John O'Donoghue
Ceist:1 Mr. O'Donoghue asked the Taoiseach his views on reports of deficiencies in the Chief State Solicitor's office; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5550/97].
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Office of the Chief State Solicitor.
John O'Donoghue
Ceist:2 Mr. O'Donoghue asked the Taoiseach the steps, if any, he intends to take in view of the leaked reports regarding the deficiencies and inefficiencies in the Chief State Solicitor's office; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6348/97]
Dermot Ahern
Ceist:65 Mr. D. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to make a changes in the Office of the Chief State Solicitor; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5651/97]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 and No. 65 together.
As part of the process of reform of the State's legal offices, Deloitte & Touche were appointed in May 1996 to carry out a review of the organisation and management of the Chief State Solicitor's office. The detailed study, which was the first ever undertaken in respect of the Office in the history of the State, involved extensive investigation and consultation. The report of the study was presented to the Chief State Solicitor in November 1996.
The report was immediately submitted to and considered by Government. At its meeting on 3 December 1996 the Government accepted, in principle, the contents of the report; the recruitment of the number of staff, approximately 20, recommended by the consultants; and that the Chief State Solicitor's office should discuss the implementation of the remaining recommendations with the Department of Finance as a matter of urgency. The Government also agreed to the immediate recruitment of additional staff for the office to undertake duties related to the Criminal Assets Bureau, and to the provision of additional staff for Army hearing loss cases.
Following Question Time on 25 February, I arranged to have the report placed in the Oireachtas Library. Copies have since been supplied to each Member of both Houses. Deputies who have had an opportunity to read the report will have observed that section 6, containing the consultants' recommendations, runs to 41 pages. The detailed recommendations have been considered by the Chief State Solicitor and urgent action is being taken to implement them as quickly as possible. In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on individual detailed recommendations. I am pleased, however, to report that immediate action has been taken by the Government on foot of the report.
Additional financial resources have been provided by the Government in this year's Estimates to enable the Chief State Solicitor's office recruit some additional staff, implement a major computerisation programme, improve staff training and development and enhance infrastructural facilities.
The detailed subhead increases will show, for example, an increase of 26 per cent on salaries, wages and allowances, 204 per cent on incidental expenses, including staff training and development, and 103 per cent on office machinery and other office supplies which include information technology equipment.
Immediate action has been taken to increase staffing numbers. Almost all authorised posts have been filled in recent weeks. In some cases, this has been done through the use of short-term contracts where delays in making permanent appointments were envisaged. Work on an ambitious extension and refurbishment programme for the premises of the Chief State Solicitor's office, at a cost of £4 million, is expected to commence in May.
The Statement of Strategy for the Offices of the Attorney General and Chief State Solicitor under the Strategic Management Initiative will take account of the consultants' report and will be published shortly. The annual report of the Office of the Attorney General will include a report on the Office of the Chief State Solicitor as well as on his own office, and this is expected to be published in June. I will arrange to have copies placed in the Oireachtas Library as soon as is practicable in both cases.
Will the Taoiseach accept that lawyers working in the Chief State Solicitor's office are entirely dissatisfied with the progress which has been made on the recommendations contained in the report? Since they have threatened strike action, it is imperative that the Government moves to implement the essential recommendations of the report, particularly in regard to personnel, as the lawyers concerned have expressed the view that there has been a failure to negotiate meaningfully on the contents of the report. Should they commence industrial action it is clear that, at best, cases will be slowed down and, at worst, lost.
I outlined in my reply a range of steps that are being taken to improve the situation in the Chief State Solicitor's office, including a substantial increase in the provision for staff and the recruitment of a significant number of staff in the office. Steps are being taken also to improve the information technology available for use by staff in the office — there has been a 100 per cent increase in the financial provision in that area. Furthermore, the physical conditions for staff of the office are being improved with the £4 million refurbishment programme being undertaken.
Since the report came to hand last November, rapid action has been taken in regard to its implementation. There are outstanding matters in the report upon which decisions have yet to be taken. I understand there would not be any difficulty in discussing the situation fully with the staff concerned and explaining to them exactly what is being done on all of the recommendations. It is important that the staff understand and be supportive of the steps being taken and that their views be heard on the report and on further steps that ought to be taken on the matter. It is fair to say, however, that the Chief State Solicitor's office, which has been neglected over many years as to its many needs, is now being given a very high priority and that, on foot of this report, we are seeing an unprecedented level of action to remedy long existing deficiencies.
If the Taoiseach's latter remarks are correct, it is extraordinary that law-years in the office should threaten strike action. Perhaps the Taoiseach could reconcile that with what he said. Does the Taoiseach accept that there is duplication and delay because of the nature of the relationship between the office of the Chief State Solicitor, the office of the Attorney General and the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions? Would he agree that there should be a study of all three offices to ascertain the merits of any structural changes and changes in relationships between those offices?
The Deputy is probably unaware of it, but such a study has been under way for some time. A group chaired by the Attorney General is examining how we can better co-ordinate the activities of all the legal offices of the State. That body has met five times so far and is working very actively on better co-ordination between the various legal offices and on making their functions complementary to one another. It is only when one studies the detail of the report and the wide range of steps that have been taken to deal with long-standing deficiencies, which I have only partly touched upon here, that one can come to a judgment in the matter, and any such judgment would suggest that very decisive action is now being taken to deal with deficiencies that have existed for many years without such action being taken.
For a long time I have expressed concern about the lack of accountability for the administration or, as it turns out, maladministration in the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in particular. Forty-one pages of recommendations are included in this report. Would the Taoiseach agree that, while the report is long on recommendations, it is not a very effective mechanism for accountability? Has there been any assessment in any report of the losses which have been incurred by the State because of maladministration in the office of the Chief State Solicitor? The Taoiseach says that this is the first major report on the office, but the report itself points to six earlier unpublished reports which looked into the administration of the office of the Chief State Solicitor in 1995 and 1996. Will those reports be published, and why were they not published before? Did the Taoiseach have an intention to publish this report before it was leaked?
There is considerable room for improvement in the administration of the office of the Chief State Solicitor. Action is being taken on these matters. The purpose of the commissioning of the report was to identify areas where improvement in administration and other functions of the office could be improved. For the Deputy to suggest maladministration, which is a very specific charge to make, is quite unjustified. I reject it in the case of the office of the Chief State Solicitor and also in the case of the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Such a charge is not justified, and I am surprised that the Deputy made it.
This report made very specific recommendations for change on the basis of a finding by the consultants that there were major areas of deficiency and delays being experienced in the operation of the office of the Chief State Solicitor. They pointed to contingent factors such as that cases could be dismissed for not having been filed on time or that criminal charges could be dropped because the book of evidence was not prepared in time. They pointed to significant cost to the State in personal injury matters by litigating up to the end and not settling earlier. All of these things indicate maladministration. I do not know why the Taoiseach is shaking his head. Has the Taoiseach been made aware of any specific case where, because of a fault in the administration of the office of the Chief State Solicitor or of the office the Director of Public Prosecutions, a case has been dismissed, injustice has been done or a criminal has been allowed to walk free?
My understanding is that the term "maladministration" has a very specific meaning and does not simply indicate that there is room for improvement or substantial room for improvement. It is a very specific charge that the Deputy is making and I reject it.
It does not just mean bad faith.
I have no doubt that there is room for improvement in this office and that improvement is now taking place. This Government is committing financial resources on a scale before never committed by any previous Government to improving the situation in the office of the Chief State Solicitor. The services of this office were neglected under all previous Governments, including the one in which the Deputy's party was involved.
The Taoiseach has given a very upbeat reply, but the IMPACT trade union has been campaigning for three years for the reform of this office and for extra staff. Given that the office of the Attorney General was reformed following the Brendan Smyth case, would the Taoiseach not accept that it is unacceptable that it has taken so long and that it is a poor reflection on the Government that action is now being taken following a threat of industrial action? That is the real situation, no matter what gloss the Taoiseach puts on it.
Deputy Kitt is entirely wrong in what he has just said. The action is being taken on foot of a consultant's report and on foot of a Government decision of last December on receipt of that report. The action which is now being taken is in no way related to threats of industrial action.
Is the Taoiseach aware of the unhappiness of the technical staff in the office of the Chief State Solicitor who believe that the organisation and management review contains no recommendations for the improvement of their conditions in terms of staff and career opportunities? The technical staff, the law clerks, have always been a vital cog in the machinery of the office of the Chief State Solicitor. It appears no recommendations have been made to improve their conditions. Is the Taoiseach aware of the unhappiness of the technical staff about the implementation of the organisation and management review to date?
It is important to make the point that the organisation and management review was carried out by independent consultants and any recommendations they made were made on their own responsibility having assessed the matter independently. The Government is not responsible for what the independent consultants did or did not include in their report. That is not to say that the views of the staff will not be taken into account. If there are matters that are supplementary or additional to what is contained in the organisation and management report, these can be considered, and staff views on these matters can and will be taken into account. There is no suggestion that this report is the last word on this topic or that the decision by the consultants to include one topic or exclude another in any way predetermines further consideration of the matter. It does not.
Does the Taoiseach accept that the existing grading structure of staff will have to be tackled because of the fact that the office is failing to hold on to experienced staff who are extremely necessary in an office which deals with such complex matters as the office of the Chief State Solicitor?
This is a matter that can be considered in the context of the discussions that are ongoing on the further implementation of the report and of improvements generally in the office. It would be appropriate for matters concerning details such as the appropriate grading of particular members of staff to be dealt with, not at the level of the Taoiseach's office but through negotiation and discussion within the office of the Chief State Solicitor itself.
What has happened to the proposal which was put forward by the Director of Public Prosecutions that the Government should consider a unified prosecution service to eliminate, to quote the Taoiseach's own words, the absurd duplications and delays which are caused by maintaining the status quo in relation to the Chief State Solicitor being a solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions?
That matter is one that is being considered by the high level group on the law offices of the State to which I have already referred in answer to a question by Deputy O'Donoghue.
The Taoiseach took issue with Deputy O'Donnell's phrase "maladministration" as if it conveyed some notion of bad faith. Will he agree maladministration is equivalent to bad administration? In any State solicitor's office, whoever is at fault — we are not talking about ascribing political fault — if a letter cannot be replied to within ten days, it is bad administration. Deputy O'Donnell's phrase "maladministration" is, therefore, fair. My experience of the Chief State Solicitor's office, which is considerable, leads me to the view that clerks are being asked to do complex tasks——
We are having statements from the Deputy rather than questions.
I am asking the Taoiseach if he agrees that clerks are being asked to do tasks that are very complex and that they, unlike solicitors who are free to leave and are leaving in numbers, are prisoners of the system because they cannot use their skills elsewhere? I think Deputy Lenihan will agree the real heroes of the Chief State Solicitor's office are the clerks who do work which nobody else would do for the same money.
The Government is committing financial resources on an unprecedented scale to deal with the problems that have existed for years in the Chief State Solicitor's office. I have indicated an increase of more than 25 per cent in the allocation of staff, 200 per cent in allocations for training and other incidental improvements and 100 per cent in the allocation for information technology as well as £4 million for a new building. That indicates that the Government is committing resources to this subject.
The specific individual arrangements in the office as between one grade of staff and another and the responsibility one grade of staff is asked to take on board in comparison to the responsibility another grade is asked to take on board is not a matter on which the Government should decide; it should be decided through discussion within the office in the best interests of the office. In rejecting the charge of maladministration, I do not believe the improvements in the Chief State Solicitor's office will come without the full support of the staff, who have worked very well under very restricted conditions in the past. To level such a charge at them is not fair.