Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 1: To ask the Taoiseach if it is intended that the reduction of 3% in payroll costs will apply to the Offices of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief State Solicitor; the number of jobs that are expected to be cut as a result; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32375/08]

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 2: To ask the Taoiseach if his attention has been drawn to the concerns expressed by the Director of Public Prosecutions that the imposition of cutbacks on his office may limit its capacity to prosecute cases, particularly in the District Court; the steps he is taking to ensure that the DPP has sufficient staff and resources to discharge his duties; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37953/08]

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 3: To ask the Taoiseach his views on reports that recent budgetary changes will result in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions being unable to process criminal cases in 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40456/08]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 4: To ask the Taoiseach if pay cuts and job cuts are planned for the Offices of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief State Solicitor; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1776/09]

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.

The Government announced in July 2008 that Departments and State agencies in general were to make a 3% payroll reduction by the end of 2009. The Office of the Chief State Solicitor and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions have informed me they can meet this reduction without affecting existing levels of service.

I am aware of what the Director of Public Prosecutions said in the media in October 2008. Contrary to the claim made in Deputy Flanagan's question, he did not say that he would be unable to process criminal cases in 2009. What the DPP said related to the Government's announcement in October that no specific provision would be made for the 3.5% increase to be paid from September 2009 under Towards 2016. In that context, the DPP said that from the end of 2009, "some cases prosecuted in the District Court may have to be handed back to An Garda Síochána for prosecution".

I am confident that the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief State Solicitor will, throughout 2009 and beyond, continue to achieve the best level of service possible from the resources available to them.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Ní mise an chéad ceisteoir. I am not the first questioner.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is, on my list.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I beg the Ceann Comhairle's pardon. On the Order Paper, Deputy Gilmore is first. I am happy to take the opportunity but I do not think that would be fair.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are conflicting lists.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy Ó Caoláin for his courtesy.

I do not wish to get into the area of "who said what" but it is on record that the Director of Public Prosecutions signalled that the 3% cut will create difficulties for him in terms of staffing and that there is a possibility he may have to ask gardaí to take cases that otherwise would be taken by his office.

Can the Taoiseach assure the House that no criminal case will be delayed as a result of shortage of funds and resources being made available to the DPP's office, or as a result of the DPP's office being short of staff? I appreciate there are difficulties in the public finances but there is also a serious crime problem in the country. We know that the conviction rate is very low, particularly for serious crimes. The last thing we want is a situation where crimes go unpunished or are not adequately prosecuted because of a shortage of staff available to the DPP. Neither do we want to have gardaí sitting around all day in a court room waiting for a case to come up when they might be deployed more usefully in detecting crime. That is what would result if more cases are to be handed back to the Garda for pursuance in the court.

We must have an assurance from the Taoiseach that no criminal case will be delayed, held up or handed back to the Garda because of shortage of staff or resources in the DPP's office.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The DPP indicated it is not the case that he will not be able to function, but that he will be forced to hand back District Court prosecutions to the Garda. He went on to say that this was "not desirable". We do not have provision for making up the 3.5% increase that currently stands in the pay agreement and which is to fall due from September. We must continue to monitor the situation as best we can with the Chief State Solicitor.

The Chief State Solicitor's office has four vacancies at present. However, following a review of that office, an additional 16 staff were approved in January 2007. The office has a staff complement of 249 whole-time equivalents. The DPP's office states that it is important to emphasise the Director is satisfied there is no danger at present that his office will be unable to deal with the prosecution file submitted to him. He made the point that he felt that problems might manifest themselves towards the end of 2009 and onwards, as he outlined in the statement to which I referred. We will continue to monitor the situation and see how that pay commitment evolves.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The difficulty lies in that reply. The problem is that the 3%-3.5% cut across the board is a very crude instrument. Whatever one might think of the measure, if it results — and it has been signalled to us in this instance that it will result — in the DPP having to ask the Garda to pursue cases in the District Court, that is not a good use of public resources. It will mean that gardaí who should be out detecting and preventing crime will spend a lot of time sitting around District Courts.

The Government must take a much more targeted approach to ensure that essential services, those that are important to public safety, are not undermined or weakened. In this case, it would be accepted generally in the country that the DPP must have the resources with which to do the job, namely, to prosecute crime and ensure that offenders are brought to justice. This is an area that the Taoiseach and the Departments of Finance and Justice, Equality and Law Reform must sort and work out with the DPP's office. They must ensure that the office is enabled to operate efficiently and that the cutbacks and restrictions on availability of finance and the curtailment on recruitment of staff do not mean that, ultimately, criminals will walk free or will walk around free for longer than they should.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy's final contention has not been suggested by anybody, even in the context of outlining whatever prospective difficulties and problems those offices may have. What was suggested is that instead of the DPP taking certain prosecutions those would be handed to the Garda to prosecute. That is what was said. The DPP indicated that this is not the optimum position. I acknowledge and understand what he says. I make the point that the administration of justice is not being compromised by this.

The other point made concerned the bluntness of the instrument. A far more blunt instrument would be an across the board embargo. Last July, for instance, when a direction was given to all Departments to cut payroll costs by 3% for the remainder of the year, this outcome was achieved by them. It was achieved with the flexibility of management given to people by that direction rather than by another way used in the past whereby a centralised embargo was imposed that required the approval of the Minister for Finance in each individual case of prospective recruitment. By allowing managers and Accounting Officers of Departments deal with the situation in that way, one enables them to work out, through term time and overtime, a full range of ways of reorganising their offices that achieve the savings without diminution of levels of service to any significant degree, or to any degree at all.

We have put forward to Departments the most flexible mechanism available to us, while insisting on obtaining the savings required. This contribution, in terms of staff costs, goes towards making the savings and the economies required in the light of the reduced revenue we now have.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I remind the Taoiseach that the public statement made by the Director of Public Prosecutions last October was unprecedented. A chief prosecutor has never before had to resort to making public comment that so great was the cut inflicted on his office that he would find it impossible to deal with its day to day business.

In response to Deputy Gilmore, the Taoiseach spoke about the bluntness of the instrument. This 3% cut across the board could not by its very nature have been based on any objective criteria and absolutely no consideration was given to the fact that Ireland has the lowest prosecution rate per head of population of any EU state. In terms of convictions, which is where the office of the DPP plays a most important role, our conviction rates are such that out of 166 gun murders, only 22 successful prosecutions have been brought to date. There is a very serious problem given that the DPP will confirm the work in his office increases at a rate of 5% per annum.

In addition, no consideration is given by the Government to the new phenomenon of credit crunch crime, which will give rise to an even greater level of pressure on the office of the State prosecutor. What steps are being taken to ensure the drastic effects are being minimised? It is giving rise to serious public concern when one of the most important crime enforcement offices in the State is being seriously affected by a cutback.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not accept that the 3% payroll cost reduction is a drastic cut. In fact, some of the criticism from the other side of the House has been that it is insufficient. I know Deputy Flanagan's interest as justice spokesperson for his party is with regard to the efficacy of the prosecution service, and he makes the case. The point we would make is that in late 2006 the Department of Finance carried out a review of staffing in the DPP's office and 28 extra posts were approved, bringing the staff complement to 106. The office is carrying 5.8 whole-time equivalent vacancies within the 2006 sanctioned posts and this is expected to reduce to 4.8 whole-time equivalent posts with the filling of a library post in late February or early March of this year.

The DPP's office states it will be able to meet that 3% payroll expenditure cut without affecting service levels, so it is not accurate to describe it as drastic. The office will be able to do this because it is operating from only two buildings rather than the expected three, which means it does not need to fill three permanent posts and two contract posts that had been sanctioned, and there will also be savings in respect of heat and lighting and other expenses. In addition, it is introducing a range of measures such as changes in work practices and the level at which work is performed, delays in filling vacancies and tight control of overtime payments.

Also, in regard to fees which the DPP pays barristers, a planned 2.5% increase from September 2008 for such fees was not implemented and the payment of refresher fees after 5 p.m. has been suspended. Those are the practical steps that were taken to accommodate the direction and it was done in a way which did not affect service levels.

By way of background, during the previous year the approval of 28 posts was an indication at that time of the need to deal with the increased workload. Through good management, information technology and higher productivity, these caseloads are being met and can be met. We candidly acknowledge what the DPP had to say regarding what he sees as possible difficulties later on in the year. This is something we must monitor.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On the specific point regarding offices and personnel, how many vacancies are there currently in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions? If vacancies are not filled, does the Taoiseach not accept this gives rise to a situation where the office cannot function to maximum capacity?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not accept that. The vacancy that is being filled in late February or early March is a librarian post, which I am sure is important in itself in terms of organising data processing, the availability of case law and so on. That is the position——

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are still vacancies in the office.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That has been filled. It is often the case, given that approved posts and casual vacancies occur all the time for a whole range of reasons, that whole-time equivalent vacancies are available. Obviously, people work within their budgets, which is a common feature of all HR issues in Departments.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Taoiseach accept there is growing concern within wider society at the level of crimes committed by persons on bail and that there has to be a direct relationship between the resourcing of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and this very worrying statistic? Does the Taoiseach accept that rather than the argument of creating further restrictions on the right to bail, the key address of this must be to facilitate a speedier processing of all the required preparations from the decision to prosecute to trial? Does he accept that we need to see the period of bail shortened significantly to ensure that there is less prospect of a continuation of the extent of recidivism that is currently demonstrating itself?

Does the Taoiseach not accept, given that the DPP, Mr. James Hamilton, has stated this means fewer prosecutions will be undertaken, that this 3% reduction in the budget of the office runs directly contrary to the stated objective I have just recounted? Does the Taoiseach not accept that in these times of very obvious crime and given the extent of serious crimes, including murder, that are being carried out by people while on bail, further investment and resourcing is what is needed rather than a reduction in the DPP's budget? Does the Taoiseach not accept there are far less damaging areas for savings to be made within the overall outlay on the justice system, which, for example, could include tighter regulation of legal fees and costs?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Obviously, these are all issues that will be considered closely by the Minister concerned, by our Department and by the Minister for Finance on an ongoing basis as we seek to effect economies and savings across a whole range of activities. The 3% payroll costs cut, compared to what will be required in the years ahead, is a minor imposition, to be frank, and we must see it in that context.

The challenge before us in terms of the public finances is a very large one, and one that will require ongoing consideration. The Minister has appointed people to consider public expenditure in all of its aspects, in every respect, in every Department, both in terms of the numbers employed and whether programmes which are attracting funding are critical, core or necessary in the new context in which we find ourselves. As the Deputy knows, stability in our public finances is an absolute prerequisite for a sustainable level of service. We must re-adjust our expectations, I am afraid, and re-adjust what is possible given the overriding importance of showing a determination to address the instability in the public finances that has arisen, particularly in the last six months of last year and continuing this year, as a result of the international recession and the financial crisis with which we are contending.

From our point of view, while difficulties will arise in various Departments at various times, and pressures will increase, it behoves us all to bring about whatever change we can in how we do our business to drive efficiencies and raise productivity everywhere we can.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Taoiseach not believe that it would be a useful exercise to inform himself and Members of the House of the factual situation regarding the cost to communities and the economy of serious, repeat offences by people already on bail, which occur on a frequent basis? I argue for the right to bail, but the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions does not have sufficient resources and there is a long, inordinate delay in moving from the decision to prosecute to the trial. This is a very serious problem. Examining the 3% cost in terms of the immediate saving is a simple book-keeping exercise. However, we should consider it in a more holistic way and examine the real cost. I believe it is arguable, and the facts will sustain the case I am making, that if we were to examine the real cost of what is occurring, further investment rather than a reduction in payroll allocation to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions would yield a much more significant overall saving. Such a saving would be apart from the cost of great human misery that is brought to individuals' families and communities by the actions of certain people.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We examine all these issues, but the question is put in terms of people re-offending on bail. One of the criteria laid down for the refusal of bail is the prospect of re-offending. Under our system, the decision of whether to grant bail is made by an independent judge. We cannot decide on that. If such a danger exists, the case is made to the court. It is a matter for the Judiciary to decide whether detention is warranted. These are issues related to constitutional rights, which have been tested in all the courts over a long period. While people may believe that certain things should occur in the Legislature, these matters have been reviewed in the courts in terms of compliance with constitutional rights and obligations, which must also be observed by this Legislature. This is an ongoing debate, but I make the point that the question of how we organise offices in the future in the context of the very tight budgetary situation which we are facing is something which must be taken on board by everyone. It is a reality which cannot be avoided by anyone.