Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 9 Nov 1988

Vol. 383 No. 9

Supplementary Estimates 1988. - Vote 13: Office of the Attorney General.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacSharry)

I move:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,263,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1988, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Attorney General including a grant-in-aid.

The Supplementary Estimates I am moving today for the office of the Attorney General and the office of the Dirctor of Public Prosecutions, arise principally from the level of litigation being handled by these offices. This is obviously something which is extremely difficult to forecast. In the case of the Attorney General's office, new cases are instituted against the State almost on a daily basis. It is difficult to accurately forecast the requirements of these Votes and thus the need for these supplementaries today.

As regards the Office of the Attorney General, it requires a total supplementary sum of £1,263,000. This includes £9,000 for travelling and incidental expenses, and £29,000 for postal and telecommunications services, expenditure on which is ahead of the original budget provision and is in line with increased activity. In relation to fees to counsel, the volume of expenditure to date reflects a high throughput of cases through the courts and a large amount of litigation involving the State. An additional sum of £505,000 is considered necessary to meet the extra bills of costs coming for payment.

A supplementary sum of £720,000 is required for the general law expenses subhead which provides mainly for costs awarded against the State, together with witnesses expenses and court fees. There were in the course of the year some major cases in which costs were awarded against the State as a result of which the original moneys allocated on this subhead were exhausted. Accordingly additional funds have to be provided to meet payments now due on other major cases.

One such case is Crotty v. Ireland and the Attorney General, in which the plaintiff alleged that the ratification of the Single European Act by the Government was unconstitutional. The case was first heard in the High Court and appealed by the plaintiff to the Supreme Court. This was an important case from the State's point of view, and the plaintiff's costs were taxed at £344,000 to which must be added interest from the date of the judgment. This sum is, of course, additional to the fees paid to the State's counsel which amounted to about £200,000.

Webb-Webb v. Ireland and the Attorney General was the case relating to the Derrynaflan chalice and the right of the State to ownership and the fixing of compensation to the finders. This case was also appealed to the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs' costs in that case were taxed at £189,000 of which £155,000 has been paid. The balance is to be paid as soon as the plaintiffs' appeal against the findings of the Taxing Master is dealt with.

McMeel v. the North Eastern Health Board and the Attorney General is a case in which the plaintiff challenged the Minister's right to transfer a section of Monaghan Hospital to the Cavan Hospital. In this case a bill of costs, of the order of £205,000 has been presented and is in the process of taxation. The eventual taxed sum is expected to come for payment this year.

The Vote for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions requires an additional total sum of £293,000. Again, it is very difficult to forecast the requirements of the DPP. The number and complexity of trials at the Central Criminal Court and the Special Criminal Court are very unpredictable.

These can be followed by appeals to the superior courts. Costs can be awarded to defendants in criminal prosecutions which are impossible to estimate. We must now provide for the case of the prosecution in the Special Criminal Court arising out of the kidnapping of Mr. John O'Grady. Similarly provision must be made for an increase in the number of hearings under judicial review in the High and Supreme Courts.

Notwithstanding the uncertainties associated with these two Votes, the operations of both offices are kept under review with a view to effecting economies wherever possible, which approach is consistent with our resolute policy to develop a cost-efficient public service.

With these comments I commend these two Supplementary Estimates to the House. If Deputies wish to raise any points, I will be glad to address them in my reply at the end of this debate.

Mr. Flanagan

I am glad that the Minister saw fit to come into the House and offer a reasonable explanation for moving a Supplementary Estimate for both these offices. It is of fundamental importance that the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions are not impeded by lack of finance. It is important that these offices should be seen by the community to be working efficiently and effectively for the benefit of all. I accept, as the Minister has said that it is difficult to estimate 12 months in advance, the finances for both those offices. Because of that we in Fine Gael welcome the provision of these Supplementary Estimates.

The Minister said in relation to the Attorney General's Office that proceedings are instituted against the State on almost a daily basis. These must be answered through the due process of the law in keeping with the fundamental democratic principles of our Constitution under which it is possible for a member of the public who feels aggrieved to take a case against th State and have the matter thrashed out in the courts. Article 26 of the Constitution specifically provides for that and it enables the President to refer any legislation to the Supreme Court before final enactment. It is very important that these rights are not interfered with because of a lack of funding.

The Attorney General's office must have sufficient funding to meet the increasing demands that the Minister has outlined. It is not the function of the court to amend any legislation or any section in legislation. It is their function to declare whether or not a Bill is repugnant to the Constitution. Adequate funding must be made available for all these cases. We have seen many such cases over the past number of years. For instance, in relation to the Housing Act, 1981, the Rent Restrictions Act and more recently in relation to the Adoption Act. The Minister also referred to the Crotty case. I agree that it is impossible to foresee the number of such cases that will be taken on an annual basis. It was absolutely essential to the democratic principles to which we all adhere that somebody like Mr. Crotty could take a case to court against the State on the issue of the Single European Act. The court ruled that the Act should be upheld but that ratification of it was ruled out until such time as a referendum took place. Any bar on such proceedings would be in direct conflict with the democratic principles we uphold.

I hope that the increased funding to the Attorney General's office has nothing to do with an incident that took place in Portlaoise District Court some time ago where there was a dispute among members of the legal profession with regard to funding which resulted in extradition proceedings not taking place on the appropriate day, with serious consequences on the economic front. I hope that such scenes will not be repeated. The case in question was not proceeded with and the state of siege for the town was postponed until another day.

I wonder if the increase in funding for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions signifies an increase in crime or in crime detection. It is not possible for the Minister or for anybody else to answer these questions at present but we are seeing an increase in serious and vicious crime. It is important that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has sufficient funds to combat this wave of serious and vicious crime. Full back-up services should be available to the office so that offenders are brought to justice at the earliest opportunity. In this regard we should be concerned at the lengthy periods of remand being ordered by the courts in particular circumstances. I hope that the increased funding to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions will mean that we will see shorter remand periods so that accused persons can be brought to court to answer charges at the earliest opportunity. When lengthy remands are handed out everybody is left in limbo. The Director of Public Prosecutions may in some ways be hampered by lack of resources in acting as speedily as he might otherwise do.

I hope that the increase in funding for the Director of Public Prosecutions' office will enable them to act as efficiently as possible so that the due force of the law is brought to bear on the many criminals in society. The Minister made specific reference to the O'Grady kidnap. I agree that a shortage of funds should not hamper our fight against terrorism. No cost cutting should be tolerated by us as legislators in the fight against crime. The Minister's statement underlines the cost to society and to the Irish economy of terrorist activities over the past few years. Unfortunately, this cost is on the increase, a matter which should cause every right-thinking member of society to feel sad and aggrieved. There should be no sparing of funds to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, who acts on behalf of each member of society. He should not be restricted in any way in the course of his duties.

Fine Gael welcome this Supplementary Estimate which will ensure that both the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions carry out their work on behalf of the people without any impeding or hampering in any circumstances, free of obstructions and restrictions. We welcome the Estimate.

Miss Colley

I share Fine Gael's view that, of course, there should be no restriction on the Offices of the Attorney General and Director of Public Prosecutions in pursuing those who have offended or in defending the interests of the State in cases taken against the State. One must support the proposal for a Supplementary Estimate.

I should like to touch upon a number of areas in the work of both offices. The Director of Public Prosecutions is an extremely important personage in the justice system. The independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions is essential and it is vital that it be maintained. It is vital that the Director should be enabled to carry out his duties in an independent way without having to have regard to economies which would, perhaps, cut back on the quality of the work he pursues. He represents the victim in the criminal justice system. He prosecutes the offender on behalf of society but first on behalf of the victim.

It is worthwhile, given this opportunity, to refer to the fact that the present Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. Eamon Barnes, in an address given at the annual conference of the Irish Association for Victim Support, delivered a very interesting paper on the position of the victim as witness in our criminal justice system. That position has deteriorated over the past few years and the victim is now almost irrelevant to the whole proceedings except as witness. As a result, the witness feels totally left out of the process and feels used or abused by the system. It is no fault of the DPP because it is the structures which lead to this. In many instances somebody who has been the victim of a crime may give evidence against an offender but between the time the charge is pressed and the case coming up for hearing there is almost no contact between the DPP and that person. The victim can feel wholly aggrieved, not just because he or she has been injured or has suffered loss or damage but because of being left out of the process. Such victims do not know what decisions are being taken. A prime example is when a prosecution is initiated but not continued. The witness or victim is given no explanation and feels very let down by the system. The system which is supposed to represent them fails them.

The Director of Public Prosecutions was reported in The Irish Times on 2 May this year as saying that crime victims feel a persistent sense of alienation from the criminal justice system and that in the first instance the rights of the victim to information and consultation on the progress of their case must be accepted. The DPP is calling for and attempting to initiate procedures whereby this can be carried through. He is quoted in the same article as saying that the first step in tackling this dehumanising process must be the acceptance of the right of the victim to be given, as of right, information regarding the progress of the investigation and any prosecution and to be consulted regarding certain critical decisions. That is the minimum required and it should be commonplace when dealing with victims of crime. The director has attempted, by delivering a well thought out historical paper leading up to the present day, to start a process of widening the perception of his role. He is still representing society in prosecutions, but his duty is not just to society at large but to the individual who has become the victim of crime.

The victim of crime has almost lost respect for our system of criminal justice. There is a felling that the criminal is the one who has to be protected. I say this without meaning to sound ultra rightwing. The most moderate people in Ireland today would express some reservations about the emphasis in the criminal justice system. They feel that the victim, who is, after all, the innocent party in the whole debacle, has been made to feel like a runner-in who simply does not count in the proceedings. It would be well worthwhile emphasising the role of the victim so as to restore faith in the criminal justice process. Many other things are necessary to restore that faith, such as reform of the criminal law, reform of the penal system and reform of the Garda Síochána, but this is one step to which I can refer today because it concerns the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It would not be difficult to incorporate structures within the Office of the DPP to allow that to happen, without holding up cases unnecessarily.

The other Supplementary Estimate deals with the Office of the Attorney General. There is an onerous responsibility on the Attorney General to advise a Government on their legal responsibilities and the directions they should take. The Attorney General is a member of the Government and comes and goes with the Government. His can, therefore, be seen as a political appointment. In general Governments are well advised by their Attorneys General. The advice given to Governments is usually of the utmost competence and integrity, but I would like to refer again to one particular piece of advice about which I have some concern, and that relates to the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987.

I referred to this Act in earlier debates and I reiterate that I believe there is inherent in that Act a quasi-judicial function given to the Attorney General which may turn out to be unconstitutional. This is an instance where it is possible that the advice of the Attorney General in relation to his role under this Act may lead the State into incurring costs by litigation taken to test the constitutionality of this legislation. When this Act was passed there was a great deal of pressure on the Government from their own benches to provide some face-saving exercise on extradition. Unfortunately we will have a re-run of that in the next month or so because the Government put a clause into the Act which means it must be reviewed after one year.

I would ask the Government to reconsider the role of the Attorney General in this legislation. I think it is unhealthy, and there is definitely a question about whether the Attorney General is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. That will lead to some disrespect, or some confusion, about the role of the Attorney General. I am telling the Minister for Finance I believe the Government should look at this again.

I do not know what cases the Minister referred to when he introduced this Supplementary Estimate. He mentioned a number of cases which arose in previous years to illustrate the difficulties. I understand unforeseen difficulties will arise each year. However, one of the difficulties the Office of the Attorney General faced this year was the payment of barristers. We almost had a situation where the courts would not operate properly because the barristers decided to withdraw services if some arrangement was not arrived at. Happily, that situation has not arisen. Perhaps the Minister would tell us if part of this Supplementary Estimate is being introduced because the Office of the Attorney General wishes to bring up to date and to put on a better footing payments to barristers. Perhaps he could tell us if the payment procedures will be simplified so that the bureaucracy involved — I gather it includes four different stages and four different approvals before certain barristers can be paid through the Attorney General's Office — will be simplified, or has been simplified.

I wish to refer briefly to the criminal injuries compensation fund. I am not certain if that is relevant to this debate but it is relevant in general terms to claims against the State to which the Minister referred. I know the rules have changed in relation to criminal injuries compensation so that general damages are not awarded, but there are hundreds of people awaiting receipt of compensation under this scheme. That is not good enough. People have been waiting 18 months or two years for payments on claims which are acknowledged, which are not in dispute. Obviously there is a need to speed up this process because it is not fair to those who have been victims of crime. I will come back to that later. This is another opportunity to recognise the fact that victims are innocent parties to the proceedings and should not be badly treated, as I believe they have been in this instance.

While the Minister refers to the fact that efficiency in the running of both offices is at a premium and in keeping with Government policy, and I take him at his word, there are no bounds to the pursuit of efficiency. While I agree that this Supplementary Estimate should be voted, it should be noted that value for money is paramount in all Estimates passed by this House. I hope they are at this stage and the Progressive Democrats are pressing that idea and will continue to press it.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacSharry)

I thank the Members who have spoken in a very positive way about these two Supplementary Estimates and the two offices concerned — the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I want to put on record — and I agree with what Deputy Flanagan and Deputy Colley said — that there is no question, nor has there been, of any restrictions being imposed on either office leaving them short of resources. The difficulty has been, and still is, in estimating correctly the amounts that would be required. Perhaps I might give some examples of the position in the Office of the Attorney General.

In 1985 we had a shortfall of £424,000; in 1986 we had a shortfall of £709,000 and in 1987 we had a shortfall of £669,000. In those years we underestimated. On the other hand, in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, we overestimated in two of the last three years. In 1985 we had an additional £148,000; in 1986 we had an extra £187,000 but in 1987 an extra £81,000 was needed. This has been an ongoing problem, and I think I have explained in detail why the additional resources are required in both offices this year.

One could get into what might be described as a debate on Justice but that would not be appropriate. I always tell Deputies that the points they have raised should be dealt with by the appropriate Ministers but I want to confirm my view, and the Government's view of the importance of the position and the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I agree fully with what Deputy Colley said about the role of the victim in the criminal justice process. We often meet people who tell us that at times the victim appears to be the criminal and the criminal appears to be protected under the law. These accusations are made to all of us and I agree with the comments made by Deputy Colley in that regard.

I want to make a brief comment on the points raised about the Attorney General's role and the Extradition Act, which will come up for review and the House will have an opportunity to debate in a number of weeks. I was not sure if Deputy Colley was saying she was against the very important, necessary and genuine safeguards——

Miss Colley

I would not use the Minister's language.

Mr. MacSharry

The Deputy would not use my language; but she is not against them?

Miss Colley

I am not against safeguards.

Mr. MacSharry

The Deputy is not against the safeguards.

Miss Colley

I am not against safeguards, not "the safeguards".

Mr. MacSharry

I do not want to quibble about words, but the Attorney General's role is paramount in that legislation. As regards bringing payments up to date, some of those payments may not have been known but now they are known to us and they fall due for payment. I do not think that either office would deliberately set out to deprive anybody of a payment which was due to them. As the House is aware, some of these bills can go back and span a number of years and every effort is made to have administrative procedures in place which do not leave anybody short and prevent a huge backlog of payments. I am sure it can be said that there have been delays in the making of payments. People are always inclined to complain that we like other major institutions, do not pay on time.

That more or less covers all of the points that were made. I am very grateful to the House for its acceptance of both these Supplementary Estimates. As I said, some other points were made but they would be more appropriate to a justice debate or some other future debate and I am sure the Deputies concerned will take the opportunity to repeat those points again.

Vote put and agreed to.