Vol. 467 No. 1
5 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the arrangements, if any, being made in the Office of the Attorney General for the operation of a case and correspondence tracking system; and the time-frame set for its implementation. [12649/96]
6 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the amount of correspondence received to date in 1996 by the Office of the Attorney General; and the average time taken to issue acknowledgements of receipt of correspondence. [12650/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 and 6 together.
On 28 May 1996, the Government published the second progress report, from the Attorney General, on the implementation of the report of the review group which was published on 21 February 1995.
In his report the Attorney General outlined the progress which has been made in a number of areas including the ongoing development of computer-based systems for use within his office.
One of the main needs identified by the review group was the need for a case and correspondence tracking system. This means the development of a system which allows senior management to review new cases as they arrive, to allocate the work as appropriate and to monitor its subsequent progress. It is intended that the Attorney General's office will develop the system in phases, with expert assistance from the centre for management and organization development of the Department of Finance. This approach facilitates the introduction of information technology in an incremental manner and delivers clear benefits at each stage to the office. Phase I, implemented in September 1995, provided the office with a case tracking system and has had an immediate impact on the office. The system is in the process of ongoing refinement and development in light of experience with its operation.
Phase 2, implemented earlier this month, and subsequent phases will further enhance the tracking capabilities within the office and its ability to respond to external queries.
I expect that a fully operational system will be in place in the first quarter of 1997.
The total number of items of correspondence received in 1996 by the office of the Attorney General up to and including 14 June was 7,098. This figure includes all correspondence from Government Departments and offices as well as correspondence received from the general public. However, correspondence received in relation to the work of the parliamentary draftsman, that is, the drafting of Bills is not included in this figure.
The average time taken to acknowledge receipt of correspondence is one day.
Page 5 of the report of the review group report on implementation makes the point that there is serious concern about the level of administrative and secretarial facilities in the office of the Attorney General. Has this matter been rectified? The report goes on to say that it is causing major problems in dealing with the workload in that office.
I am aware of this problem and it is receiving attention. It is a matter which must receive attention in the context of available resources, but priority as far as possible is being given to the office of the Attorney General and to the law offices of the State generally with regard to the provision of adequate secretarial backup, which has been neglected over a number of years. However, the House will agree that the introduction of the latest information technology to the office will enable the staff to work to better effect than was possible in the absence of such technology.
Is the Taoiseach aware that the same report points out that one of the problems the office of the Attorney General now faces is 2,500 deafness claims in respect of Army personnel which are apparently being processed through the courts on an individual basis? Would he not agree that if a huge volume of claims of that order is going to be dealt with by the office on a case by case basis there is much sense in the argument for setting up a compensation system which does not involve individual cases and High Court proceedings along the lines of the hepatitis C and other claims?
This matter deserves and is getting consideration.
Will the Taoiseach advise on what progress has been made in introducing information technology to the office of the Chief State Solicitor? What progress has been made on the proposal to appoint two extra parliamentary draftsmen?
Those are separate questions.
We are dealing with questions on the Attorney General.
The second report, referred to by Deputy Harney, refers specifically to the office of the Chief State Solicitor. Does the Taoiseach agree that the report admits, albeit indirectly, that no progress has been made regarding the introduction of information technology to the office?
The questions before me deal specifically with the Attorney General.
The report we are discussing in this context refers specifically to both offices.
I have confirmed the subject matter of the questions before me. If the Deputy wishes to take up the question of another State office he may do so by way of a separate question.
With regard to the Taoiseach's remarks on the deafness claims, I hope this issue is being taken seriously. If it is not dealt with almost immediately claims of the order of a quarter of a billion pounds are involved, not to mention legal fees.
I am aware, as is the Attorney General, of the position generally with regard to claims of this nature. I would not care to comment on the figures the Deputy is using, whether radical or conservative.
Conservative.
Or redundant. At least the Taoiseach listens.
I do. The Deputy is very interesting, and even better on Sundays. The Attorney General and I are considering various options for dealing with this matter.
