Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

It is almost a year since the Taoiseach reassured the House that slashing of funding to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions would have no adverse effects on the work of the office or on the role, function or carrying out of the duties of the DPP. Last November, the Government robustly defended its decisions to cut the budget of the DPP. Speaking in the Dáil, two months later, in January of this year, the Taoiseach, in reply to a question I raised, referred to the cut as a "minor imposition". The Government defended its action, despite the DPP's assertion that his office would be unable to process its workload and that it was already "very lean". The DPP stated at the time that the cuts the Government was inflicting on his office would make it "impossible to continue to provide an effective service".

At a time when the DPP's case load has been steadily increasing - by from 5% to 6% per annum - his budget was €3.5 million less this year than last year. Before the cut was made, EU reports, such as those of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice, had found that Ireland's prosecution service had a pathetically low rate of per capita investment in its prosecution service compared to other EU states. It is no wonder our conviction rate for serious crime is so low.

A study of 11 European countries, published last April, recorded that in Ireland only 8% of reported rapes result in convictions. This rate is one of the lowest in the study. Reporting of rape had increased in Ireland by more than 500% between 1977 and 2007, but the conviction rate had fallen. Between 1998 and 2000, the conviction rate was 16%, but the study found this had dropped to 8%. Commenting on Ireland's abysmal record in this area, TCD criminologist, Dr. Paul O'Mahony, said the problem here appears to be one of under prosecution.

A parliamentary question raised on 16 September this year indicated that 114 murders involving firearms took place between 2004 and September 2009. As of 10 September this year, eight convictions had been secured for these 114 murders. That is a conviction rate of a mere 7%. The conviction rate for murders generally in the period 2004 to 2009 was less than 30%, with just 91 convictions secured for a total of 313 murders.

Where antisocial behaviour type offences are concerned, the Central Statistics Office has reported that, between 2003 and 2008, of the 13,460 offences carried out with knives, sticks or other offensive weapons, only 4,361 people were convicted. In other words, fewer than one-third of offences for the possession of knives and other non-firearm weapons have resulted in convictions over the five years up to and including 2008. Considering the very constrained budget with which the DPP is dealing, we must commend the achievements of Mr. Hamilton and those who work in his office. This year, while his budget plummeted, the Government put on further pressure.

The Minister's colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, introduced surveillance and anti-gang legislation. This year he proposes to introduce DNA database legislation. He has promised that the net result of this will be more successful convictions, yet the office charged with achieving this surge in convictions is being starved of funds. Now, towards the end of the year, we must grant a Supplementary Estimate to keep the show on the road. Fianna Fáil's favourite approach, of legislating without providing resources, is evident once again in the area of justice. Almost 12 months after the cut was made to the DPP's office, we note a shortfall of €4.3 million in its budget. We are now voting merely to keep the show on the road for another few months. This is a very strange approach to one of the most important offices in the State.

Last year the DPP announced his workload would increase even more, by providing relatives and victims of crime with reasons for not prosecuting or nor proceeding with a prosecution, in cases where a crime has been committed resulting in death. This new approach would help demystify the legal process, Mr. Hamilton said, and I agree. A pilot project is being undertaken in this regard. There is talk about the process being extended to other genres of criminal matters. Perhaps the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, would brief the House on the progress of that pilot project and offer his views on it. He might also, in this context, say why he chose to reject out of hand a Fine Gael Primate Members' Bill introduced by my colleague, Deputy Alan Shatter and I last year, which included provisions for the exact type of process in which Mr. Hamilton is now engaged.

The briefing material accompanying the Supplementary Estimate indicates that the shortfall in the budget of the DPP has arisen on the programme side, namely, fees to counsel, and general law costs. The Office of the DPP has already shaved €400,000 off barristers' fees by abolishing extra payments for court cases that run after 5 p.m. As this Supplementary Estimate shows, however, the office still continues to struggle. What solutions can the Minister offer the Director of Public Prosecutions and what leadership is being shown in this area? Cutting a budget, and then when a decision is shown to be deeply flawed, introducing a Supplementary Estimate, is not the ideal of adept leadership. Just as we cannot continue to create new offences without addressing the serious problems in our prison system, so too, we cannot introduce new anti-gangland measures while cutting the budget of the State prosecutor.

The Government's approach to prosecutions is wholly inconsistent and unsustainable. This type of flip-flopping is the result of poor decision making by the Minister in charge. I have the greatest respect for the Director of Public Prosecutions and I believe he must be listened to when he estimates the budget his office needs to prosecute crime on behalf of the people of this State. He is not prone to exaggeration and certainly not prone to waste. It is a year since Mr. Hamilton warned his office could not function efficiently or effectively with a serious budget cut. His warning has proven to be correct. In the preparations for the forthcoming budget, I ask the Minister to engage with his colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and with the DPP. The Minister should listen to the director when he outlines the funding needs of his office and respond positively towards him.

There are many areas where savings can be made, but we cannot be miserly when it comes to criminal prosecution and justice for the victims of serious criminal acts. I am happy to support the allocation of additional funding to the DPP, and I wish his office well in the important work that it undertakes on behalf of the people of this country.

See this speech in context