Before the Minister moves the Supplementary Estimate I want to advise the House that in respect of Supplementary Estimates the debate is normally confined to the items specified in the Supplementary Estimate and matters of the general Estimate are acceptable only in so far as they might provide the background for it. I might also advise the House that in respect of an Estimate of this kind it is not advisable nor acceptable that any direct references which would be either in the form of a compliment or criticism of any public official is acceptable.
Supplementary Estimates, 1989. - Vote 14: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
I move:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £435,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1989, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The Supplementary Estimate I am moving today for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions requires an additional sum of £375,000 for the payment of "Fees to Counsel" engaged to represent the Director in criminal prosecutions in the various courts; and £60,000 for the "Other Law Expenses" sub-head which provides mainly for the payment of costs awarded to defendants either in criminal prosecutions or in proceedings in the Superior Courts which arise out of such prosecutions.
The need for the additional sum for fees to counsel arises from the need for the Director of Public Prosecutions to engage fee paid counsel to a greater extent than envisaged in: (a) Prosecutions in the Dublin District Courts and (b) District Court appeals in the Dublin Circuit Court.
To ensure that there will be a major reduction in the need for such expenditure in future I have sanctioned the appointment of an additional ten full time solicitors and two technical staff to the Office of the Chief State Solicitor to be assigned to prosecution work currently being handled by fee-paid counsel. As an exceptional measure, I have approved the immediate filling of these ten solicitor posts on a temporary basis pending the outcome of the forthcoming competition by the Civil Service Commission. I am satisfied that these additional appointments will result in considerable nett benefits to the Exchequer and the necessary adjustments have been made in the Book of Estimates for 1990.
As to the costs awarded to defendants, it has been impossible to forecast the requirements under this heading with accuracy. In the past the figures have varied substantially from one year to another. Notwithstanding the uncertainties associated with this Vote, however, the operation of the office is kept under constant review with a view to effecting economies wherever possible.
With these comments I commend the Supplementary Estimate to the House. If the Deputies wish to relate any points, I will be glad to address them in my reply at the end of this debate.
It is rare that we have an opportunity to focus on the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. In dealing with the Supplementary Estimate it is very clear that a comprehensive review of that office is now needed. I want to make that very serious proposal to the Minister.
The Director of Public Prosecutions carries out very important functions which are set out in section 3 of the Prosecution of Offences, Act, 1974. It provides that "the Director shall perform all the functions capable of being performed in relation to criminal matters and in relation to election petitions and referendum petitions by the Attorney General immediately before the commencement of this section ... ". The definition of criminal matters included in section 1 is very comprehensive. It covers all criminal proceedings and applications for any order of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or other State side order or injunction with respect to criminal proceedings or any other proceedings connected with criminal proceedings or any matter arising therefrom. It goes on to deal with other matters under various sections. It is clear that the functions of the Director of Public Prosecutions are very wide ranging and it is appropriate to look at the support which he gets in relation to these very important statutory functions.
When I looked at the Revised Book of Estimates for the Public Services I was surprised to see that the total staffing of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is 16, including himself. By way of comparison — this is probably the only way in which we can put it in perspective — the number of staff in other offices, as shown in the Revised Estimates for the Public Services, are as follows: the Office of the Ombudsman, 36; the Office of the Civil Service Commission, 39; the Attorney General's Office, 29 and the Office of the Chief State Solicitor, 100 with 32 part time solicitors around the country. I mention these figures merely to show that the staff of 16 in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is, from the outside, very small indeed. On a personal note, the rural legal office with which I am associated has more staff than that. In the context of the very important national functions being carried out by the Director of Public Prosecutions under the Act I wonder if we are providing him with sufficient support to carry out those functions.
The old saying in law is "justice delayed is justice denied". To be blunt about it there have been complaints about delays in the carrying out of functions in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Ryan case was referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions under the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act and the final decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions took almost a year. That is an indication not only of the complexity of the case but also of the very heavy workload on the Director of Public Prosecutions. I am also aware that there has been a recent judicial review where a case was dismissed, I think by the President of the High Court, because of the long delay in bringing it to a head. There is also the Cavan shooting case of last week where serious problems arose — I am not saying they were directly attributable to the Director of Public Prosecutions — in the prosecution case as a consequence of which a nolle prosequi had to be entered and the case withdrawn. These problems were quite serious in that it emerged that copies of an important statement which should have been made available to defence solicitors had not been handed over and, in addition, the court were told that a material alteration of a serious sort was made in the statement of the main prosecution witness. In dealing with the matter the judge indicated that what happened could have led to a serious miscarriage of justice. I am not pointing the finger at the Director of Public Prosecutions himself; I am merely illustrating that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is probably overloaded with work and that he needs additional support.
The Minister mentioned that additional staff were being assigned to the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. This raises the point as to what exactly the relationship is between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief State Solicitor. What is the relationship between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the 32 part time solicitors around the country? This is not set out in the Act. I am not sure whether the appointment of additional staff to the Chief State Solicitor's Office will solve the problem of the work overload in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Another reason for the overload is the alarming increase in the crime rate. We have been told that in 1988 there were almost 90,000 indictable crimes recorded, an increase of 5 per cent on the previous year. That, inevitably, must result in additional work for the Director of Public Prosecutions in whose name charges are ultimately brought.
The House will be aware of the Bills which are before the House such as the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Bill we debated today and the Video Recordings Bill, the Committee Stage of which we will be discussing tomorrow, and there is no doubt that when they are passed they will result in additional work and pressure on the Director of Public Prosecutions. As part of the general case I am making for a review of that Office I am indicating that there is a need for additional support and staffing.
Now that we are talking about providing extra money for the Director of Public Prosecutions it is important to point out that there appears to be no consistency in the Government's approach to funding that Office. There appears to be a see-saw in relation to figures. The Book of Estimates for 1990 is not any help in that it does not show clearly the Government's policy in regard to funding that Office. Any person looking at the figures for 1990 would come away with the impression that there will be a 19 per cent increase in the funding for that Office next year but that would be wrong. One has to go behind the figures to get at the truth. The 1989 figure for that Office was cut from £1.5 million to about £1.4 million and we are now adding a sum which will bring the total figure to more than £1.8 million. What will be the position next year? Instead of that Office getting the 19 per cent increase next year their allocation will be reduced. The figure allocated in the 1990 Estimates is £1.6 million. The explanation is that the 19 per cent relates to the original Estimate rather than what will now be the outturn. The actual figure for 1990 will be almost £200,000 less than what is available to that Office in 1989. That is not being consistent.
In the context of staffing I should like to ask whether it is possible to find a more efficient and cost effective way of running that Office. There are 16 people on the staff in that Office and salaries, wages and allowances comes to about £330,000. However, the total figure to be paid to counsel will be more than £1.2 million. I may be treading on some corns in the Bar Library when I raise this but I wonder if it would be more cost effective to have additional professional staff in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Solicitors do not come cheap.
I thought I might strike a chord and I will let Deputy Spring defend the Bar. I mention that matter in the context of the review I have proposed. We should see if we are getting value for money and consider if extra staffing, whether solicitors or barristers, should be employed in the Director of Public Prosecutions Office. The figure of £1.2 million paid to counsel is not significant particularly when compared with the outlay for salaries for the Office.
Another fact which prompts me to suggest we should have a review is that the Act under which the Office was established has been in operation for 15 years. We should consider whether that legislation needs to be reviewed and updated. For example, it would be of interest to know what consultations take place between the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions, as provided for in section 2. It was a relevant point in discussions held recently in relation to the Ryan case. Are the arrangements for those consultations adequate? Perhaps we might get a clue as to the apparent discrepancy that arose in the views of the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions in the context of that case.
We should also consider the relationship between the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Chief State Solicitor and State solicitors around the country which is not covered in the Act. I am not sure of the extent of it. In the Cavan shooting case the charge was brought in the name of the Director of Public Prosecutions and it appears that, following the statement of Mr. Justice Roe, guidelines are to be issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions. In passing, I should mention that we have not had an opportunity of seeing those guidelines. I tabled a question to the Minister for Justice asking him to make a full statement on the case to the House.
Another point of interest to me is that section 7, which deals with the retaining of barristers on behalf of the State — that arises in the context of the £1.2 million allocated for the payment of barristers this year — provides that the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions should ensure that barristers retained by them in their official capacity are chosen in such a manner as to effect a distribution of such retainers among the barristers that in the opinion of the Director and the Attorney General is fair and equitable taking one year with another. I wonder if that section has been examined as to its effectiveness? There are provisions for consultation with the Bar Council in relation to the operation of that section and I wonder if that has operated effectively. Section 10 gives power to the Minister to make regulations to enable the Act to have full effect and it is important that we should be satisfied with those regulations.
There was an obvious benefit to the country following the establishment of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions under the 1974 Act. We have had the same Director of Public Prosecutions since the first appointment and he has established a reputation of honour and integrity. I am glad the then Government established the Office and in suggesting that there should be a review of the operations of the Office I am not casting a scintilla of an aspersion in the direction of the person who holds the office of Director of Public Prosecutions. I am anxious that what appears to be an overload on the Director of Public Prosecutions is looked at and my proposal for a review of the functions of the Office follows on that line. It is time for a full review of the functions, funding, and operation of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and indeed of the legislation and regulations under which the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions operates.
I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy but his time is exhausted.
Having made that point and strongly urging the Minister to consider it, I will conclude by saying that I will not be opposing the Supplementary Estimate to enable the Director of Public Prosecutions to discharge his functions and make the payments which he considers necessary in the current year.
I was glad to hear Deputy O'Keeffe's last line because for a while one was not sure what he was doing.
I did not let the Deputy down in the end.
This is a very brief Supplementary Estimate, the Minister's speech was appropriately brief and I, likewise, will try to confine my remarks to some technical matters.
We will be supporting the Supplementary Estimate because it is very necessary. There have always been inordinate delays in paying fees to counsel. This is regrettable. Obviously somebody got it all wrong in the course of the preparation of last year's Estimates. It is regrettable that we have to come into the House late in the month of November to vote an additional sum of money, £435,000, for fees to counsel and for other general law expenses. It is also regrettable that a situation has been allowed to develop where we are now faced with the appointment of ten full time solicitors and two technical staff. It is poor housekeeping that we have allowed a shortfall of 12 staff to arise in the office of the Chief State Solicitor. I am not sure that I approve of the filling of these positions on a temporary basis pending the outcome of the competition. I would prefer if full time posts were filled following the completion of the competition because I suspect that people filling posts in a temporary capacity have a greater advantage than people on the outside when doing interviews for the full time position. Perhaps the Minister might look at this again.
As the previous speaker has said so eloquently, there is always room for improvement and there are always ways of getting better value for money. I am not sure, to be a little partisan, if employing solicitors as opposed to counsel is the better way of doing that. Solicitors have an amazing ability to insinuate that the barristers are making all the money. I suspect that on a detailed examination of the costs, clients may be surprised on occasion to see who is making more money. I suppose solicitors have the additional expense of carrying a large staff even in west Cork, as we were informed tonight.
I do not think the State should be in the position, in which we are now, that there are long delays before paying solicitors and barristers. Regardless of the impression that some people are making very high incomes at the Bar, there are very many barristers who would prefer to be paid monthly and on a regular basis by the State. I am assuming and I think I would be correct in my assumption that a great portion of the money voted tonight will go to pay fees that should have been paid 18 months to two years ago.
In supporting the Estimate tonight I request the Minister — there is not much point requesting the Minister for the Marine whose hands are full with Rambo battles around the country — or the Minister who claims responsibility for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief State Solicitor to try to ensure that there are adequate staff in situ at any given time to ensure the efficient disposal of the duties of the Director of Public Prosecutions and of the Chief State Solicitor. These are both very responsible positions and it is imperative that prosecutions be carried out as efficiently and correctly as possible. It brings the law and the legal offices of the State into disrepute when there are serious delays or serious problems as have arisen in the recent case in Cavan. It is important that the resources, funding and personnel are made available. I certainly support any Minister who comes into the House looking for the resources, personnel and funds to ensure that we have an efficient Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and of the Chief State Solicitor so as to ensure that justice is done and within a short period.
I rise to support the Supplementary Estimates. I have no difficulty with where the money is allocated or the amount involved. However, a number of points should be made. Some of these have been made already by the previous two speakers and I add my voice in support.
I welcome the appointment of a further ten solicitors and two clerical staff to the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. One thing that has not been made clear either by the Minister for Finance when moving the Estimate tonight or by the Minister for Justice when he announced the decision in this House is whether those ten staff would be allocated specifically for the purpose of prosecution and the preparation and presentation of prosecution cases in court. As we know that office deals with the entire gamut of legal work and there is grave concern that a good proportion, if not the majority of those being recruited, will be assigned to areas other than the bottleneck that exists which was illustrated by the threat of a district justice in Dublin to dismiss prosecutions because of the failure of the State to present the book of evidence in good time. I would like clarification, if possible, as to where and what duties the ten staff will be assigned to within the Office of the Chief State Solicitor and whether they will be totally involved in the preparation and presentation of prosecution cases in the courts. I take this opportunity, having worked for 15 years as a defence lawyer in opposition, daily if not hourly, to the staff of the Chief State Solicitor's office in the Dublin courts, to pay the highest tribute I possibly can to them for the excellence and diligence to which they apply themselves to their work. It was remarkable to see the scope and commitment in the range of expertise that they showed and still show on a daily basis in our courts.
The Supplementary Estimate suggests that there has been and will be greater reliance on the use of barristers in the presentation and prosecution of cases. That is a welcome feature, but there is a practice growing up around it of allowing barristers to appear in court unattended and without proper attendance from the office of the Chief State Solicitor. That practice should not be allowed develop. I hope that with the recruitment of staff to the office that will not be the practice in future. Deputy Spring has raised the issue, which is certainly very close to my own heart, of the inordinate delays that occur in the discharge of fees to barristers, and indeed solicitors, working under the parallel criminal legal aid scheme. It is a source of great annoyance to people working in the area when they consider the speed and efficiency with which other Departments, particularly the Department of Health pay doctors under the GMS scheme or pay dentists under the dental scheme or the Department of Agriculture and Food pay veterinary surgeons under the bovine disease control schemes. These Departments can pay for work on a monthly ongoing basis but despite numerous requests and endless deputations to the office of the Minister nothing can be done to speed up the payment to law-years. This is grossly unfair, particularly to those who rely almost exclusively for their livelihood on the work they get under the criminal legal aid or Attorney General schemes through the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I would like that matter dealt with.
The objective of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and indeed all of us, must be that cases are presented and prosecuted on an efficient and speedy basis. In addition to an inadequate number of staff, in the office of the director and the office of Chief State Solicitor one of the greatest factors militating against this objective is the grossly inefficient way in which our courts are expected to operate. When one walks into any of the metropolitan courts in Dublin, in particular, one is stepping back in time to another era. The courtroom in Kilmainham had to be closed on many occasions because the district justice simply could not survive the elements and the district justice in Dún Laoghaire is sitting in vastly inferior accommodation which does no tribute to the work the judges are seeking to carry out at these locations.
The work of the Director of Public Prosecutions and all those officers of the courts in presenting and prosecuting cases in this jurisdiction would be so much easier if we had courts which were properly furnished, maintained, heated and equipped. I appreciate that this does not have a direct bearing on this Supplementary Estimate but it certainly does have an indirect bearing on the efficiency with which the Director of Public Prosecutions can present and deal with cases.
As has been said, the time has come to look again at the position which the director holds within the system. One matter which is a source of concern is the utter non-accountability of the director to any level within the administrative or parliamentary process. I am thinking here of his power to refer unchallenged a case involving non-terrorist offences from the ordinary courts to the Special Criminal Court and cases of controversy where he is obliged to make decisions, such as the Ryan extradition case, in the face of what seems to have been a fairly strong suggestion from other quarters that there was a case to answer——
I would much prefer if the Deputy did not go into any detail in respect of personalities of that kind. My colleague advised the House earlier that we should be very careful not to comment on or criticise or make charges against persons outside the House who are defenceless against accusations made under the privilege of this House. I ask the Deputy to be very careful before he would reflect on any member outside the House, be it the Director of Public Prosecutions or any other person.
I have not sought to do so and I accept your ruling on the matter, a Cheann Comhairle. As I said, there are occasions when he is called upon to, and must in the course of his duty, make controversial decisions. We should look at a process where in regard to those decisions he would have the opportunity to give an explanation in the proper forum. I believe that the interests of justice and the better interests of his Office in the long term would be served by giving him such an opportunity.
There is one matter in relation to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions which is of great concern and that is the affair surrounding our planning processes in the city. I hope we will see the Office bring an effective and speedy conclusion to this matter. If not, The Workers' Party will use this House to try to expose some of the facts surrounding that scandal. I support this Supplementary Estimate.
I do not intend to hold up the House for too long. I am the exception in making a contribution on this Supplementary Estimate as I am not a member of the legal fraternity who always seem to be very concerned with what is going on in the city and county of Dublin but who do not seem to be concerned with what is happening in the country. I support the call of my colleague, Deputy O'Keeffe, for a review of the various legal offices, the Chief State Solicitor's Office and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
I am very conscious of the delays in the Chief State Solicitor's Office and the problems which have arisen because of the lack of full-time solicitors. The Minister, in his speech, stated that additional staff will be made available almost immediately. I, too, want to find out what exactly these ten additional staff will be employed at. There seem to be great delays in the processing of documents referred to the Chief State Solicitor's Office by various Departments of State. These may result in delays in conveyancing and in the start-up of businesses. This Office has a role to play in the efficient running of the State and, therefore, I appeal to the Minister to assign some of these legal people to the task of giving assent or otherwise to documents referred to them by sections of the public service.
The Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief State Solicitor's Office should be able to liaise with the public directly. If one wants to find out, for instance, if a document is being processed through the Chief State Solicitor's Office, one has to go to the legal people who may already be behind in the processing of these documents and one may not get any information. I would like the Minister to consider some way by which the public would have access to these offices.
I thank all those Deputies who contributed to the debate. I will do my best to respond to the points raised by them.
Deputy O'Keeffe raised the question of staffing in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Chief State Solicitor's Office provides support staff, that is, solicitors, for the Director of Public Prosecutions Office who does not employ solicitors directly. However, in response to the shortage of available staff in the Chief State Solicitor's Office, additional appointments — ten solicitors and two technical staff — have been sanctioned. The same question was raised by Deputy Spring who asked why the numbers had dropped so much. He said he was not happy that only temporary staff were being recruited. The reason they are being appointed on a temporary basis is our desire to ensure that the savings I have projected in 1990 will be effected. In other words, they will be assigned on a temporary basis but the Civil Service Commission will take over and carry out permanent recruitment of staff. On analysis, we are able to see to what level fees have risen over a particular period. While it is always difficult to estimate what level they will reach, it is quite clear that by appointing solicitors there will be a saving. This is one area where a special exemption can be made. By appointing more staff we can save the Exchequer money and that is why we have taken this decision.
Deputy O'Keeffe also asked if the number of staff is adequate to carry out the work it does at present. I want to confirm that the Director of Public Prosecutions Office is adequately staffed. None of the cases mentioned by Deputy O'Keeffe which allegedly went wrong have anything to do with the staffing level of the Director of Public Prosecutions Office. He also referred to a review of the Director of Public Prosecutions Office and revised legislation for that Office. As the Deputy will appreciate, this is a matter for the Taoiseach. I will bring the Deputy's comments to the Taoiseach's attention as he deals with that Office.
Will the Minister raise the suggestion with him?
I will. Deputy O'Keeffe also raised the question why the 1990 Estimate is lower than the 1989 outturn. The 1990 Estimate is based on current expenditure trends and allows for the fact that expenditure on counsel fees will be less than it would have been as a result of the availability of solicitors from the Chief State Solicitor's Office; in other words, the reason for a lower projection for 1990 is that we are getting the extra staff I spoke about. Therefore, savings will arise.
Deputy McCartan raised the question of the assignment of Chief State Solicitor's Office staff and I would confirm that the ten solicitors and two technical staff now being recruited to the Chief State Solicitor's Office will be assigned to prosecution work on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Deputy Spring raised the question that the Estimate for 1989 fees to counsel was based on our consideration of the availability of solicitors in the Chief State Solicitors's Office to prosecute. As it turns out a great number of these solicitors were unavailable and barristers had to be paid on a freelance basis. That basically is the reason for the additional fees there. Deputy Spring raised the question of the payment of fees to counsel. There is no delay in the payment of fees to counsel employed by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Deputy O'Keeffe raised the question of staff being sent to court from the Director of Public Prosecutions Office. The Director of Public Prosecutions' Office do not send their staff to court. Deputy McCartan raised the question of the delay in paying solicitors under the criminal legal aid scheme. This is not the fault of the Director of Public Prosecutions Office.
It was in conjunction with the delays in the Director of the Public Prosecutions Office.
He is not responsible for any fault causing a late payment to them.
We appreciate the speedy manner in which all parties in the House facilitated this debate. I will certainly take up the suggestion made by Deputy Carey in the final Stage of the debate and I will see if any progress can be made in relation to it. I have covered all the points raised and I thank Deputies again for their contributions.
Question put and agreed to.