Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

The appropriation account for the Vote for the Department of Justice and Equality recorded a gross expenditure of just over €400 million in 2011. Salaries accounted for over 36% of current expenditure, with, at the end of the year, approximately 2,400 whole-time equivalent staff in the Department and its related offices. The justice Vote includes more than 60 individual subheads. As well as the administrative costs of the Department, the subheads relate to expenditure on areas such as commissions and special inquiries, legal aid, immigration and asylum, the Probation Service, equality, integration and disability, charities, the Irish Youth Justice Service and the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Vote also includes funding for a range of services including the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner, the Criminal Assets Bureau and the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission.

A Supplementary Estimate was passed for Vote 19 in 2011. As shown in the appropriation account, an additional €10 million was provided for criminal legal aid, on top of the original Estimate of €47.6 million. The outturn for the year was just over €56 million. This is on a par with 2010 expenditure. An additional €5.6 million was also provided in 2011 for the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service. An additional €1.2 million was provided for commissions and inquiries. The increases in these subheads were offset by reductions in the Estimate provisions for a range of services, including the Irish Youth Justice Service, the Office of the State Pathologist and the Criminal Assets Bureau.

The appropriation account for Vote 13, Office of the Chief State Solicitor, is also before the committee today. The function of the Office of the Chief State Solicitor is to provide legal services to the Attorney General, Departments and offices and State agencies. In 2011, the office recorded gross expenditure of €32.9 million. Of this, €14.4 million was spent on salaries and €15.8 million was allocated for the payment of fees to counsel and general law expenses.

Chapter 15 concerns the circumstances around the lease of a premises for a Probation Service project that gave rise to a situation in which no benefit was received despite a €2 million outlay. The Department funds 46 community-based organisations across the State to develop and deliver services to adult offenders in their communities. One of these is the Bridge project, which has operated in the Dublin north inner city area for more than 15 years. The project aims to achieve community reintegration of male offenders, improve their job skills and generally assist in increasing community safety.

The programme is delivered by a multidisciplinary team, led by Probation Service staff.

The Probation Service had concerns about the suitability of the premises used by the project and began to seek alternative accommodation in 2006. In June 2008, the Probation Service leased premises located in a largely residential building in Wolfe Tone Street, Dublin, for use by the project. The Office of the Chief State Solicitor negotiated the lease with the owner of the premises on behalf of the Department. Substantial fitting out was required to meet the needs of the project. While the fitting out work was ongoing, questions were raised about compliance with planning regulations of the development and the intended use. There was considerable local and resident opposition to the Bridge Project moving into the premises. The planning enforcement office of Dublin City Council issued a warning letter to the Bridge Project in March 2010, stating that planning permission granted in 2001 for a change of use of the premises to commercial use had expired in January 2006. The Department has stated that it was informed - during a meeting with the planning enforcement office - that planning permission did not revert to the previous uses once the permission for commercial office use had expired. Consequently, the Department would need to apply for planning permission for any type of use of the premises. Given local opposition to the Bridge Project's accommodation in the premises, permission for a use of that kind would be difficult to secure.

The Department has incurred expenditure in respect of the rental and fitting out of the premises amounting to over €2 million, without any benefit having been received. As a result, the Bridge Project continued in accommodation of a poor standard until 2012, when it was forced to leave said accommodation due to health and safety risks. This was almost six years since the search for alternative premises had commenced. When my report was being finalised, the project was accommodated under short-term arrangements. The Accounting Officer for the Department will be able to provide an update for the committee on the current situation relating to the project. The Department placed a reliance on the Office of the Chief State Solicitor to provide legal advice in respect of negotiation of the lease and to carry out the necessary checks, including those relating to planning. In the circumstances, it was reasonable for the Department to expect that non-compliance of the premises with planning requirements would have been identified and brought to its attention before the lease was signed.

The Chief State Solicitor has pointed out that her office followed the established conveyancing procedure of relying on a lessor to provide an architect's opinion on compliance with planning requirements. An opinion was provided, in the required format, by a registered person and the Office of the Chief State Solicitor was entitled to rely on this in accordance with recommended Law Society practice. Nevertheless, the statutory period to act on a change of use had expired and the basis on which a change of use would be recognised by the planning authorities was specifically referred to in correspondence between the office and the legal representative of the property owners during the lease negotiations. Furthermore, the nature of the Department's intended use of the premises and the location of the premises in an otherwise residential complex increased the likelihood of objections in the event that there was any doubt as to planning compliance.

I recommended that the Office of the Chief State Solicitor should review its risk assessment in respect of planning compliance and property acquisitions and the practice of reliance on architects' opinions. I also recommended that it would consider the need for additional assurance procedures where compliance risks are evident. The Chief State Solicitor did not agree with that recommendation and will be able to outline her reasoning in that regard to the committee.