Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:5 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the cost of external legal advice to his Department and the Office of the Attorney General for 1998; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25565/98]
Ceisteanna—Questions. - Consultancy Contracts.
John Bruton
Ceist:6 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the amount available in the 1999 Estimates for his Department and the Office of the Attorney General for commissioning outside legal advice; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25606/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 and 6 together.
First, in respect of my Department, no costs have been incurred in 1998 for external legal advice and there is no specific provision in the 1999 Estimate for my Department for commissioning such legal advice. There is a general provision for consultancies commissioned by my Department from which any such costs would, in the normal course, be met.
The bodies under the aegis of my Department are directly responsible for payments of costs from their financial allocations within Vote 3, including costs for legal advice, if arising. No such costs have been incurred during 1998. The commissioning of legal advice is a matter entirely at the discretion of the bodies. I am advised that the All-Party Committee on the Constitution may have some minor legal costs arising in 1999.
External legal advice is sought as a matter of routine by the Office of the Attorney General, including the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. The 1998 provision to these offices for fees to counsel and general law expenses is £8.38 million. Expenditure to date amounts to £7.438 million. The expenditure encompasses the full range of legal services involving both civil and criminal cases. Given the number and range of cases, it is not readily possible to isolate the amounts paid for advice only. The 1999 provision for fees to counsel and general law expenses is £12.24 million.
Does the Taoiseach agree it is an acceptable practice in this day and age for an Attorney General of whatever persuasion to dispense these sums of money? Does he agree it is acceptable that the offices referred to do not have some form of tendering or accountability procedures? The sums of money involved are absolutely staggering. I am not referring to costs incurred by the DPP but those directly related to the Attorney General of the day, whoever he or she may be. If the Taoiseach finds the practice unacceptable, as I do, has he obtained a breakdown of the different kinds of advice sought and the pattern, if any, which exists in this regard? Is an old boys' network in operation here? When did the Comptroller and Auditor General last examine the operation of this Department to ascertain whether value for money was obtained?
I have considered the issue of tendering. Legal advice is sought as a matter of routine by the Office of the Attorney General; it is not planned in advance. Where it is planned, I have stated the office should seek the best value for money. However, where the Office of the Attorney General and the Chief State Solicitor's Office seek knowledge of specialist areas of law, it is not possible for them to do that. It is impossible to predict when such needs will arise and the State must be in a position to respond at short notice to them. A tendering process is not followed in these instances as the offices believe such a process would be impractical.
However, where matters are planned in advance, the offices are prepared to consider a tendering process, although not with a great degree of enthusiasm. The Office of Attorney General is required to seek sanction from the Department of Finance. This is only a recent practice and Members will recall we have already experienced some difficulties in the lifetime of this Government in that regard. The systems in operation in the Office of the Attorney General have been reviewed in recent years. The previous Attorney General introduced many reforms. In spite of this, to isolate the amount paid for legal advice only as opposed to legal services one would have to go through every file. That is the reason I cannot give a breakdown.
Did the Taoiseach say that the amount spent by the office of the Attorney General on legal advice was £8 million this year and that this will increase to £12 million next year? What has been the rate of increase in the cost of legal advice sought from the private sector in the past four to five years and by how much has it exceeded the rate of increase in Government expenditure generally? Does the Taoiseach consider that this scale of fees indicates a legal system which is not working well and that this issue, the cost of justice, should be addressed?
The reason for the increase is that there is a huge network in place in the office of the Chief State Solicitor to deal with Army deafness cases. I do not have the figures but I am aware that they have not increased by very much when the relevant cost is excluded. There are 11,000 to 12,000 cases in hand which are being dealt with by between 40 and 50 staff. It was the conclusion of the previous Attorney General and the committee of the House which looked at the matter that, taking all circumstances into account, the State was getting good value for money.
Has the Comptroller and Auditor General been asked to look at the matter and provide a value for money report? Does the Taoiseach agree that this is the last area in which there is untrammelled patronage where a single person who is not answerable to anybody can allocate moneys in the order of £8 million this year rising to £12.24 million next year? No Minister or Department has discretion to allocate such sums without being subject to competitive tendering, review or analysis. Bearing in mind the substantial allocations made by the two previous Administrations for the modernisation of the office of the Attorney General, particularly under Mr. Dermot Gleeson, does the Taoiseach agree it is incredible, given modern information technology and the availability of software packages, that the subcosts cannot be separated?
I presume the figures can be broken down but to do so one would have to go through every file.
An increase of 50 per cent has been forecasted. Can a simple software system be put in place? Every corner shop which has to deal with the Revenue Commissioners has to do this in respect of VAT returns. Why is this office exempt?
I will raise the matter of including that information in the future. In my reply I dealt with the situation in the past. I have already advised the Deputy the reason for the increases. An enormous amount of data is linked directly to the Army deafness cases. The fees in respect of the finalisation of the McCracken, Moriarty and Flood tribunals have already been included. The main costs of the McCracken tribunal for 1998 are in respect of parties represented by the tribunal, while the main costs in the Moriarty tribunal are the legal costs paid to counsel for the tribunal. The Army deafness claims account for the higher figures.
Has the Comptroller and Auditor General ever been allowed examine this area?
I understand this was last examined when the previous Attorney General was in office.
What about the Comptroller and Auditor General?
I understand he was involved. Somebody under the previous Attorney General examined the area and the indications were that the amount paid by the State were not out of line with the general level of legal costs. I will inquire if that was the position. The Comptroller and Auditor General audits the work of the tribunal.
It is not necessarily value for money.