Vol. 484 No. 4
2 Mr. Higgins (Mayo): asked the Taoiseach if he is satisfied that adequate resources are being made available to the offices of the Chief State Solicitor and the Director of Public Prosecutions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22282/97]
The House will be aware that both these offices have been the subject of independent reviews in recent times. Arising from these reviews, increased resources have been made available to both offices in terms of staffing and infrastructural areas, notably information technology which is now well advanced. The nature of the workload in both offices is such that continuous review is necessary to ensure they provide an effective and efficient service.
(Mayo): How many additional staff have been employed in both offices?
There are 30 people employed in the DPP's office, 14 of whom are in legal grades and 16 in general service grades. That office has increased its staff considerably during the year and developed its information technology system. Staff numbers in the Chief State Solicitor's office have increased dramatically, mainly due to the hearing claims from members of the Army. There are approximately 214 staff in that office, 32 of whom are involved in the section dealing with hearing loss claims.
(Mayo): Is the Taoiseach aware that the Chief State Solicitor's office was approached by certain consultants regarding the Army deafness issue with a view to providing a number of lawyers in the office with specialist knowledge, but this was turned down by the office on the basis that the largesse must be shared in the Law Library.
Is the Deputy saying private lawyers offered expertise to the Chief State Solicitor's office?
(Mayo): The Chief State Solicitor's office was approached by a group expert in ear, nose and throat problems with a view to briefing people in that office so that they could go into court well equipped to face the highly specialist people operating on behalf of the plaintiffs.
I do not know about that, but there are 32 people working in the section dealing with hearing claims. The difficulties relate to the number of proceedings rather than a lack of expertise. This time last year 3,900 claims had been submitted to the office, to date this year the office has received 8,335. As the Minister informed the House recently, the claims are increasing at the rate of 100 per week. This is unprecedented case law that is naturally putting a strain on the office. It is not a question of a lack of expertise, it is the sheer volume of work arising from the Army deafness claims that is causing the problem.
(Mayo): The Taoiseach appears to be under the impression that the resources being given to the DPP's office are adequate. Approximately four months ago the DPP stated that the office's resources were no longer adequate to provide the service which the courts — and increasingly the public — expect and demand. He also stated it is essential to develop the public prosecution service to a standard comparable with that in other countries and that we are almost unique in that most prosecutions are proceeded with by the gardaí without any involvement of the office responsible for law for handling such cases. The DPP has stated that he has inadequate resources to discharge his functions.
That statement was included in the statement of strategy published some months ago by the DPP. A number of additional staff have been appointed to the office. The litigation is almost endless. An application from the DPP will of course receive priority because of the importance of the office, but there has been no recent request from the Director. The office has been working on the development of a modern information technology system in all the offices. They have also been working towards increasing staff to an appropriate level. Substantial resources have been made available to all the offices, including a large amount of money for the development of information technology. The same applies to the Chief State Solicitor's office, which has installed a major networking computer system and commenced refurbishment of the office and the extension of its premises at Ship Street which is to be completed next summer. The l998 Estimates provide for an increase of 11.5 per cent. I admit the amount of resources taken up on the deafness claims is putting a strain on the office. A large proportion of staff is caught up doing work they did not have 18 months ago. We will deal with any requests for additional staff in the DPP's office.
The Deputy referred to the unified prosecution service, which forms a substantial part of the DPP's report. That is being considered by Government and the State law offices review group set up by the previous Attorney General. Following the report they agreed they did not have enough information to implement it, based on the assessment. They are, therefore, looking at the situation to see if that is the best way of proceeding. It would be immensely costly to do that. Effectively, it would rule the Garda out of their present role and everything would be done on a legal basis. It would have huge ramifications. A member of the DPP's staff was on the group, however, and agreed they would need to examine it in far more detail before they could proceed. He put it forward in a strategy statement as something he would like to see in the future.
Bearing in mind the explosion in the number of legal cases now characterising all aspects of society, is the Taoiseach in a position to indicate the Government's position with regard to the proposal to establish a national claims agency? Will he state when the legislation to give effect to that body will be introduced.
That matter is still under consideration in a number of respects. As the Deputy stated, one must take into consideration the number of claims coming before the State from all sources, as well as the amount of legal time involved. It is a matter for the courts and the legal profession, but if all these matters have to be taken on an individual case basis, some people have argued that we should have personal claims tribunals for different sections. I have looked at this issue and spoken to the legal people about it. To do that would go outside what we always considered to be the functions of tribunals in this State because claims would not be based on a common cause or accident, which is the way they were always determined. It would not be possible to establish clinically and beyond doubt that the medical condition which prompted the claims existed. There are other difficulties as well. All those matters would have to be examined before we could decide to legislate to establish a claims agency.
In expanding the capability of both the DPP's office and the Chief State Solicitor's office, are we not encouraging a litigious culture? This culture has now come to the conclusion that behind every conceivable human problem there is a legal case waiting to break out. All one has to do is find somebody against whom one can file a suit. We need to deal with this matter other than through the courts, which are costing taxpayers an arm and a leg.
Maybe the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs should take it over and pay a basic income to them all.
One would need to raise the threshold.
It will occur.
It is costing both arms and both legs. The Deputy is correct in that regard. However, I disagree with the Deputy when he said that additional staff are driving it. It is already being driven by claims from every quarter. The fact is that people see compensation possibilities in every case. "Compensationitis" is the worst disease in the country.
If the Taoiseach looked at the solicitors' section in the Yellow Pages it would make him blush.
Look at the Front Bench.
No interruptions at Question Time.
I voted against advertising but we were accused on another basis.
I will not name anyone lest I am accused of attacking individuals, but Members would do well to look at some of the advertisements that surfaced this week in relation to the Army deafness case. They more or less urge people to get in before the door is closed on the claims. It is like the January sales, which is not the right spirit.
We are trying to help the Taoiseach to close the door.
I appreciate that. I assure the Deputy that the issue of how we deal with these matters is being carefully looked at, although I do not think there is any simple solution. The number of claims being made against anybody and everything — the Government, newspapers, State agencies and others — is horrendous. We must try to deal with it as efficiently as possible.
In reply to the question on the broader remit that Deputy Quinn has rightly raised, we are looking at it but we are trying to make sure that the staff, resources, expertise, technology, research and library facilities within the State's law offices are the best we can provide. We will probably always be operating on limited resources but 200 people are now working in the office of the DPP and that of the Chief State Solicitor.
The post of claims manager was advertised during my tenure in office. Has such a manager been appointed to the office of the Chief State Solicitor to deal with these deafness claims?
I think we are wandering from the question.
No. It is in relation to staffing the Chief State Solicitor's office. We sought the appointment of a claims manager. Does the Taoiseach agree that 3,900 claims is equivalent to a claims department in a reasonably sized insurance company? In such a claims department the staff are not necessarily all legal people. There are claims experts who can deal quickly with certain cases and save considerable sums of money if the claim is settled quickly.
I recently answered a question on that matter. To the best of my knowledge the claims officer is included in the number. I will check it for the Deputy. To correct the Deputy, in case I misled him, the figure of 3,900 was for last year. The current figure is 8,335.
I take it the question specifically arises from the difficulty in bringing prosecutions and the number of inefficiencies and inadequacies that have become apparent. As the Taoiseach wishes to deal with the matter efficiently, and perhaps in line with the famous principle of openness, transparency and accountability, is he considering any review whereby the Chief State Solicitor and the DPP may report to the House on a regular basis? In that way we would have the opportunity of discovering exactly what is happening.
It has already been agreed in the Compellability, Privileges and Immunity of Witnesses Act, 1997, which provides for the attendance of the DPP at the Committee of Public Accounts. That Act is not yet fully operational. I am advised that there are legal requirements and that guidelines must be provided to a committee in relation to the exercise of its powers under the Act before these can be availed of. That matter is in hand, however, and as soon as it is dealt with, the DPP will be able to answer.
There is also the question of the Director of Public Prosecutions publishing an annual report. That issue will be addressed as soon as the technology programme is in place.
(Mayo): One of the recommendations in the strategy document was that a network of regional prosecutors would be appointed to district court areas. Has any consideration been given to that and will it be implemented? Secondly, has any consideration been given to amalgamating the offices of the Chief State Solicitor and the DPP?
As the Deputy knows from the strategy report, that is not what they want to do. However, they want to make sure they can work in harmony through their technology programmes being made compatible. That is why so many resources have been put into that area.
The Deputy mentioned one of the recommendations regarding regional prosecutors. All the suggestions that have been put forward are the subject of an examination between the relevant offices and Government Departments. When that has been completed we will see what we should implement. At the moment the staffing and technology programmes are being implemented.
