I welcome the Minister of State and her officials. We will deal with the Supplementary Estimates relating to the Department of the Taoiseach. I ask the Minister of State to make her opening statement.
Vote 5 - Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Supplementary)
I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to appear before select committee as it considers this request for a Supplementary Estimate. I am here on behalf of the Taoiseach. A €4.5 million Supplementary Estimate is requested for Vote 5, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP. A technical Supplementary Estimate of €1,000 must also be requested for the Department of the Taoiseach to allow reallocation of funds between budget lines. A detailed brief for each of these Votes has been supplied to the committee in advance of the meeting.
The key function of the Office of the DPP is to provide a prosecution service that is independent, fair and effective for the people of Ireland. While the Taoiseach has certain responsibilities to the Oireachtas for administrative matters in the Office of the DPP, the office operates independently of the Department. The net estimate for the Office of the DPP, Vote 5, for 2023 is €55.318 million. This provides for the salaries and expenses of the director and her staff, the cost of the local State solicitor service, fees to counsel engaged by the director to prosecute cases in the various courts, and legal costs awarded against the State arising out of judicial review and other legal proceedings.
A Supplementary Estimate of €4.5 million is being sought for 2023, which represents an 8% increase in the net allocation. The need for the Supplementary Estimate arises from greater than budgeted expenditure on A3, fees to counsel, A4, general law expenses, and A5, the local State solicitor service. Savings elsewhere on the Vote are insufficient to offset the need for a Supplementary Estimate. A range of factors give rise to the need for this Supplementary Estimate. I will address these in the order in which they are listed in the Vote.
On A3, fees to counsel, expenditure on counsel fees is, to a large extent, dependent on the level of activity in the courts at any time, and so is always difficult to forecast. The projected overspend of approximately €4.9 million on this subhead can be attributed to a general increase in the number of indictable prosecutions directed across all the courts, and to a significant increase in activity in the Central Criminal Court. The number of judges assigned to this court, which deals with the prosecution of murder and rape, has increased from five to ten. As a result, there has been a very significant increase in court sittings, trials and lists to be supported by the Office of the DPP. Further pressure on the fees to counsel subhead comes from the cost of a small number of complex long-running trials. At the end of October, the fees payable in these cases exceeded €2 million. These factors have resulted in a significant increase in court activity.
The factors giving rise to the overspend in 2023 are likely to continue into 2024. An additional allocation of €2.5 million has been added to this subhead for 2024. It is worth noting that while the volume of fees being paid by the office has increased, the rates we pay our barristers did not increase. The fee rates in 2023 are still 26% below those paid in 2008. However, the Office of the DPP notes that the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform recently provided sanction, in principle, to increase counsel fee rates by 10% from 2024.
The A4 subhead, general law expenses, covers the payment of legal costs awarded by the courts in judicial review matters and other legal proceedings. The number of such claims is small, averaging 70 in a year. Most of them are settled for modest amounts. Approximately half settle for less than €10,000, with a further 30% settling for under €30,000. However, in a small number of cases the award will be significantly higher. The projected overrun of €727,000 in the 2023 expenditure is principally due to large awards in three cases. These cases were settled on behalf of the office by the State Claims Agency, which manages thirdparty legal cost claims against State authorities.
Subhead A5 is for the local State solicitor service. There is an anticipated overspend of €1.232 million on this subhead arising from the payment of arrears due under the State solicitors' contracts, which provide for increases to be paid in line with Civil Service pay adjustments. The overspend covers increases accruing from October 2020 to current date, with just over half of the amount relating to the current year and the balance relating to payment of arrears. An additional allocation of €1.2 million has been added to this subhead for 2024 to address the pressures on this subhead. The additional expenditure I have advised the committee of amounts to a total of €6.843 million. However, anticipated savings of €2.343 million on the administration pay subhead will reduce the amount required by way of Supplementary Estimate to €4.5 million.
Vote 2 is the Department of the Taoiseach. Turning to the request for a technical Supplementary Estimate for the Department of the Taoiseach, the Department is seeking to reallocate its funding so that savings on budget lines can be used to offset increased expenditure on the commissions of
investigation and citizens’ assembly subheads. To allow the Oireachtas to vote on the technical Supplementary Estimate, an additional €1,000 must be requested on the Department’s 2023 Estimate, bringing the net 2023 Estimate to €38.746 million.
The Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, IBRC, commission’s report on the Siteserv transaction was received in July 2022 and it was subsequently published and debated in both the Dáil and Seanad. In October 2022, the then Taoiseach accepted the commission’s recommendation that it would serve no useful purpose to investigate the remaining 37 transactions covered by its terms of reference. The settlement of third-party legal costs related to the IBRC commission is ongoing. The Department has no control over the pace and timing of such claims. The legal costs unit in the State Claims Agency, the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, deals with thirdparty bills of costs from the commissions.
The National Asset Management Agency, NAMA, commission of investigation was established in June 2017 to investigate the sale by NAMA of its Northern Ireland portfolio, known as Project Eagle. Its latest report, in July 2023, requested a further extension to its timeframe for reporting, this time until the end of March 2024.
To date, expenditure on both commissions of investigation is €5.5 million, with an additional €650,000 estimated to be incurred by the end of the year. This will lead to an overall shortfall in the subhead of €1.879 million, which will be offset by savings from subhead A4, tribunal of inquiry.
Moving to the citizens’ assembly subhead, the Citizens’ Assembly on Drugs Use has concluded its series of six meetings and will submit its final report and recommendations to the Oireachtas by the end of this year. Both the Oireachtas and the Government will consider the report in detail and give a comprehensive response to the recommendations in due course. It will be a matter for Government to propose which Oireachtas committee will consider the report. A total of 36 recommendations have been agreed. These set out a highlevel direction of travel for drug policy while leaving the detailed working out to the Oireachtas and the Government.
This subhead was allocated a nominal provision of €535,000 in Estimates 2023 in advance of a Government decision on the establishment of a citizens’ assembly. Some €1.9 million is the estimated final-year costs for the six meetings of the drugs use assembly and the final meeting of the assembly on biodiversity held in January 2023. As signalled to the committee in March by the Taoiseach, during its scrutiny of Estimates 2023, savings from the tribunal of inquiry and administration subheads will be used to offset this €1.35 million expenditure shortfall. This expenditure provides for the staff assigned to the assembly’s secretariat and all operational costs of the assembly’s meetings, including facilitators, technical support, accommodation and venue hire.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Supplementary Estimates with Deputies.
I will concentrate my questions on the DPP. Why is the funding for the DPP not included in the budget itself? I understand a letter was sent to the Minister last year laying out what was necessary for existing levels of service to be continued but also with regard to what needed to be done. Let us start with that question.
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions regularly communicates with the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform. Its resourcing was increased by 10%, so there was an increase in funding for the Vote of €5.5 million, and that was agreed for 2024.
The letter referred to an extraordinary increase in the number of investigation files being received and the significant additional responsibilities being placed in the office, both in terms of volume and complexity. It pointed to a 41% increase in the caseload between 2017 and 2021 and increasing demands on the office, particularly around financial crime and corruption. Is it fair to say that this Supplementary Estimate shows that the DPP was right and that the Government did not adequately fund the office in the budget announcement last year? I note what the Minister of State said about a 10% increase.
Many of these proceedings are demand-led and I think there is an understanding of that. As I said, there is constant communication between the office and the Department of public expenditure. Where resources are required, they will be provided.
On the office being demand-led, which areas of the DPP's funding are and are not demand-led? Does the demand-led cost eat into other areas of the budget? I ask the Minister of State to give us a picture.
Expenditure on the subhead regarding fees to counsel is demand-led and dependent on the level of activity in the courts. It is, therefore, difficult to accurately predict. In 2023, there were significant demand-led pressures on that subhead arising principally in the Circuit Court and Central Criminal Court due to the recent increase in the number of judges available to hear trials. This has increased the number of cases that can be heard at any one time. I can give the Deputy a breakdown if she likes.
What I am trying it get at is whether, because the work of the office is demand-led, that is eating into the other expenditure that is not demand-led.
No, it does not, if I am answer her question quite frankly. I can give the Deputy a breakdown of the spend if she wants. Staff numbers have also increased by 40 this year.
I certainly welcome that. The picture painted was that the DPP had been underfunded for some time. That should help to address the gap in some way.
The fees for counsel, as the Minister of State said, seem to be the key driver of the demand-led costs. In 2020, the DPP stated this subhead was significantly underfunded. The Minister of State is saying that is no longer the case.
No. On the breakdown, approximately 35% of the fees paid out relate to the Central Criminal Court. The Circuit Court accounts for 44%, with half of this relating to the Dublin Circuit Court and the balance to the country Circuit Courts. The balance breaks down as follows: hearings before the High Court and Supreme Court, 10%, before the Court of Appeal, 6%, and before the Special Criminal Court, 5%. An additional €2.5 million has been provided in 2024.
Is the Minister of State saying the DPP is adequately resourced to go after the extent of corporate crime and corruption it is dealing with?
Yes. As I said, the office is in constant contact with Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform about this, and there is the understanding that it is demand-led.
Sexual offences are another area the DPP stated would suffer as a result of underfunding.
Has the sexual offences unit been adequately resourced since the DPP wrote that letter last year?
I can get the Deputy a further note on this, but I have been told that resources in the sexual offences unit have been increased.
Yes, that would be really good to give us the picture that the DPP is adequately funded now, as opposed to when the letter, explaining the seriousness of the underfunding issue and the necessity for those working there to keep up with the demands of the office overall, was written last year. I thank the Minister of State.
What are the pressing areas that are becoming more obvious now emanating from the DPP's office in respect of extra resources? Regarding the nature of the cases coming before the courts, what areas have been seen the largest increases? Given that it is a demand-led service we are talking about, where is the demand coming from and where are the changes coming from? Are there particularly sensitive issues that we should know about? If something is demand-led, as we know, it can be led again next year to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the situation.
There has been a 28% increase in the number of prosecution files received by the directing division for decision between 2017 to 2022, with 17,359 files received in 2022. Over the same period, there has been a 28% increase in investigation files received for public order offences. There has been a 65% increase in misuse of drugs files received and a 54% increase in files related to criminal damage, and a 58% increase in non-fatal offences and assault files.
On an international front, there has been a 77% increase in requests for mutual legal assistance from other countries. In addition, there has been an exponential growth in the level of data and complexity routinely involved in a range of different offence types, including sexual offences, theft and fraud offences and organised crime which requires teams of legal staff for each case.
The information the Minister of State has given on increased demand in specific areas is very interesting. What actions could be taken to focus on those sensitive areas with a view to bringing more pressure to bear? For example, I know there are proposals to liberalise, as I would see it, the drugs regime. Other people might say this is necessary. An argument will ensue that this should be based more on medical support than on policing. I do not agree with that. I believe it is an essential part of the policing system that we have adequate prohibition in that particular area, because any liberalisation will not reduce the dependency on drugs in the country. It will increase it, and any indication to the effect that it is now okay to become involved in drug taking or drug peddling, and all that goes with it, is unhelpful. There are those who suggest this will remove the illegal element and give more time to the Garda Síochána for other matters. I do not believe this is the case at all. Previously in this committee we have had long submissions from those for and against. It was brought to our attention that all types of drugs are gateway drugs, some more serious than others. Any introduction of a more liberal regime can do nothing more than cause a greater proliferation of reliance on illegal drugs.
I will give what I hope is some useful advice. We need more drug treatment centres. These would help to deal with the issue after the event, but this measure would not interfere with the supply. As long as the supply is available, the supply will continue. Those who make large profits from the distribution of illegal drugs to young kids in primary and secondary schools, and in colleges will continue to do so. It is wrong to assume that liberalisation and making drugs more available will solve the problem. We have all dealt with families who have suffered the appalling effects of the drugs trade and the distribution of drugs to young people. We have all seen families beset by the problem of drug taking, over which they have no control at this stage. It has now accelerated beyond their control. There is no use trying to say that by giving a controlled amount over a longer period, the problem will be solved. It simply will not. Dependency will continue. It is just the same as if I just decided that I was going to have a glass of whiskey today and two glasses tomorrow and three the next day and so on. That will not cure a problem that I have created for myself.
There is a necessity for drug treatment centres in our hospitals, instead of having the accident and emergency areas of many of our hospitals lined with people who have serious drug or alcohol problems. This clutters up the through-put of accident and emergency departments. I do not blame the alcoholics or the drug takers for this. They do not know because this thing has overcome them. It is out of their reach and they cannot handle it. We need to look at it more carefully and recognise that what we need is a serious financial intervention in the supply chain.
We also need an intervention in the medicinal rescue system - methadone - but bearing in mind that methadone is intended to wean the sufferer off drugs, not to continue the supply of drugs, ad infinitum. Some people are of the opinion that this is the answer to the problem. It is not. Experts from the medical profession appeared before the committee previously. The MEP, Luke "Ming" Flanagan headed up a request for more money and more liberalisation and that everything should be available, almost to everybody. That would be a slight exaggeration, but that is the way I looked at it at the time. That is a dangerous route to go down.
The drugs issue is sometimes compared to prohibition in the United States and some people claim that lifting prohibition solved the problem. It did not solve the problem. The problem remained but was now spread over a wider area. I have never been in favour of prohibition. When it was lifted, consumption of alcohol increased by 4,500%. The moral is, supply, supply, supply. The budget will get bigger, the demands will be greater and demand-led remedies will be on the increase and will become increasingly expensive, unless we deal with supply as well as demand.
I thank the Deputy. As the person with responsibility for the national drugs strategy, I think your points are extremely valid. There will also be valuable input from the Citizens' Assembly on Drugs Use which will issue its report to Government and the Oireachtas in the next few weeks. The report contains 36 recommendations. Since I came into this role 11 months ago I have travelled the country meeting people who are involved in drug addiction, service users and front-line staff.
There are numerous sides to this issue. There is the criminality side - the Garda is doing fantastic work on drug seizures. We also have to look at a health-led response. Harm reduction is really important, as is drug treatment, as was said. Just because someone is through a detox programme does not mean that is the end of the journey; it is only the start. We do not want to see a vicious circle of criminality going into the justice system and addiction in the justice system. It is not what people need. They need a health-led response. They also need housing and education supports. Recovery is the best word for that. From my perspective, in talking to people on the front line, we need to make sure the services - which are fantastic - are expanded. I was happy to secure additional funding in this budget for drug addiction and social inclusion.
To answer the question, which is valid, the Garda has a role in this. I will listen to the Garda. This report will go to the Oireachtas and the Government and we will give a comprehensive response to all of the recommendations. This is not the end of the conversation, it is only the start. We need to have an open and honest discussion about drug use in Ireland. Education and prevention are part of that. I secured €1.5 million for that. It is the first time we have had an education and prevention programme for drug use. It is only one part of this whole picture. We must help those who need it but those who commit serious crimes need to be punished. We can tease this out through an Oireachtas committee. That is what I want to do in my role - listen to those on the front line, see how we can best help people and support people coming along the line and listen to An Garda Síochána for its perspective on this matter.
I have a few questions for clarification about the Estimate. What type of costs are covered for the local State solicitor service? I think it is under subhead A7. Is it buildings, rent of storage or staff costs or is it just strictly the service of legal advice or actions?
I can talk about the pay rates of the State solicitors if the Cathaoirleach wishes or how the service operates. Staff costs, expenses and pension contributions are part of the costs for State solicitors.
Does the State have to pay for the buildings they occupy?
Is that all part of the expenses?
What do they get? Do they get a lump sum each year to cover that expense?
They get an amount every month for a personal element, staff costs, expenses and pension contributions.
Is that to rent buildings and offices?
As a contribution towards that, yes. They are self-employed. I can get a detailed note for the Cathaoirleach.
If the Minister of State would, please. As the State pays them so much, what is the overview or audit arrangement for the money spent by them? Presumably, they get a sum under various headings. They are expected to spend that sum under those headings. If they spend the sum, who audits them?
It is not audited, it is a lump sum. For background, Section 6 1(a) of the Ministers and Secretaries Act 1924 transferred to the DPP the administration and control of the business, powers, duties and functions of State solicitors, which had previously been vested in the Attorney General. This provision was commenced on 16 May 2007 and the transfer of responsibility took effect from that date. There are 30 State solicitors appointed by the DPP to provide legal services to the director, arising from her functions under the Prosecutions of Offences Act 1974. Upon appointment, State solicitors enter into a contract for service with the DPP. The terms of the contract govern the conditions of appointment, legal services to be provided, remuneration, restrictions on private practice for the State solicitor and his or her partners, reporting obligations, the termination of the contract and other matters relevant to the provision of the legal service. The term of the contract is usually ten years. However, in some cases, State solicitors initially appointed by the Attorney General prior to that transfer in 2007 may have contracts for a longer period. Equally, if a State solicitor reaches 70 within the ten years, the contract may be for a shorter period. A State solicitor is bound by the terms of the contract, which govern the conditions of appointment, legal services to be provided, remuneration, restrictions on private practice for the State solicitor and his or her partners, reporting obligations, termination of the contract and other matters relevant to the provision of the legal service.
What is the total cost of the local State solicitor service in one year?
I will find that figure. It is €8.42 million for 2023. It is in the briefing on page 6.
It is not audited.
Is it not strange to allocate €8.42 million of taxpayers' money and not audit it?
The Chief Prosecution Solicitor oversees it and deals with them regularly in that regard.
They are not audited.
It has always been a round sum State allowance. It is reviewed every three years.
It is interesting because as Members of this House, we are audited by SIPO. We have random audits. Yet, we can allocate €8.42 million. This is no reflection on those involved in this service. It is the process I am talking about in terms of the State, which is not audited. It is extraordinary.
Moving onto consultancy services, value for money and policy review, how does that work? The Minister of State says she uses a consultancy service and its services are bought in for the purpose of value for money in various areas and for policy review. What does that mean?
An external auditor comes in to do an internal audit service. That is under subheading-----
Yes but what does he or she look at? What do they audit?
Financial controls. I can get further detail for the Cathaoirleach about that.
Financial controls within the Taoiseach's office?
No, in the DPP.
In the DPP's office. Who are they? What is the company?
An accountant in a private practice carries out that function. I can get a note for the Cathaoirleach. I am not up to speed on it. I am here to represent the Taoiseach today so I am not all over that matter.
I understand.
We can get details for the Cathaoirleach.
I would like to see what that person audits and what he or she thinks of the unaudited figure of €8.42 million. It also states that the auditor or another auditor has a policy review section. It is stated under the figure anyway - consultancy services, value for money and policy review.
An audit committee agrees an audit plan every year and that audit is carried out. The auditor carries it out in line with the plan.
The Minister of State might give us a cost on that as well.
Yes, I will provide the committee with that.
It has auditors, which audit on behalf of the DPP but it does not audit some figures. The Minister of State might just give us clarification on that.
Did the section that spends the money on the consultancy services on VFM and policy review ever carry out a review of the value for money in the context of the citizens' assembly? Did the last assembly cost us approximately €1.9 million?
The sum of €1.9 million is the estimated costing for this year, including the Citizens' Assembly on Biodiversity Loss in January.
The citizens' assembly here is bypassed most of the time. Then we have a separate citizens' assembly that meets occasionally on issues that is costing the State €1.9 million. That is just clarification again.
Could the Minister of State give me a list of tribunals that the Department of the Taoiseach is responsible for and all of the costs to date for them?
The Department of the Taoiseach is responsible for the Moriarty tribunal. I will get a cost for the Chair.
Is that the only one?
The Minister of State might just furnish us with the costs and give us the overall cost along with a detailed note on the costs available.
Yes. The total expenditure incurred by the tribunal is €68.1 million.
Is that finished?
It is still trundling on.
When is it likely to finish?
Following completion and publication of the tribunal's final report in March 2011, the Moriarty tribunal has been dealing with applications for third party costs and litigation matters. The tribunal currently continues with wind down and deconstruction.
Okay.
So it is not possible to ascertain-----
Again, could the Minister of State give us a note on it? If possible, could the Department indicate how long more this is likely to go on? What is the substantial work that is left in terms of sorting out these costs and whatever other matters have to be wound down?
Under the Taoiseach's Department there is the office of the Tánaiste and of the Green Party leader. I presume they look after their own budgets. Is there a budget from the Taoiseach's office that goes towards these two?
They have staffing assigned to them but they do not have their own budget.
They do not have. So what are the staffing levels in both? Could the Minister of State provide us with a note on the expertise and qualification of each of those staff members?
I will get that for the Chair.
Is the Government Information Service the information service that was always there?
A section relates to providing support for independent work on the citizens' assembly. I presume that is just for administrative work.
What head is that under?
It is in a list under Vote 2. It sets out the four activities of the Department. Again, the Minister of State can provide a note.
That is for the secretariat of the citizens' assembly.
Are there any further questions?
I want to inquire about the extent to which the various courts have been adequately provided for under this heading, given that we accept there are waiting lists in many cases. For example, a judge recently commented on the high degree to which consultants or expert witnesses were influencing the courts, I think he inferred unnecessarily, to such an extent that they were replacing the courts. It made the workload easier but it did not necessarily have due regard for the need for justice. He referred to particular cases. I know the Minister for Justice is introducing changes in those areas, with particular reference to the family law courts. To what extent does that come within the Minister of State's radar, if at all?
The Courts Service is a matter for the Department of Justice and that Vote would come under the Department of Justice.
I understand that. One of the things I have discovered over the years is that we cannot ask questions in the House about anything that comes under the remit of the courts. We used to be able to ask questions about these issues in the House. It can be helpful, because we as Oireachtas Members do not have anywhere else to go, except to the Department of Justice, which is subject to the courts, in terms of its responses. I just wonder. There has been a practice in some courts – in the family law courts, which I know is not the Minister of State's brief - but there is a tendency to dismiss the opinions of people before the court in favour of expert witnesses. I do not accept that. I think it has caused a lot of trauma for people. As the Minister proposes to reform that area, there is obviously a need for reform. In general, it is particularly difficult for backbenchers to access information that would be of benefit to the public if they could get the information through the normal channels that are open to backbenchers or frontbenchers either for that matter by way of parliamentary question. Given that the Vote originates in the same quarter – the State pays the bills in all cases – I do not say it is in every case, but in cases where there is contention from different sides on particular issues, in the past I have found it very easy to table a parliamentary question and get an answer, which might not be the answer I wanted. It might be a terse answer or a cryptic one. It might be telling me on the one hand that this is a matter for the courts and they cannot answer it, etc., but at the same time, action was taken to remedy the situation referred to, notwithstanding the foregoing. I just wanted to bring that to the attention of this committee.
For instance, there is a presumption on the part of the powers that be whatever they be and wherever they may be - the Chairman referred to that in and oblique way - and there is always a tendency to withhold information that could and should be available. I have seen many situations where questions were raised and were deemed out of order by the Questions Office or whatever on the basis that it was not the responsibility of someone and was not accessible from the point of view of the Dáil or the Seanad for that matter. The worrying part would be that something could be in need of attention, which could later come to public light and public scrutiny, which if dealt with in the first place when first raised would not have become a problem at all and certainly not at the magnitude that it ultimately came to be.
I have a concern about that throughout the system as a person who puts down the odd parliamentary question. The territory is being eroded gradually such that we have less access to gaining an answer because of the rules which we do not make but somebody makes. Certainly, they were not run past the Members of the House. At a later stage when a crisis arises in something, whether it was raised previously or an attempt was made to raise it previously but it could not be answered, the public will ask why it was not allowable at the time. I think that is a weakness in the system. I believe it creates problems for Ministers and I know it creates problems for backbenchers. We are a threatened species at present and more threatened as time goes by. Openness and transparency are enormously beneficial in those kinds of situations where the person with responsibility and in situ can avail of the opportunity to give their side of the story that could likely become a crucial part of some other issue at some time in the future.
I recently asked a question which was raised with me. I thought there was something that was really wrong and should not be happening. I put down the question and the question was refused, but the issues I raised were immediately remedied. I will not speculate as to what happened there but I have a fairly good idea it was felt that somebody should answer the question otherwise it could become very serious at a later stage and the axe would fall in all directions indiscriminately.
I will pass on the Deputy's comment to Minister for Justice. I hear what he is saying and I will convey that to the Minister.
I thank the Minister of State.
The Minister of State has given us a note on the commissions of inquiry into NAMA and IBRC. Is a more detail available or is that the extent of the information?
We can get the Chairman a more detailed note.
On both.
Yes, on both of those.
When I was asking about tribunals, I should have said commissions of investigation also.
Under head 6, office premises expenses, I see that due to increased energy costs, costs have risen by 70% which is fairly substantial. I presume that is just the fact of the matter as with any household. However, 70% seems like a big increase.
The cost for the Department of the Taoiseach is apportioned on a floor allocation. That is where the 70% estimate comes from.
Is that just from one floor?
No, it is for the whole building. However, because we share the building, it has to be done on a floor basis. The Department is reliant on a shared heating system for the Government Buildings complex which is managed by the Houses of the Oireachtas. The current system uses a mix of gas and zero-emissions wood pellets. Heating costs are apportioned by floor area within the Government Buildings complex. At present the Department's energy use is effectively merged in with that of a number of other public bodies in the complex with no sub-metering of actual usage by individual Departments and operations. The energy costs are estimated for the coming year taking into account the previous expenditure.
There is a 10% increase in payment to legal representatives. Was that 10% arrived at through negotiation?
During the financial downturn, a series of cuts to the rates of fees paid to prosecuting counsel were implemented and in April 2008, an 8% reduction was imposed. This was followed by another cut of 8% in April 2010 and a further cut of 10% in October 2011. These cuts are still in effect. However, the Office of the DPP notes that the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform recently provided sanction in principle to increase counsel fee rates by 10% from 2024. It is a rollback of the original.
Therefore, it is really a 100% restoration of the cut.
No, it is 10%. I can go through the figures again.
It was cut by 8%.
I can go through the figures again. There were three cuts. There was an 8% reduction in 2008, another 8% in 2010 and then another 10% in 2011. It addresses one of the cuts.
Okay.
There were cuts totalling 26% and one of them has been reversed. Is that it then?
So far.
Is that enough for them?
Just for the moment.
It is still under discussion; it is agreed in principle.
There must be a lot of heat in the Taoiseach's office-----
It is more so in the Dáil at the moment.
The Teachtaí generate their own heat.
-----maybe not so much light.
I wish to ask about the shared island unit. I commend the work that has been done, particularly in the area of research with the ESRI. What further research is planned for this year under that heading?
The purpose of the shared island research programme is to provide high-quality evidence and analysis of the whole island's economic, social, cultural and political issues. Research is commissioned by the shared island unit working with the Economic and Social Research Institute, the Irish Research Council, the National Economic and Social Council and other partners. The most recent research published on 18 September by the ESRI examined student mobility. The ESRI is also completing shared island research on housing supply factors, gender equality and social attitudes, with reports to be published later this year and into 2024.
Is it just the three that are planned for 2024?
A work programme for 2024 is being developed.
The Minister of State might let us have that.
It is in development but we can send on whatever-----
Whatever she has would be very useful. One of the big challenges is that there is not congruence between the data in the South and the North. There are many gaps there, making it hard to do accurate comparisons.
Staying on that, I know the citizens' assemblies come under the Office of the Taoiseach. I suppose it points towards the need for a citizens' assembly on a united Ireland or the future constitution of our country. I again take this opportunity to remind the Taoiseach that many bodies and people across the island are calling for a citizens' assembly on the constitutional future.
We have now concluded our consideration of the Supplementary Estimate for the Department of the Taoiseach, Vote 2 and Vote 5, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Is that agreed?
It is agreed but with one small intervention on a point of order.
No point of order.
I ask the Minister of State to use her influence with the Oireachtas to ensure the heat is turned on in the Dáil Chamber. If surplus energy is floating around in some places, it has not come through our area, particularly last night. We should even be given permission to wear our overcoats in the Chamber or else turn on the heating.
Maybe it is a change of policy to keep the Deputy out of the Chamber.
That could be a well-meaning policy as well.
They might put us all in the Dáil bar where it is warmer.
It could reduce the energy requirements. Other than that, I agree with the Supplementary Estimates.
Members are in agreement with the Vote. The clerk will send a note to that effect to the Clerk of the Dáil in accordance with Standing Order 101. The Minister of State has been asked for further information on various matters. I ask her to furnish that as soon as possible to the clerk. Is that okay?
Would the Minister of State like to make any closing remarks?
I thank members for their co-operation. We will send on the information members have asked for.
We are very efficient.
You are, I have to say.