Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)

That was the issue to which I referred. Following the completion of the work, the Attorney General's office found an error in the chronological tables. The office has been seeking to correct the error in that work. As I stated in the reply, two possible options have been identified to correct the errors that have occurred. The first would not take too long. It involves seven weeks of work at a cost of €37,000. I presume that is the option that will be chosen.

Another option would take approximately six months to conclude. This would involve re-formatting the work, which is a more technical job. The Attorney General's office will have to make a decision based on value for money criteria. Considering the investment made, it would appear to be advisable to proceed, unless there was a reason not to do so. Most of the work on-line has not been affected. The work involved in the original project is being used, except where the deficiency concerned arises in regard to work carried out by the company that did the original work — Juta Limited.

This company was originally contracted to provide an electronic version of the Statute Book. A computerised process was used by the company to insert the hyperlinks into the electronic Statute Book. Where one item of legislation refers to another, the first item contains a link which allows the user to click directly into the second. This is a helpful resource which, in the majority of cases, makes the electronic Statute Book user-friendly. This facility works very well. However, in some cases, the technical process used by the original contractors resulted in some legislative texts being obscured.

The contract held with the outside contractor in question ended in 1998 and the company concerned has not been awarded any other contracts by the Office of the Attorney General since that time. A second outside contractor has periodically updated the electronic version of the Statute Book. The hyperlinking error has not been repeated by any of the new outside contractors working on the legislation from 1999 onwards. It is a question of correcting errors in work done prior to that date, which is not too expensive.

Deputies will be aware of the efforts being made by my Department and the Office of the Attorney General to modernise the Statute Book by repealing obsolete pre-1922 legislation. The second Bill relating to this area is currently before the House. It is Government policy to ultimately repeal all of the pre-1922 legislation through an ongoing process of legislative reform. In that context, there is little value in making pre-1922 legislation available in electronic form.

The post referred to in Deputy Kenny's question relates to a special assistant, who works with the Attorney General. It is not an adviser, as is the case in other Departments. That individual liaises with Ministers regarding issues in the Office of the Attorney General and also provides a useful point of contact. In the normal course of events, with so much legal and legislative work, and so many other cases passing through the Office of the Attorney General, it is key to have someone who can liaise. It is not a political issue, but it is very important to have someone who can fulfil that role. For some time, a special assistant has liaised between the Attorney General and the Departments on programmes for Government and day-to-day legislative issues. It is not in the political context of an adviser, since the role is quite different.

See this speech in context