asked the Taoiseach the steps he takes to satisfy himself that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions operates efficiently; and if any review of the operations of the office are proposed.

The efficient operation of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is primarily a matter for the director himself. However, the Attorney General is informed from time to time by the director of matters pertaining to the functions of the director. Where appropriate the Attorney General informs the Taoiseach of these matters. The operation of the system of criminal justice is kept constantly under review.

Does the Taoiseach review the efficiency of the operation of the office, and is he concerned that there are continuing long delays in the preparation of books of evidence from that office? It is now taking perhaps between eight and ten weeks — I am informed — to have these books ready and on occasions many district justices become very annoyed about this and strike the cases out. That has happened on a number of occasions. Secondly, would the Taoiseach agree that, by reason of the volume of work in the office, it might be prudent to examine the possibility of retaining solicitors and barristers as fulltime employees of the office who would also conduct the advocacy on the prosecutions in court rather than to rely on outside panels to do that? Thirdly, would the Taoiseach consider that where possible controversy arises, not in cases generally, it might be considered appropriate that reasons be given for a decision by the DPP not to institute a prosecution in a particular case?

The adequacy of the staffing is kept under review and additions have been made recently to staff. I believe the situation is satisfactory at the moment but I will keep it under review in the light of what the Deputy has said and I will make further inquiries as to the alleged delays and the reasons for them and to what extent, if any, they relate to any problems of the kind mentioned by the Deputy.

On the Deputy's second question, I have doubts about that proposal but I note the Deputy's suggestion and will take it into account. The general approach to that at present is probably the better one but I will not exclude the point from consideration, as the Deputy has made it.

On the Deputy's third point, a consistent policy has been pursued by successive Attorneys General before the appointment of the DPP and maintained by the DPP since then of refusing to give publicly reasons for decisions not to prosecute. This is not due to any reluctance to be accountable for the decisions but to the fact that the policy of giving reasons would inevitably in many cases mean serious damage to the reputation of individuals. I do not believe that one could be selective in this and give reasons in some cases and not in others without creating even far more problems and far more controversy about why in this case the reasons are given and in another case they are not given. I think the policy pursued by successive Attorneys General and successive Governments and by the DPP in this respect is the only practical policy.