Mary Harney
Ceist:1 Miss. Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the ongoing work to improve information technology in the Office of the Attorney General. [16478/96]
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Technology Improvements.
Bertie Ahern
Ceist:2 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the progress, if any, on measures to improve procedures in the Office of the Attorney General. [18365/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
The second report, from the Attorney Genreal, on the Implementation of the Report of the Review Group, published on 28 May 1996, referred to the following points on which progress was achieved: the appointment of two additional legal assistants and three additional senior draftsmen; engaging three parliamentary draftsmen on a contract basis; the appointment of both a head of administration and a systems and services manager; and the financial allocation made available for ongoing improvements in staffing and office equipment, especially information technology.
Further progress has continued on a number of fronts since the publication of the second report. These include: in line with the strategic management initiative, the Office of the Attorney General is concluding work on a statement of strategy; two additional legal assistants have been appointed and the Attorney General has recently assigned a legal assistant from the office to act as a legal attaché to Ireland's permanent representation in Brussels. The legal assistant in question will perform the very valuable task of assisting other members of Ireland's permanent representation in relation to legal matters which may arise on proposed legislation emanating from the institutions of the European Union. She will also be available to attend EU meetings in Brussels where legal issues arise: the increase in staffing numbers of the current figure of 68.5 from 61 at the end of March 1995, and 45.5 when the Government took office in December 1994.
Of course, increased staffing and financial allocation is not the complete answer to the difficulties faced by the Office of the Attorney General. The Government is committed to ensuring that the Office of the Attorney General is a modern and fully effective branch of the Government service. Since we took office we have embarked on a major task of computerising the main procedures in the office. This major task was commenced in early 1995 and will continue into 1997.
In response to a parliamentary question from Deputy Harney on 18 June 1996, I outlined how ongoing work to improve case and correspondence tracking in the Office of the Attorney General had progressed. At that time the office had just implemented phase 2 of its case-tracking system with continuing expert assistance from the Civil Service Centre for management and organisation development of the Department of Finance.
Since then the office has concentrated on establishing phase 2 in the day-to-day operations of the office. The development of such an information technology based system across a whole organisation has the potential to deliver clear benefits to the organisation and its clients. The achievement of these benefits requires the expertise and commitment of all involved. This commitment is very much in evidence in the office. It also requires ongoing information technology development, IT training and IT support. This has been the focus of the office's efforts since the implementation of phase 2. Following their initial expertise of using phase 2, some refinements and enhancements considered desirable by the staff of the office have also been incorporated.
Work on phase 3 is now beginning. The main aim of this phase will be to link the office's wordprocessing facilities to the case-tracking system. In other words, enhancing the link between internal and outgoing correspondence with correspondence received.
In July 1996, I launched the Chronological Tables of the Statutes 1922-1995, which provides detailed information on the effects of legislation enacted since 1922 on all statutes enacted before and after that year. This publication was produced electronically, in camera-ready format, using the information technology facilities available in the Office of the Attorney General.
Modernisation is also taking place in the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. A wideranging review of the office by a management consultancy firm is nearing completion. It is expected that implementation, where appropriate, of the review recommendations will bring about major improvements. An information technology plan is in the course of preparation for that office. In line with the plan, it is proposed to commence installation of an extensive computerised network next year.
I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Attorney General is chairing a group comprising senior managers from his office, including the Parliamentary Draftsman's Office and the Chief State Solicitor's Office, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Departments of Finance, Justice and the Taoiseach as well as an independent legal consultant to provide a strategic overview of the law offices of the State. The terms of reference of the group, require it to identify the strategic policy issues common to the law offices which require detailed examination and consideration. The group held its first meeting on Thursday last, 10 October, and it will make recommendations to Government as soon as possible on action to ensure that the legal services provided to the State are structured and managed to provide a quality service.
Has the study examining the feasibility of splitting the two functions of the Attorney General, that of legal adviser to the Government and upholder of the public interest in the courts of justice, been carried out, in view of the commitment on page 13 in the programme for Government? In view of the matter in which the Attorney General conducted the case on behalf of the State against the late Brigid McCole, does the Taoiseach believe it urgent that these roles be separated before the proposed tribunal of inquiry is established?
The parliamentary questions to which I replied relate to the internal procedures of the office. The Deputy now raises structural questions of a much wider character which are not within the remit of the questions tabled.
There are arguments for and against the splitting of the office of Attorney General into what is known as the public interest role and the role of adviser to the Government which occupies 99.9 per cent of his time. It is rare that the Attorney General has a role separate from that as adviser to the Government, usually where a public interest issue arises. There would not be sufficient work for a separate person performing full time the public interest role the Deputy refers to. For that reason, the proposal is not far advanced.
It is also an issue that would be considered in the context of any review of the Constitution. The Attorney General is a constitutional officer in that his or her role and office are described in the Constitution and can only be changed by means of an amendment to the latter. The best method of considering the issue the Deputy raises would probably be by the all-party committee, on which the Deputy's party is represented by an eminent person, which is currently engaged in an examination of all aspects of the Constitution and could make recommendations if it wished on the issue.
Is there a large backlog of files in the Attorney General's office and does it take several months to receive an opinion from the Attorney General? Are priority cases lagging far behind and running into difficulty in some Government Departments?
Any legal adviser has to prioritise his or her work, be they in private practice or an adviser to one client, as is the case with the Attorney General whose one client is the Government. That is the normal operation in any law office and priority business is dealt with more quickly than other business.
I am not aware of any significant backlog in furnishing advice. There may, however, be individual issues where the Attorney General has to refer an issue to independent counsel hired to advise on the issues. The Attorney General must await that advice from the external counsel brought in to assist him before furnishing it to the Department that sought it.
My impression is that the office of the Attorney General is working exceptionally well. The Government has increased the staff of the office by almost 50 per cent since I became Taoiseach. We have also make an investment in information technology on a scale not seen since the office was created at the foundation of the State. Both these tools exist for the furnishing of necessary advise in good and prompt order. Having met the main staff in the Attorney General's office myself on a personal basis on numerous occasions, it seems to me the morale in the office is extremely high. The people concerned are working to a high standard of excellence and are giving good service to the State. However, if the Deputy is aware of some item on which legal advice is awaited and of which I am not aware, perhaps he will furnish it to me so I can examine it.
The question I raise relating to the splitting of the two roles is not something I raise anew. The Government gave a commitment in its programme to examine this matter. It is not good enough for the Taoiseach to say it is a matter for the Constitutional Review Committee. Has the Taoiseach considered the matter? Does he accept it is not always in the public interest that the Attorney General is the person who defends the Government and State agencies and the public interest? Would he also accept that, in making an application to the court to deny the late Brigid McCole her anonymity, the Attorney General was not representing the public interest?
I have considered the matter in some detail since coming into Government. As a result of that, it has come to my attention that the number of instances where the Attorney General is called upon to act separately from his role as adviser to the Government, in a role of defender of the wider public interest, represents somewhere in the region of 0.1 per cent of his total workload. It is a minute proportion of his work and might arise twice or three times in an entire year and then for maybe an hour's work. I have considered the matter and foresee considerable difficulty in justifying to the taxpayer the idea of having somebody full time, a separate officer of the State, acting in the public interest role. I have also outlined that any major structural change in the Attorney General's office would require a change in the Constitution because the Attorney General's office is provided for in the Constitution. The Constitution can be changed in this jurisdiction only by means of legislation approved by the people in a referendum. One would want to have considered the matter carefully before proceeding with the proposal along those lines. That is the present state of my consideration of the issue, but further consideration is not excluded.
One of the Deputies who has been most vocal and coherent in arguing for a separation of the two roles is Deputy Michael McDowell of Deputy Harney's Party. The Deputy is a member of the Constitutional Review Group chaired by Deputy Jim O'Keeffe. I have no doubt he will avail of the opportunity to advance his arguments in favour of the Deputy Harney's proposals, but will consider the difficulties I outlined which she no doubt considers weighty too.
Since it was events in the Attorney General's office that put the Taoiseach in his present position, I am not surprised he is kind with resources to it.
The Deputy is not making a true statement.
I believe I am.
If he does, he is mistaken.
I am not mistaken. People are waiting months for opinions. Is it the case that nothing is delegated in the Office of the Attorney General and that an opinion is not released until the Attorney General clears it himself? Is that the difficulty? If it is, does the Taoiseach consider that procedure to be correct?
It is wrong to say that the reason for the change of Government was related to happenings in the Office of the Attorney General. That is not the case. History will show there was a breakdown in confidence between the two parties in Government and that was the reason. The Deputy is mistaken in focusing unduly narrowly on one office or one event in that regard. However, that is a matter for others to discuss. The Deputy's assumptions are not entirely correct, although undoubtdly event in the Office of the Attorney General precipitated some of the difficulties.
That is what I said.
We will not disagree.
Will the Taoiseach answer the question? We have a limited amount of time.
The Deputy asked a number of questions. He must allow sufficient time for the answers.
That is too simple.
He did not like the answers.
The Taoiseach is making a speech.
It is the case that the Attorney General sees each opinion furnished by his office. That has been the case under every Attorney General and it is appropriate because, under the Constitution, the Attorney General acts personally as the adviser to the Government and not officers in his office. In certain cases where there is conflict with past work it is appropriate that the Attorney General should see and approve — if he does not necessarily write in every case — the advice furnished to the Government. That is a reasonable approach and it need not change at this stage.
A number of extra unestablished staff — barristers and a solicitor — were recruited to the Office of the Attorney General to deal with legislation. They are employed on a part-time basis. How many extra legal personnel have been recruited on a full-time basis since the change of Government? The part-time personnel are employed on a daily fee basis. Would it not be better to employ them full-time and pay them a full-time salary to be present all the time? Of the six legal staff dealing with legislation in the Office of the Attorney General, four were recruited recently on a daily fee basis.
Some people prefer to work on a daily fee rather than a full-time basis. It is important that we get the best people available on mutually acceptable terms. The practice of people working in the Office of the Attorney General on a contract which involves the payment of a daily fee or payment on the basis of work delivered has worked reasonably well. It was not originated by this Attorney General but he has developed it and used it to enable the Government to clear backlogs in drafting legislation. I do not see any difficulty with the present arrangements. They are working well.
A number of Deputies are offering and we should try to make progress on other questions.
The question I asked in the first instance was about the number of extra unestablished staff in the legal area who have been recruited on a daily fee basis as opposed to the number recruited on a full-time basis.
I do not have a breakdown of figures on that basis. I can get it for the Deputy.
I have a relevant question tabled for tomorrow. It can be given then.
I understand that most of the people recruited on that basis have been taken on in the drafting area and that the number of people employed on a daily fee basis is not large. The Deputy will be aware that the Office of the Attorney General gets advice from practising barristers on a fee basis. The arrangement whereby people are contracted to the office either as full-time staff or on a daily fee basis is separate.
Will the Taoiseach confirm that the changeover to a full-time Attorney General, whereby the Attorney General has no outside cases or work, has been completed? The position was not 100 per cent full-time in the past.
I dealt with that matter on a previous occasion. It does not come within the purview of the question, which referred to the procedures of the office and information technology in the office. The question did not relate to the status of the Attorney General and whether he is full-time. The Attorney General has maintained his status as a practising barrister. It is necessary for him to do that. In practice 100 per cent of his work is for the State, which is his sole client. He makes the necessary arrangements to ensure his status as a practising barrister is maintained for——
Eventualities.
——Professional reasons.
In other words, elections.
I do not want to give the Deputy information that I have not checked exhaustively. If anything I have said is not completely accurate I will revert to the Deputy. I did not have notice today of his question.
I take it from the Taoiseach's earlier replies that, having considered the separation of the two roles, he believes splitting the role of the Attorney General could not be justified for financial and other reasons. That being the case, who does the Taoiseach propose to represent the public interest before the tribunal of inquiry into blood contamination?
I have not come to a final conclusion on the issue; I have indicated the current status of my thinking. The matter is currently under consideration. Any issue the Deputy wishes to raise about the tribunal should be raised during the debate on the proposal to establish a tribunal, which will be held later this week.
The Taoiseach is the person I should question in this regard because he has responsibility for the Office of the Attorney General. There is much concern about how the Attorney General conducted the case against the late Brigid McCole. There is also concern among the women affected about who will represent the public interest at the proposed tribunal of inquiry. The Taoiseach should answer those questions. I would not be happy to have them addressed to the Minister for Health. If the Taoiseach is not in a position to answer them today he should answer them before the tribunal is established so that there will not be a repeat of the beef tribunal where the public interest was not represented.
Let us not anticipate the debate to be held this week.
I do not wish to anticipate a debate in the House. The Government operates on the basis of collective responsibility. A proposal put forward by any member of the Government is collectively agreed by all members of the Government and they are collectively accountable for it. Therefore, the issue of who sets forth Government policy on a matter should not cause the Deputy concern.
As far as the public interest is concerned, the tribunal will act in the public interest and in accordance with its terms of reference, which give it a public interest function. The Deputy has made her views known; such views have been made known before. They will be considered in the course of the Government's consideration of the matter. I do not wish to anticipate what the Government will put forward and it would be inappropriate for me to be pressed further until it is finalised. It will be dealt with then. The Deputy should accept that any Minister is entitled to express and explain Government policy.
Irrespective of the tribunal, did the Attorney General act for the Government in the recent McCole court case? He has an overriding responsibility to all our citizens. The public interest arises only in 0.1 per cent of cases. This was very obviously one of the 0.1 per cent of cases. It was not appropriate for the Attorney General to act on behalf of the Government in so sensitive a case which has touched so many people. The overriding responsibility of the Attorney General was to represent the public interest in the women that were affected.
There is a public interest in everything the Government does. All Government activity has an element of public interest. Government is not a private business; it is a public business. Therefore, any matter on which the Attorney General might advise——
The Taoiseach did not think so in 1994.
——or act for the Government has a public interest dimension.
Neither did Deputy Spring.
That was not the point I made in response to Deputy Harney. I explained to the Deputy there are certain cases where the Attorney General, under statutes which in many cases predate the creation of his office, has a responsibility to act for the public as distinct from the Government. Where the government is not involved, he acts for the public. That is a separate role over and above his primary role as adviser to the Government on Government business. Those two categories of work are defined by the nature of that work.
I will not comment on the handling of a particular court case. It is important the House be aware of the need to maintain an appropriate separation of functions between the courts and the Oireachtas in a matter of this nature. It is important to recognise that all counsel who appear before a judge in a court are acting to assist the court and it is a matter for the courts to regulate. If criticism of the conduct of counsel is required, it is not a matter for the Oireachtas. The Oireachtas might cross the boundary in what is appropriate in terms of the separation of powers if it criticised individual counsel in individual cases. I am sure the Deputy would not wish us to do that.
The Deputy would not wish to get involved if there is a separation——
The House has now dwelt on these two questions for more than half an hour. That seems an inordinate amount of time to devote to two questions having regard to the large number of questions on the Order Paper.
I have been long enough in this House to respect the difference between the Judiciary and the Executive but a case such as this had touched many thousands of people not just the 1,400 to 1,500 people infected but their extended families. The role of the Attorney General in this case should have been to protect the interest of the individual woman rather than as protector of the public purse——
We are having an element of repetition and I asked for brevity.
——and of misbehaviour in various agencies and Departments, at various levels. His responsibility is to the people and not to the Departments.
We must avoid repetition of this kind.
Any lawyer acts for his or her client in presenting a case to the courts. The courts then decide, on the basis of the law, on the rights and wrongs of the issue. My concern is that the House should not interfere in the courts' prerogatives by criticising any lawyer acting for any client in any case.
We are talking about the Attorney General.
That would put us in a position where we would transgress in the area that is the prerogative of the courts. In the interests of the rule of law, which is one of the foundation stones of our democracy, it is important that we should not become involved in selective second guessing——
We are talking about justice, not law.
——the decisions of individual lawyers acting in cases where the final decision in those cases falls to be made, in accordance with the law, by the judges and not by the individual counsel, no matter for whom those counsel may act.
Is the only legislation governing the role of the Attorney General the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924, which predates our Constitution by a considerable time? We have not recently had a debate on the role of the Attorney General. Under the Taoiseach's programme, A Government of Renewal, the role of the Attorney General in relation to the State was to be considered. That Bill is still under consideraction. Is the Taoiseach still considering splitting the office? Is it still on the Government agenda?
There is no legislation in preparation to split the office of the Attorney General. Such legislation would not accord properly with the Constitution, which is the most recent legislation on the office of the Attorney General. The Constitution is in itself legislation that applies directly and legislation to change the Constitution is not currently under consideration.
However, as the Deputy said, the issue has been considered. I have already indicated in responses to Deputy Harney some of my concerns on the issue but the all-party committee currently looking at the Constitution on the basis of the Whitaker report is not precluded from examining this matter if it wishes.