are very much subject, naturally, to prevailing Government policy on the issue.

Deputy Rabbitte

I accept that, but let us start from the point that many changes have been forced on us in different areas of the economy through developments over the past ten or 15 years. This is a critical area where, admittedly, changes have been effected in the Office of the Attorney General, for example, in recent years as a result maybe of high profile situations or perhaps the reform was being undertaken in any event. We still seem to be a long way behind developments elsewhere. It is a critical area and if the Chief State Solicitor says he is losing skilled staff and that his professional staff are being paid as low as or less than clerical staff, we must address the situation as a matter of urgency. As I recall the Department of Finance also fought the NTMA which, in hindsight, we all admit is a success. I am trying to find out the level of urgency on this issue in the Department of Finance.

Mr. Howard

We accept that the Office of the Chief State Solicitor is of critical importance. I talk to the Department of Education and Science which tells me it is critically important - in fact, unique. The Department of Foreign Affairs is certainly unique.

Deputy Rabbitte

We know that.

Mr. Howard

The Department of Public Enterprise is unique, and so it goes on. No matter what the situation, the instinctive reaction of public servants seems to be to throw more staff at it. We like to think that priorities need to be examined. There must be low priority and redundant items, but is very, very hard to get Departments or Offices to recognise this or do anything about it. Everybody is unique and has a good case. Despite current economic circumstances, we do not have a bottomless well. We cannot solve problems of recruitment by just throwing more money at people. In the legal area there is no way the State can compete, or perhaps wishes to compete, with rates being paid in private practices where the client pays.

Deputy Rabbitte

I understand that, but does this mean, for example, that in 20 years time the Office of the Chief State Solicitor could be comprised of the less aggressive and assertive performers in the profession? It would be very serious for us if we were to have a lot of third division players in the office.

Mr. Howard

We would certainly be concerned if that were to happen. Perhaps the idea of public service is no longer fashionable. Who knows what the situation may be in 20 years' time?

Deputy Rabbitte

How does the Garda Síochána fit into this on the criminal side? To what extent are the delays about which one hears a function of the difficulties which Mr. Buckley is encountering in his office and to what extent are they a comment on the efficacy of policing?

Mr. Buckley

We only come into it when we receive a statement or file from the Garda. The time factors are reasonable in my opinion. I do not know whether Members are aware that there is limited industrial action in my office.

Deputy Rabbitte

We are aware of that.

Mr. Buckley

The action has arisen from staff being overworked and the lack of grades. That is the information communicated to me by the trade union, IMPACT. The action is the subject of negotiation. Talks are ongoing which may address the bottom scale in the office. A meeting is due to be held on this issue this evening between our office, the Office of the Attorney General, the Department of Finance and the union.

Deputy Rabbitte

Would it be appropriate for Ms Flanagan to comment on the phenomenon we have been discussing vis-à-vis the CSSO? Is she concerned about its capacity to efficiently discharge its duties in the context of the pressures exerted on it nowadays?

Ms Flanagan

Absolutely. The Attorney General is also very concerned about this issue. The Office of the Chief State Solicitor is a key part of the State's legal service and breakdowns there will result in serious situations arising. There is now more litigation than ever. I do not know that there would be redundant staff in the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. Many mass claims are upcoming, such as the hearing loss and childhood abuse cases. These are very large claims which will have to be dealt with. As mentioned, there was a large claim which the office simply felt it could not take on and that went to the private sector. This is certainly a serious matter.

Deputy Rabbitte

The important issue we spent all morning discussing, which was appropriately highlighted by the Comptroller and Auditor General, is peanuts in comparison to this, is it not?

Ms Flanagan

Yes, it is very important that good staff who would provide a quality service for the State in the long-term could be recruited. It is difficult to recruit such staff at current pay levels.

Deputy Rabbitte

What did Mr. Aylward mean when he said that the Prison Service's problems with the Department of Finance had been solved?

Mr. Aylward

For many years, those of us who worked in that area within the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform felt we were grossly understaffed.

Deputy Rabbitte

Who do you mean by "we"?

Mr. Aylward

I refer to the fact that, in a prior incarnation, I was a principal officer in that division. We knew the prisons' division of the Department was badly understaffed. The division was coping with a rising prison population and substantial responsibilities in regard to sentence and operational management of the prisons. Subsequent to the decision to appoint me as Director General following the competition which was held, I commenced negotiations with the Department of Finance and, while I did not get everything I looked for, I succeeding in getting a substantial increase in the sanctioned authorised staffing for that side of things. Detailed recruitment matters still remain to be addressed but I wanted to make it clear that I feel our demands were reasonably met by the Department of Finance in regard to this issue. I might have said something very different two years ago.

Chairman

On paragraph 20, the committee must note its serious concern at the bad handling of a particular case. It is, as ever, distressing and unsatisfactory that no individual can be held responsible for this significant loss of public funds. We have already decided to seek a report within three months from the Department of Finance on the issue of personal injury claims against the State. We note paragraph 20 and will resume our considerations when the Secretary General becomes available.

Vote 13 - Office of the Attorney General.

Chairman

Does the Comptroller wish to comment on this?

Mr. Purcell

No, the next paragraph relates to Vote 18 on the Office of the Chief State Solicitor.

Chairman

On the general question of the Office of the Attorney General, is Ms Flanagan satisfied that systems are in place which will minimise the likelihood of any lapses occurring, such as happened some years ago?

Ms Flanagan

The Office underwent a major reorganisation between 1995 and 1997 under Mr. Dermot Gleeson. The reorganisation was based on the report of a review group. All of the report's recommendations have been implemented. We now have a management advisory committee, a joint management advisory committee with the Office of the Chief State Solicitor, a head of administration, strategy statements and so on.

Prior to 1995, the Office was effectively divided into a legal and clerical section. We now have a legal management and administration section and a clerical section, essentially a full management structure. We have followed up on the reorganisation which was carried out. The former Attorney General, Mr. David Byrne, voluntarily agreed to be bound by the Public Service Management Act. That was not compulsory under the Act. We have a full administrative budget system so that, in effect, we are now on an equal footing in that respect with other Departments.

This year, a review of the organisation or drafting process of the parliamentary draftsman's office was carried out. The review's findings will be implemented in the near future. We have a new administrative file management system with administrative correspondence tracking and we have established a partnership committee. We are about to embark on a new IT plan and there have been some initiatives in the Office in this regard such as the CD-ROM project in which all statutes and statutory instruments since 1922 have been put on CD-ROM and are available on the Internet. That is accepted by everyone as being very useful. The office has also been involved in a Civil Service-wide drafting software package which would mean that legislation could be drafted using the same software. This would greatly facilitate handling of legislative drafting.

Chairman

And help repetitive sections to be transferred to new Acts. The level of lawyers' fees greatly exercises the public's mind. What is your Office or the Attorney General's office doing to reduce the level of fees? Fees of £1,500 and £2,000 per day appear to the public to be extortionary rates, particularly in the case of tribunals which can go on for a long time. Lawyers may have nothing to do for a whole day and still get paid a very large sum of money. Is there a better or cheaper way of dealing with this issue? At a public event recently, a senior counsel who is appearing at a tribunal came up to me and said, "Deputy Mitchell, the Irish State is most generous.". He meant they were getting away with murder and were laughing all the way to the bank. Is anything being done to reduce legal costs?

Ms Flanagan

In relation to tribunals, fees are set by the Department of Finance in consultation with the Attorney General. As you will be aware, these fees are dictated by market forces. We are very careful and make every effort to keep the fees as low as possible.

Chairman

Market forces have been mentioned before. It does not gel with me that this issue relates to market forces. It is a very closed shop and much more costly than that which pertains in London, for instance. The daily costs involved in the Scott inquiry were a lot less. I believe that market forces is just an excuse. We are paying what are seen to be obscene rates. This is a scandal in the eyes of the public and some counsel seem to agree. However, while the cheque is there to be collected, they will collect it. Bearing in mind what the Chief State Solicitor said about the salaries paid to other professionals in the public service, there is something seriously wrong. Something needs to be done.

Ms Flanagan

Counsel who are briefed in the tribunals are generally very much in demand. I presume this is where market forces come in. In relation to other fees, guidelines have been set down and if these are exceeded, sanction from the Department of Finance is required. We are careful to ensure this happens.

Chairman

Do you agree that the fees are very high? If we talk about fees of £1,500 per day, which would appear to be in the lower level for senior counsel, that amounts to £7,500 for a five day week. We would get into telephone numbers if we multiplied this by 48 working weeks in the year. People are being paid several times as much as the President and many times the Attorney General's salary for just one case while they have other cases running in tandem. There must be some fresh thought on how to contain this problem.

Ms Flanagan

A very small number of counsel are paid these very large fees. By and large, counsel who are paid for appearing on behalf of the State earn a lot less. These sums of money are not typical.

Chairman

I wonder if this is true. Are you saying that other senior counsel are available at a lower rate?

Ms Flanagan

I do not know, not perhaps for tribunals. However, in relation to other litigation where the State pays fees, the amounts earned by counsel would be far less. They would not be paid at that daily rate.

Chairman

Have Department of Finance officials anything to say? Is there any fresh thinking on how to contain these obscene costs?

Mr. O’Farrell

All our information tends to corroborate what Ms Flanagan has said. This is the market rate for a top senior counsel. As Deputy Rabbitte said, it would not be value for money to have a third division player at the most important cases from the point of view of the State. I am not talking about tribunals that go on for a long time, but the serious civil and legal cases. As Ms Flanagan mentioned, any claims that are referred to the Department of Finance for sanction are mega. I am not a lawyer, therefore I do not know what would constitute a major case. However, to a lay person, these would be very serious cases with major consequences for the State at stake. In relation to the case referred to earlier, where big money is involved, it would not be value for money to seek a reduction in fees. Regarding tribunals, I believe the number and duration of tribunals is the big issue rather than the individual rates paid to counsel.

Chairman

Surely the fact that a daily rate is paid means that many people have a vested interest in the case going on for longer, because the longer it goes on, the richer they become. These people have a vested interest in prolonging the case. This seems to be a very bad way to organise matters whereas if there was a set fee for the case, it may well be that cases would not go on for so long or be as expensive. I say this because some counsel believe that the State has organised its affairs very badly. It is not just the State's lawyers who are being paid by the State, other lawyers are also being paid. Counsel for the public interest usually has very little to do but he or she receives a daily fee. This is an additional cost. Counsel for the tribunal must be paid. This issue needs to be addressed more robustly. Why can we not retain a number of senior counsel on an annual salary or retention fee who will be obliged to act for the State? There must be cheaper ways of dealing with this matter. Should the Department of Finance be leading on this issue?

Mr. O’Farrell

If a proposal such as that was being considered, the Department of Finance would be involved. However, I believe the issue of the retention of counsel would be the responsibility of the Attorney General's office.

Chairman

That is one issue. During the Scott tribunal in the UK, staff barristers acted for both sides. There were only two counsel involved who were paid a staff salary, not a daily fee. This has many advantages in terms of cost and speed. I ask Ms Flanagan, as the new Director General, to give this matter some consideration. I would like a study carried out in this area to see what can be done. Perhaps Ms Flanagan would write to the committee within two months indicating how the issue might be addressed or reviewed.

Ms Flanagan

As regards general fees as distinct from special fees for tribunals, the Attorney General pays less than what is perceived to be the market rate. Of the 422 counsel paid in 1998 only nine received more than £100,000. A great number of counsel would be earning much less than that amount.

Chairman

Could you identify a few of the poor counsel for me? Can you name anybody who is earning as little as yourself? Perhaps you could write to us before the beginning of April on this point.

Deputy C. Lenihan

Is it true that one of the appointees to the Supreme Court would have been making in excess of £1 million in private practice?

Deputy Rabbitte

I do not think that is——

Deputy C. Lenihan

Is that the ball park figure for a senior counsel? The Department of Finance say such counsel do not come cheap and that if one wants a premier league lawyer one has to pay big fees. Would it be conceivable that a top lawyer would make over £1 million a year?

Ms Flanagan

The earnings of private practitioners are not something I would feel free to speak about.

Deputy C. Lenihan

You would have some idea; you are paying the fees.

Deputy Durkan

A person has the right to seek the best technical and professional advice available. One can get all kinds of advice at a price and you will pay for what you seek. That is the way the law stands. Unless you employ, on a salary basis, the individual qualified for such jobs there is no other way around the situation. A person going into hospital wants the best professional attention available. He or she will rightly have to pay for that service unless such people are professionally engaged by the institution on an ongoing basis.

Chairman

There is a parallel issue. Consultants providing a public service in hospitals are paid salaries. We should look towards something similar in the case of lawyers. I would be surprised if the Bar Council were not disposed to taking a look at this issue. We should try to make an arrangement whereby the Bar Council would agree that some lawyers could be retained to do work for the State in the same way as medical consultants do. We will think about how such a task might be approached because it is something which scandalises the general public.

Vote noted.

Vote 18 - Office of the Chief State Solicitor.

Chairman

We will be getting a report from the Department of Finance in relation to claims. This affects both Votes. I was alarmed about the staffing issue. I take on board what Mr. Howard said that throwing money at things is not always the answer. It is always the demand but not always the answer. Perhaps we could ask Mr. Buckley to write to us by 3 April informing us of the up to date situation.

Mr. Buckley

I will not be there, I am retiring on 1 March.

Deputy Durkan

That is the ultimate response.

Chairman

You appear unusually happy about that prospect. I wish you every happiness and success in your retirement. You will probably earn a fortune after you retire.

Deputy Rabbitte

You should bring the salary changes forward before Mr. Buckley retires, in all fairness.

Chairman

Perhaps someone from your office would let us have a note by 2 April on the up to date position. I would like some assurances that some changes are in place to prevent a return a situation where we end up paying twice what we need to pay.

Paragraph 14 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

Irregular Encashment of Cheques

Fees paid to counsel or costs awarded against the State are processed through the Chief State Solicitor's Office - CSSO. In general where costs are awarded the relevant cheques, whether drawn directly from the CSSO or from other Departments-offices, are issued under cover of a letter signed by an official in the CSSO and are made payable to named solicitors or counsel.

In October 1998, following a complaint to the CSSO by a private solicitor about the non-receipt of payment due in respect of costs it was discovered that cheques issued from the office were being cashed irregularly. In some instances the cheques concerned were generated correctly on foot of proper claims but never reached the payee, while in other instances duplicate and fictitious cheques were generated for the purposes of irregular encashment. The cheques were cashed in a licensed premises and, although crossed, were subsequently accepted by the bank for lodgment to the business's account. The Garda investigation into the matter indicated that 135 cheques, with a value of approximately £61,000, had been so irregularly cashed in the period January 1996 to October 1998. The investigation suggested that the irregular transactions had been carried on for some years prior to 1996, but details of numbers and amounts involved were difficult to ascertain. A member of the staff has been suspended on part pay.

In response to my inquiries the accounting officer informed me that the gardaí were carrying out a thorough examination of all documentation relating to the alleged irregularities and it was his understanding that a considerable amount of investigation work remained to be done as the investigation covers a period of six years; a preliminary review of payment control procedures indicated that inadequate segregation of duties within the office generally in the procedure for requisitioning and issuing cheques to counsel and solicitors and a lack of computerised checks on the issue of duplicate payments facilitated the alleged irregularity. New computer based checking routines had now been implemented in the general accounts area to provide comprehensive checking facilities. Total segregation of duties would require additional staff resources which are not available at present. A further possibility, also under consideration, is to have all Departments-offices issue cheques, in respect of both costs and awards, direct to the solicitor involved rather than routing them through his office. A more detailed review of this matter will be carried out when the results of the Garda investigation become available, and any further procedural changes deemed necessary will be put in place; internally, he had endeavoured to ascertain, through a limited sample, if cheques were irregularly cashed at outlets other than the particular licensed premises. Neither the gardaí nor his office had come across any irregular encashment anywhere other than at the one licensed premises. That being so, he could only conclude that the irregular encashments through the licensed premises represented the full extent of the misappropriations. The gardaí are still endeavouring to obtain details of possible irregularities prior to January 1996, but a number of factors including the disposal of some older records is making this difficult. He had no current knowledge as to how that part of the investigation is progressing; he proposes to seek full recovery of the amounts irregularly cashed and formal legal advice is awaited on this matter.

Mr. Purcell

Paragraph 14 refers to a financial irregularity in the Office of the Chief State Solicitor and involved a member of staff cashing cheques made payable to firms of solicitors for costs awarded against the State and also cashing duplicate cheques which appear to have been spuriously requisitioned by him. The irregularity came to light when a firm of solicitors did not receive their cost cheque and on inquiry it was established that the cheque had been issued and cashed. The staff member involved admitted this misappropriation and refunded the amount but was suspended pending further investigation. At the date of my report, the Garda investigation indicates that 135 cheques to a total value of approximately £61,000 had been irregularity cashed by the staff member through his local pub. The irregularity was facilitated by inadequate separation of duties in the cost accounts section and by the lack of a computer check to detect duplicate payments. The computer check has since been implemented but as I understand it the procedural changes have not yet been put in place. Apparently the office is awaiting the outcome of the Garda investigation before finalising action on this aspect. There may also be some difficulty about enforcing a separation of duties regime when there are very few people in certain sections.

My information is that a file on the matter has been sent by the Garda to the DPP. I do not know if the total value of the irregularities has been determined as there would be difficulties on this score because the activity may have been going on for some time. What I find surprising about an irregularity of this nature is that it remained undetected for so long. One would have expected one or other of the intended receivers of the cheques to complain when the money was not received within a reasonable time frame. Clearly once that happens the game is up and that is precisely what occurred.

Chairman

How did this happen over such a long period?

Mr. Buckley

The method by which it was carried out was quite difficult to detect. People whom one would expect to contact us complaining they had not received their money did not do so probably as a result of inadequate bookkeeping methods in their offices. Offices which had large workloads were selected and as a result cheques were not missed. Ghost accounts were opened in cases where previous accounts had been paid. As the C & AG said, we have corrected that problem by obtaining a software package which detects second payments. We did not have that in place at the time of the irregularities. Another method involved taking cheques from envelopes. We have tried to separate that function and have also introduced a system where the person handling the file has to authorise the payment out. It puts a second person into the loop. It is a very sad situation.

Chairman

Does it involve only one member of staff?

Mr. Buckley

Yes, as far as we can ascertain.

Chairman

Is he still on the books?

Mr. Buckley

He is suspended on 70% pay. We have initiated disciplinary procedures and are seeking to remove the person. The decision will be referred to Government.

Chairman

We are talking about 15 or 16 months ago. It is a long time.

Mr. Buckley

It is.

Chairman

Why is it taking so long to deal with it?

Mr. Buckley

The Garda investigation was only completed in September.

Chairman

Is a prosecution pending?

Mr. Buckley

The papers are with the DPP.

Chairman

In relation to payment by cheque, were these crossed cheques?

Mr. Buckley

They were payable orders from the Paymaster General.

Chairman

Were they crossed?

Mr. Buckley

Yes.

Chairman

They still belonged to the bank?

Mr. Buckley

Yes, they were marked "non-negotiable".

Chairman

There were deficiencies.

Mr. Buckley

My advice is that the money is recoverable.

Deputy C. Lenihan

I would like to wish Mr. Buckley well in his retirement.

Chairman

Yes, we wish him every happiness in his retirement. We will note the Vote and we thank Mr. Buckley for his long and distinguished public service.

Vote 14 - Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Chairman

This is Mr. Donoghue's first time before the committee. We had some problems with the speed at which things were dealt with in the DPP's office. What system is now in place to ensure files are dealt with effectively and efficiently?

Mr. Donoghue

Until last year there was a manual file tracking system which ensured cases were dealt with speedily. If action had not been taken on a file, it would be questioned and inquiries made about what was happening. Since the beginning of this year that system has operated on a computerised basis. Our central register is now computerised and tracks files in that way. We monitor the passage of files through the office and the average length of time a case takes has not changed. The average time is nine or ten days from receipt of file to direction, although that is an average, some complicated cases will take longer. We feel that is a reasonable time frame having regard to the staff we have. Including the director, there are 14 legal staff and 20 general service staff. There are two posts in the office unfilled at the moment. They will be filled shortly.

The number of files received is increasing slightly every year. In the year under examination, 6,800 files were received, an average of 540 per legal staff member. While the number of files has not increased by much, the size and complexity of those files has increased. I had reason to review a murder file from the 1970s which was roughly 30 A4 pages. Now murder files which arrive in the office run into many volumes because of the number of things the police must cover in an investigation. Last year we produced an annual report which contained statistics and general information on our work. That was our first report and we are now compiling our second report which should be published in the middle of the year.

Chairman

The instructions of the Office were not carried out following a recent rape allegation and the charge was dropped as a result. How will the Office ensure that will not happen again?

Mr. Donoghue

The director gave a full report on the matter to the Attorney General. That report was published. It set out procedures which should be put in place to prevent that recurring. I understand those procedures have been put in place in the Office of the Chief State Solicitor.

Earlier there was a question about the purpose of transferring the criminal division from the Office of the Chief State Solicitor to our office. That was a recommendation made by a high level group which reported on the prosecution service last year. The previous director had been of the opinion that there should be a unified prosecution service in which the direction and the carrying out of the direction should be under the control of the director. The study group came up with a half-way house - the transferral of the criminal section of the Chief State Solicitor's office to our office. Resources, however, are a big issue. If the divisions in the Chief State Solicitor's office were transferred without an increase in resources, it would not solve the problem. If there is a new office of solicitor to the DPP, answerable to the DPP, working from one location, it will reduce the number of communication errors which might occur in the system.

Chairman

Are there meetings at high level between the DPP's office and the Garda Síochána to discuss practice, procedure and methods?

Mr. Donoghue

There is constant contact between the Office and the Garda Síochána. We attend courses it holds and we give training lectures. We also communicate through circulars. If a new Act is introduced, a circular will be sent to the Garda Síochána about the legal implications. That would be drafted in our Office but sent out by the Garda Síochána. Many circulars go to the gardaí through our Office concerning legal advice and procedures.

Chairman

At director level, is there a view that there are inefficiencies or new concerns to be addressed? Regularly the gardaí will say a file has been sent to the DPP. Sometimes it appears that the gardaí had no case in the first place. Would it concern the Office if a file of no substance is sent as a cover for wrongful action by the gardaí?

Mr. Donoghue

That has never happened. Occasionally the gardaí will send us files where there may not be much evidence but, because of the sensitivity of the case, they would prefer us to decide the issue. Apart from that narrow range of cases we have never had experience of cases being sent to us as a cover.

Chairman

What about publicity? There was a claim against the State in one case. Are the rules to prevent the gardaí from tipping off the press about cases, leading to costs for the State?

Mr. Donoghue

I do not know Garda policy on that. We are separate from the Garda Síochána and we do not interact about its policy. We have no control over Garda press relations.

Chairman

Even if it affects the State's case or costs it money?

Mr. Donoghue

I am not aware of any criminal case where that has been relevant.

Chairman

The famous Hanahoe case related to a criminal case.

Mr. Donoghue

That was essentially a civil case. A civil matter arose from the case but it did not concern us because no criminal case was prejudiced as part of the Garda investigation.

Deputy C. Lenihan

Would the DPP's office not send a circular to the Garda press office?

Mr. Donoghue

Apart from that one case, it has not been an issue. We will look at the issue and discuss it with senior gardaí.

Chairman

We will note Vote 14. Mr. Buckley is leaving and there are two new Accounting Officers in the Attorney General's office and the DPP's office. We will give them a much harder time next month.

The witnesses withdrew.

Vote 2 - Houses of the Oireachtas and the European Parliament.

Chairman

I welcome the Clerk of the Dáil, Mr. Kieran Coughlan, who is the Accounting Officer. I apologise for keeping you waiting, Mr. Coughlan. Would you like to make a brief opening statement and introduce your accompanying officials?

Mr. Coughlan

I am accompanied by Mr. Conan McKenna, head of administration, Ms Elaine Gunn, the Finance officer, Mr. Conor Ó Raghallaigh, senior clerk in the finance unit, and Ms Máirín Devlin who is our procurement officer and is attached to the finance unit for this exercise.

Although it is not the usual practice, I would like to make a few brief opening remarks. We are all aware of the significance of the report of the sub-committee in relation to the DIRT issue. The inquiry process is seen, generally, as having been very successful. I know our staff took great pride in their input to the inquiry. Our senior management team and I are also very proud of that input and of the way our people, the committee staff and the Office as a whole, rose to that occasion. We have come to expect extraordinary effort from our staff when faced with ongoing and new demands. While the DIRT inquiry process was a very visible example of this and was unique in its intensity, it was not the only one.

We are a small and very tightly resourced operation and the only way we can rise to a demanding occasion is by depending on the goodwill of our staff to put themselves completely at the disposal of the Office. That is what happens when a £40 million organisation has the brief of supporting parliamentary scrutiny and accountability of the Government - a £15 billion collective organisation. Of course, accountability is not the only function of Parliament; it is the legislative body as well. Even within our £40 million budget, our freedom of expenditure is severely constrained in that 57% of the total budget is made up of Members and staff pay and pensions which are non-discretionary areas, a further 31% is represented by Members expenses, post and telephone costs, parliamentary printing and televising, services which are essential and from which funds cannot easily be diverted. In real terms, the level of expenditure within our budget which can be regarded as discretionary is in the region of £5 million, only 12% of the budget for the year 2000. This mainly represents the budget for IT and office equipment for Members and administration, office premises expenses and travel for Members and support staff within the administration.

Against that relatively low budget base line from the administrative perspective the DIRT inquiry highlighted a number of issues, which are referred to in the report. I would like to focus briefly on one of those and that is the issue of resourcing. The sub-committee's report mentions the need for a parliamentary commission arrangement to run the Houses, similar to that which operates in the House of Commons. In fact, as we mentioned at our last appearance before the Committee of Public Accounts, we have been looking at this issue for some time and a working group of our own staff is examining practices in some other parliaments.

One of the things which has emerged from this research is that, when it comes to resources, the Houses of the Oireachtas are at the bottom of the league table among EU national parliaments. In respect of two key indicators, the average amount of budget per Member and the number of staff per Member, the average number of staff per Member is 2.55 whereas our figure is 1.2 and, among the same parliaments, the average parliamentary budget per Member is roughly £0.38 million while our figure is £0.18 million. In other words, if these are accepted as two valid indicators of our parliamentary resources, the Irish Parliament is less than half the average in both cases. In virtually all cases examined there is some type of autonomous commission or bureau, chaired at Speaker or Deputy Speaker level, which runs the parliament. In addition, in virtually all cases examined the parliament and not the executive compiles and decides on the parliamentary budget. It is at least a valid preliminary conclusion that there must be some relationship between the level of parliamentary resources and the existence of a commission and budgetary autonomy.

While internationally, our parliamentary budget is comparatively very low, in the Irish budgetary context the Parliament has been doing reasonably well. There has been a 37% increase in resources since 1996, for instance. However, real though the increases are, they do not tend to go to the central administration of Parliament to develop and modernise essential services. The most striking example of this is in the research area to which I referred at my last appearance. We have five library staff, the same number since 1975, while the equivalent staff in a similar sized parliament, Belgium, is more than 45. At the same time party financial support through the Leader's allowance for research and other activities increased by 230% in 1996. The level of funding for parties and Members is justified, nobody would deny that. However, there has to be a corresponding increase of resources for the central administration of Parliament.

In passing I have to say that the resources issue is broader in terms of policy dimension than the usual perceived bogeyman of the Department of Finance. We have very good relations with that Department and we have been reasonably successful in acquiring resources during the 1990s. For example, staff numbers have grown by 30% during the past ten years, but what is required now if the Parliament is to meet the expectations highlighted by your report is a fundamental and seismic shift in the attitude to funding the Houses. To match the average EU national parliament in resources in the key areas identified, the Parliament would need to increase its budget by more than 110%, to £85 million - up to £380,000 per Member - and its core staff complement by more than 110% to 575 people. This is quite a challenge and something which I think all interests involved will recognise is not going to happen in the normal course of annual budget negotiations.

If and when this seismic shift happens, in whole or in part, it will bring with it major additional demands on the organisation in terms of corporate governance, best practice in financial and management information and controls. These are areas with which we are already proceeding and we have recently made a full submission to the Department of Finance on the development needs of our financial function which includes additional staff over a three year period and additional funding for consultancy assistance to enable us to take full advantage of this initiative which, it is hoped, will result in a greatly enhanced financial control function and greater efficiency.

I hope that future examinations of our appropriation account by this committee will be in the context of changes in a direction which might bring us more in line with other parliaments and leave us in a position to field major projects, like the DIRT inquiry, without having to put entire parts of our organisation on ice for weeks on end in order to provide the necessary resources.

Chairman

What is your view of a commission to run the Houses of the Oireachtas?

Mr. Coughlan

In general, if one is interested in developing Parliament it is an inevitable step. It would have to be very carefully considered because there are constitutional issues regarding funding arrangements and the constitutional role of the Executive vis-à-vis Parliament. There are legal issues which I understand are being examined by the Attorney General’s office.

Chairman

This is in the light of the DIRT inquiry report?

Mr. Coughlan

Yes.

Chairman

We are not dealing with the 1999 Vote but you have referred to the DIRT inquiry report and the work of the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas. I cannot say loudly or strongly enough how much I appreciate the enormous contribution that was made by the entire staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas and the way they rose to the occasion in support of the inquiry. I wish to express publicly the committee's appreciation of that. A great job was done by all the staff, in particular by our own clerk and his staff who worked endless hours far beyond the call of duty but also the rest of the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas who performed tremendously well with an enthusiasm, commitment and effectiveness which I and the committee greatly appreciate. We appreciate your own support and advice and the arrangements that were made through the Public Accounts Committee administration under Mr. McKenna. The inquiry could not have been as successful without that support.

Deputy Rabbitte

All members wish to be associated with those remarks and to thank everybody for the manner in which they put their shoulders to the wheel. In the case of the clerk of the committee and the staff, it would be the view of the committee, a view that was informally expressed at different times during the hearing, that the appreciation ought to be expressed more tangibly than in fine words. One section of the staff that seemed to be highly skilled and performed trojan work was the stenographers, if that is the correct term——

Mr. Coughlan

Parliamentary reporters.

Deputy Rabbitte

——the parliamentary reporters who produced the reports and put them on the system. There is a view that we dramatically cut back the committee system but we did not do that and these people are under great pressure to provide transcripts of various committee meetings, consistent with demand. If a Bill is being processed, as my committee is doing at present, it would be nice to have the transcripts before the committee meets again. It is difficult to meet that demand given the constraints the staff are under at present. I do not know if anything is being contemplated in that area.

Mr. Coughlan

Clearly the existing resources could not cope with that. They are broken down in a manner in which legislation and Estimates, which subsequently go on to be considered in the House, are given priority as regards edited material. Other meetings are being reported without being edited. In order to meet the full function, one would need a number of posts even at the assistant editor level. One would need an editor and more parliamentary reporters. The figure of 13 extra staff has been mentioned to meet that.

Deputy Rabbitte

Is anything in train?

Mr. Coughlan

Not in the immediate sense but it is part of the basket of requests.

Deputy Rabbitte

Is there a plan with the Department of Finance or is a plan being worked on?

Mr. Coughlan

There is.

Deputy Durkan

We should again note the efficiency and alacrity with which the staff of the Houses assisted and were instrumental in the production of the report. There are more competing demands on staff now than there were prior to the introduction and proliferation of the committee system. Even when the House is not sitting, the committees are sitting. Four and sometimes more committees meet during the week and that puts a burden of responsibility on the staff. It is essential, as Deputy Rabbitte said, that the full value of their worth is recognised; otherwise people cannot be expected to do this work. In addition, as the Accounting Officer said, a course must be charted of what requirements are likely to be in the future, recognising that industry and public administration outside the House are advancing in those areas and the House has to advance to be able to compete. If one is going to set a standard, it must be set at this level. We should not be trailing behind others in terms of the facilities that are available to us. If it does not happen at this level, it will not happen at any other level.

Mr. Coughlan

We have a review group on the DIRT inquiry to build up a framework so that if there were another inquiry within a year, the essential requirements would be known. There is a green field situation in this regard and many obstacles were overcome.

Chairman

Is there a review group?

Mr. Coughlan

Yes.

Chairman

I presume it will seek our comments.

Mr. Coughlan

They will be sought. The original administration group is carrying on.

Chairman

We will have some suggestions.

Deputy C. Lenihan

I am curious to know how much you spent on IT. The modern office has been transformed in the private sector, whatever about the public sector. Members had problems over the last session with computers going down. They went down sporadically over the last few weeks in the engineering block. I am not imputing blame to anybody in this regard because I suspect the IT unit is vastly under-resourced and needs more money. I want to get a picture of what is happening there because it is important for the proper development of offices for TDs.

Mr. Coughlan

It is a key area. A sum of £800,000 was spent on it and there is a staff of five. The unit effectively has 610 clients. As conditions have improved for both staff and Members they are now servicing two state of the art PCs for each Member whereas four years ago it was only one. It is a similar case with staff. As things improve the staff complement has not changed greatly. There is a help desk as well. We employ a company to run the help desk but even that is proving inadequate at this stage. There are cabling problems and so forth. Nevertheless, the system is expanding into ISDN lines for Members at home to bring them up to speed. The system is beginning to creak a little but there is also difficulty in recruiting staff for those areas.

Deputy C. Lenihan

You spoke about the House of Commons and the independence of the parliamentary institution. Is it true that our system it is not as independent of Government?

Mr. Coughlan

That is right in respect of financial autonomy.

Deputy C. Lenihan

I wish to refer to something about which I and probably the other members of the committee have a bee in our bonnets. If we put in a freedom of information request, we can secure more information from a Department than through putting down a parliamentary question. In Westminster, however, a parliamentary question is treated with the same feral instinct as a FOI request. People run to answer the question and the Executive must respond to it. Is it your impression, comparing us with Westminster, that we are in a type of Executive overload situation, that the Executive has less accountability than is the case in the Westminster system?

Mr. Coughlan

It really is the time frame. There are four days to turn around a reply to a parliamentary question while there are up to four months to deal with a freedom of information request. Obviously, one can provide more extensive information for a FOI request. Nevertheless, there seems to be a different attitude to replying to parliamentary questions than to FOI requests. One could get the same information with a different time lag by changing Standing Orders. It is as simple as that. It would probably be impossible to get the same level of information as under a freedom of information request within four days from a Department. There are now up to 26,000 questions per year. The number has mushroomed out of all proportion and that is another factor.

Deputy C. Lenihan

It is hard to convey the difference but you must know it because, presumably, you have been to Westminster. I had the privilege of working there as a reporter at one stage. When the parliamentary question is put down, it is treated by Ministers and Departments as something to which they must reply. There is some legal or constitutional imperative with regard to a parliamentary question in Westminster which does not appear to exist in our system. In other words, there is a slightly dismissive attitude to parliamentary questions that as little information as possible should be given.

Mr. Coughlan

I would not like to think it was dismissive. That is not our——

Deputy C. Lenihan

No, I am not suggesting that on the part of your staff. I am talking about the departmental attitude.

Mr. Coughlan

I have not detected that the Departments are dismissive of them.

Deputy Rabbitte

Are the new premises on target?

Chairman

We will come to that in a minute. We are dealing with parliamentary questions.

Deputy C. Lenihan

I was referring to the difference in Westminster. There is a legal constitutional endorsement in the Westminster system.

Mr. Coughlan

There is. I do not want to talk about the staff situation but Westminster has a lot of staff. Departments have a standardised way of answering PQs which probably is not as informative as it should be. It seems to get caught up in the adversarial aspect of politics that is engaged in on the floor of the House. Rather than giving information it seems to be more of a strategy statement vis-à-vis their own Ministry. That is the impression one gets sometimes.

Deputy C. Lenihan

What requirement would we need to implement? A new consolidating Bill, a Houses of the Oireachtas Bill?

Mr. Coughlan

Just change Standing Orders and make them more effective. All the problems with departmental questions rest on Standing Orders 33 and 34. Perhaps a more explicit Standing Order.

Chairman

What committee of the House would be responsible? Would it be the Committee on Procedure and Privileges?

Mr. Coughlan

Dáil reform.

Chairman

The Dáil reform committee.

Mr. Coughlan

Yes. It is a standing sub-committee of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. It is now entrusted with bringing in parliamentary reforms. It would want to be linked to the same standard of information as FOI - that could be written into it - but obviously it would have to be on a different time scale.

Chairman

On parliamentary questions, last year you submitted a list of Departments that were not meeting the deadlines for reply. Do you have any up to date information?

Mr. Coughlan

I understand there has been an improvement in the delivery of the replies. All but one Department now sends out the replies electronically. When I appeared before the committee on the last occasion, at least four or five Departments were not on line but most of them are now on line, bar one.

Chairman

Justice is about to do that.

Mr. Coughlan

Yes.

Chairman

But is that Department meeting the time deadline?

Mr. Coughlan

It is better. I understand it is not completely up to scratch in all cases but it is much better.

Chairman

We have been asking them to come in about it. Perhaps you would let us have an up to date report.

Mr. Coughlan

I certainly will. I think your questions have been very effective in that regard.

Chairman

That is the intention. Perhaps you would let us have an up to date report so that we can pursue the Departments that are not meeting the deadline. We see parliamentary questions as very connected to our job here of public accountability. They are a key part of public accountability.

Deputy C. Lenihan

It is rather puzzling that if I ask a question as a member of this committee I generally get factual, timely and accurate information back from Departments by way of an information note or whatever. When I ask the same question in the form of a PQ, however, I get some sort of strategic mumbo jumbo in reply. That is the discrepancy in the system.

Chairman

I know the Departments' instincts are to give the minimal amount of information, and Ministers will be so advised. They will contest, unknown to the Minister, the permissibility of questions and they will argue with the questions office, etc. There should be a general rule that the questions are permitted and if they want to contest them, they should do so publicly. If they are subsequently found to be wrong about a case, the Ceann Comhairle can take it up with the Department so that it does not happen again.

Mr. Coughlan

It is surprising that the public services management Act has not come into the system yet. With the various SMI projects and so on, direct statutory responsibility for many areas is given to officials rather than the Minister. One would expect the committees would bring in the officials from those particular areas and leave the general policy political questions in the Dáil. More questions might be dealt with that way.

Deputy Durkan

There is a danger in that. In my time in this House there has been a shift along the lines suggested by Deputy Lenihan in relation to the degree to which information is readily available by way of reply to a parliamentary question. On my very first day in the House, a senior Member of the House made particular reference to the need to protect the right of Members to ask a parliamentary question and get a reply. That still prevails in the United Kingdom to a much greater extent than it does here. In recent times my desk has been covered with refusals, for one technical reason or another. I find that interesting because my colleagues and I would have learned some of the rudiments of procedures to be able to identify what was and was not in order. It is interesting also that, having resubmitted a question two days later, the question is answered. If it was out of order the first time one would think it would be out of order the second time, for whatever reason. It may well be the case that Departments generally want to give as little information as possible, but in some cases they may want to give information. I would like Departments to state in the reply that they do not have responsibility to answer a question.

Chairman

That is a little outside our remit but it is connected to the whole question of accountability. How do we progress this matter?

Mr. Coughlan

The criteria for allowing questions are the same in the Commons as they are here in terms of statutory responsibility and so on. A Minister for a new body has to say on record that he has no function in the matter. He actually has to go in and say that.

Chairman

Here in the Dáil?

Mr. Coughlan

Yes, and that is what creates the precedent. The Ceann Comhairle does not just accept the interpretation of the statute. As members know, over the years the Oireachtas has delegated many departmental functions to the State-sponsored bodies. There was a minor change in Standing Orders recently to allow questions to be asked about Government policy on State-sponsored bodies. That was an extension of that but it still does not get at the day to day activity.

Deputy Durkan

My philosophy is that if a Minister has a responsibility towards a body or bodies and is accountable to the House, the question should be answered if put in that context. Otherwise the House of the Oireachtas is relinquishing the right to question something that happens further down the line. We can quote chapter and verse about controversial cases which are raised on the floor of the House, but it should not happen that way. It should be possible to be able to get that information in the first instance. If that happened, we might not have to do so much probing at a later stage.

I want to ask a question about IT on the telephone——

Chairman

We will just finish with PQs. The Clerk will send in a note on the up to date position in relation to the Departments meeting the deadlines for sending out replies, which had been a serious problem up to a year ago, although there has been an improvement, so that we can pursue those Departments which are late.

In relation to the other points, we should write to the Dáil reform sub-committee asking it to consider the question of the general approach to this issue, which came up under the Vote. Who is the chairman of that sub-committee?

Mr. Coughlan

The Government Chief Whip, Deputy Seamus Brennan.

Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed. We will ask the Clerk to write to the Chief Whip indicating that this matter came up during the consideration of the Vote for the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Deputy Durkan

What about the IT matter?

Chairman

Deputy Rabbitte wanted to ask a question about the new wing.

Deputy Rabbitte

I just wanted to ask if the building is on target and when will those of us who are still in Opposition move into it.

Mr. Coughlan

I understand it will be in October. The Chairman was at a meeting yesterday, I understand.

Chairman

I am on the steering group and we had a meeting yesterday. I won a great battle on behalf of those parliamentarians who have a desire to be fit. The size of the gym proposed is two and a half times what we originally proposed. We had a little penny ha'penny room but now we have a significant room.

Deputy Rabbitte

That will be the only uncluttered room in the building.

Chairman

Only those for whom it will be compulsory.

Deputy Durkan

The Chairman will be going in there by himself.

Chairman

It is on time. Issues have arisen but the building is on time and it is within budget.

Mr. Coughlan

Yes. The staff are a little disconcerted in that we were originally allocated 5% of the building but on the latest draft, up to yesterday, we were not allocated any part of it. There is concern among the staff in that regard.

Chairman

Our concern is not only for the rights of Members but that the staff are located near the committee rooms. With the change of access to the engineering block directly from the first floor, which will now be possible if the Leader of the Opposition moves his suite, that will make those offices much more directly accessible to the House and, therefore, much more acceptable. Members will be happy to be located there and it will free up some space in the new block for committee staff.

Deputy C. Lenihan

On a point of clarification, Chairman, is it the intention to locate the Opposition Deputies in the new location or within the House?

Chairman

None of that is decided. There has been a delay due to some unofficial picketing. Meeting the deadline will involve some inconvenience for Members for the four months from June to October and possibly a slightly longer recess than that envisaged by the Government. It is unavoidable and necessary, otherwise the work will be delayed by about a year. This will mean a certain amount of sharing of offices and finding new temporary offices. The old block and block 32 will also be upgraded to the same standard. Has Mr. Coughlan anything more to add?

Mr. Coughlan

The building work resulted in some essential services having to be decanted. Some of the parliamentary reporters are based in Agriculture House and the Journal Office staff have also been decanted. They are essential staff who were promised they would be relocated in the vicinity of Leinster House. It seems we will have to find somewhere else for them. The unions——

Chairman

There will also be room in Kildare House.

Mr. Coughlan

Some of those offices cannot operate from that building. These staff are essential to the House.

Chairman

Yes, but all the Members will be based across the road?

Mr. Coughlan

Yes.

Chairman

We will move on to IT.

Deputy Durkan

Regarding IT, telephones are dear to our hearts at present. As to whether there is satisfaction with the system or there has been an improvement in it, for some unknown reason it is impossible to get access to a service on a mobile phone in some parts of the House although it is possible to gain access to another service. Given that we have a high profile contract in this area and one that should be state of the art, if it is to work anywhere, the place to try it is Houses of the Oireachtas but it should work. From my experience, it needs some embellishment or a recognition by those providing the service that this is a high profile contract.

Mr. Coughlan

The Deputy referred to problems with mobile phones. There has been a series of complaints about them. This week the telecommunications manager negotiated a replacement of all the phones free of charge with Motorola and we hope that will improve the service. As regards the signal, I understand the Garda is considering two proposals from Eircell and Eircom to improve the signal in the vicinity of Leinster House.

Chairman

The telephone service in Leinster House has improved dramatically in recent years. One knows who to approach if there is a problem and one invariably gets a prompt and effective reply. Charles Hearne deals with this service.

Mr. Coughlan

That is only part of his job.

Chairman

One knows who to approach and one always get a prompt response. That is not the case in some other areas. The telephone service has also greatly improved.

Deputy C. Lenihan

I am quite surprised that Ireland is ranked lowest on the EU league table in terms of what we spend in Parliament. That is the first time I heard that.

Chairman

We are greatly under-resourced.

Deputy C. Lenihan

I was shocked to hear that. I do not know how we could report on this. I will leave that to the Chairman's discretion.

Chairman

It is referred to in the DIRT inquiry report. In calling for a separate commission to run the House, we point out that it is under-resourced compared to other parliaments and compared to the Assembly in the North and the Scottish Assembly. Does Mr. Coughlan have figures on that?

Mr. Coughlan

The figures refer mainly to EU Parliaments, including the Irish Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and so on. The Scottish Parliament started from a greenfield site, so to speak, with 400 staff for 129 members. It was able to get it right from the start.

Chairman

How many staff do we have?

Mr. Coughlan

We have a staff of 271 and 226 Members between the Seanad and the Dáil. Our staff number is very low. In that sense, we have mountain to climb.

Deputy Rabbitte

How long has the contract for televising the affairs of the House to run? Is it true that Teilifís na Gaelige is not currently broadcasting Question Time owing to a financial problem? Does the broadcasting committee ever meet? Why did RTE not give the broadcasting committee an undertaking that "Oireachtas Report" would be broadcast not later than midnight? Why has that not been adhered to?

Mr. Coughlan

The contract has been extended. There were two formal extensions of the contract from October 1995 to September 1996, up to October 1996-8 and since then there has been an ad hoc arrangement to sanction it every quarter. It was envisaged the equipment leased from Windmill Lane would be purchased over a number of years so that when the contact went for tender we would be operating from a level playing pitch and that one company would not have an advantage in that regard, but it is expected the contract will go out to tender this year.

As regards the joint committee on broadcasting, I understand matters have improved as regards the broadcasting of "Oireachtas Report" by RTE, as it is usually broadcast before midnight.

Chairman

It was on at 12.20 last night.

Mr. Coughlan

The TAM rating for the programme has increased. That could be associated with the DIRT inquiry, but the TAM rating for "Oireachtas Report" has increased to three, which is 105,000 viewers. It had only TAM rating of one a few years ago, an average of 70,000 viewers.

Chairman

There are many insomniacs.

Mr. Coughlan

The figure for the committee's inquiry was very good - 816,000.

Chairman

A total of 816,000?

Mr. Coughlan

Yes, that was the total number of viewers who tuned in.

Chairman

Was that over the period of the inquiry?

Mr. Coughlan

Yes.

Chairman

On the question of television, there is a sum of £923,000, which is less than the figure in the original Estimate. Given the developments in broadcasting, digital broadcasting and the number of channels available, has the provision of an Oireachtas channel been given any consideration?

Mr. Coughlan

Yes. The committee is considering that matter as well. Webcasting is another feature that is coming on stream. There are a number of proposals in for that. The broadcasting committee will have to decide on that, but there have been some experiments. The DIRT inquiry was webcast, as was the budget day proceedings and President McAleese's address. Various major events are webcast. Some companies are involved in this and it is a question of their tendering for this and so on.

Chairman

When are we likely to have a dedicated channel for the Oireachtas?

Mr. Coughlan

It depends on digital TV developments but there is scope for it.

Chairman

The provision of such a service would be a very important part of public accountability so that the public can see the questions being asked. The fact that Question Time is covered gives greater impetus to ensuring there are better quality questions and answers.

Mr. Coughlan

Yes. A dedicated channel will form part of the new television contract.

Chairman

Will that happen this year or next year?

Mr. Coughlan

It will be in the contract for whoever tenders for it.

Chairman

For this year?

Mr. Coughlan

Yes.

Chairman

Very good.

Mr. Coughlan

Such a service is provided in the States. In the C-span, they have dedicated channels.

Chairman

Yes, that is right.

Regarding the security services in the Houses of the Oireachtas, we have our own ushers and service officers. The standard among our ushers and service officers in terms of their appearance and level of service is extremely high. The way that service is maintained reflects very much on their superiors. The service and appearance of members of the Garda Síochána around this House is much less than one would expect in Houses of Parliament and much less than one would get elsewhere. I have made this point since I was Minister for Justice. I still see somewhat dishevelled members of the Garda Síochána around the House, leaning against walls, with their collars turned up and failing to address Members correctly. Who is responsible for dealing with this aspect of the work of the Garda Síochána?

Mr. Coughlan

The gardaí themselves and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform are responsible. It would be necessary to make representation to them about that matter.

Chairman

They do not even address Ministers as "Minister" or Deputies as "Deputy". They simply say, "howya". When I raised this matter as Minister for Justice, which was a long time ago, I heard that gardaí had been told that I wanted them to salute me. I do not wish anyone to salute me. The staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas, especially our own service officers and ushers, invariably act with great decorum and propriety and respect the Parliament for what it is. This is not true of the gardaí who are assigned to the House. Some training is needed urgently. It is clear that the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána has not given this appropriate attention.

Mr. Coughlan

An inspector of the Garda Síochána has been assigned to Leinster House for a number of years. The matter could be put to him in a more local way.

Chairman

I wrote to the Commissioner of this subject some time ago and he referred it down to a local inspector. I regard that as the problem. I will not see a local inspector. I ask that this matter be taken up. The national Parliament ought to be respected by the State services. I do not believe it is respected by the Garda Síochána.

Mr. Coughlan

I will make representations about that matter.

Chairman

This is a matter which might be taken up directly with the commissioner. My observation is not true of all gardaí. Some behave impeccably but too many are not up to standard, in my opinion.

Deputy C. Lenihan

The Garda Síochána might copy the Defence Forces who have a separate detachment in Government Buildings and Leinster House. It would be good for the status of the Houses if we had a separate Garda unit based in Leinster House. That seems to work very well for the Army.

Mr. Coughlan

The Army detachment is far bigger.

Deputy C. Lenihan

That is true but it is still a good principle that Parliament should have its own security. I believe the gardaí in the House are attached to Pearse Street Garda station.

Chairman

I asked a question last year which you were not able to answer and I wonder if you have brushed up on your facts since then. What is the price of the pint in the bar?

Mr. Coughlan

I should know that. It is the same price as outside, I am afraid.

Chairman

There is no subsidy?

Mr. Coughlan

No.

Chairman

David Hanly of "Morning Ireland" was under the impression that it is greatly subsidised and that we have free beer in here.

Mr. Coughlan

That is one of the myths about Leinster House.

Deputy C. Lenihan

I congratulate the staff of the Houses for all the work they have done, apparently under the most difficult circumstances in Europe. It appears they are vastly under-resourced. The recommendations regarding the IT problem should be acted upon. There is no point in pursuing Dáil reform if the facilities are not in place to fulfil that mission.

Chairman

The fact that the Houses are not adequately staffed means that the Members and Parliament itself are not properly resourced to deal with issues. I have no doubt that has contributed to the need for recent tribunals. We are not sufficiently resourced to keep on top of our subject. That is why it is vitally important that the Houses be adequately resourced.

I thank the Clerk of the Dáil and his staff for their work during the year under review. We very much appreciate it. We note with great pleasure that there are no paragraphs from the Comptroller and Auditor General on this issue.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned at 1.35 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 10 February 2000.