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

Question 1: To ask the Taoiseach the number of staff, broken down by grade, currently employed in the Attorney General's office engaged in the drafting of legislation; the number of vacancies in any such grade or position; if he is satisfied that there are sufficient staff and resources available to the Office of the Attorney General to facilitate the prompt and efficient drafting of legislation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30919/07]

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

Question 2: To ask the Taoiseach the number of staff employed in the Office of the Attorney General in the drafting of legislation; the comparable number for 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35282/07]

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.

The position in relation to permanent staffing in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to the Government is set out in a table which I propose to circulate in the Official Report. There are currently 19 permanent staff and four consultant drafters serving in the office. In December 2002, 18 permanent staff and four consultant drafters were employed. Three assistant Parliamentary Counsels, grade II, were promoted following an internal competition to assistant Parliamentary Counsel, grade I, on 14 November 2007.

As a consequence of this and of the Department of Finance sanction of 26 July 2007, five vacancies at assistant Parliamentary Counsel, grade II, level arise. A competition organised on behalf of the office by the Public Appointments Service in respect of those vacancies was held in December 2007. Three of the successful candidates will join the office on 25 February, 3 March and 28 April, respectively. The office intends organising a further competition before the summer to fill the remaining two vacancies.

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

It is clear from the Taoiseach's reply that the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, formerly the Office of the Parliamentary Draftsman of the Office of the Attorney General, is under-staffed.

Is this under-staffing the cause of a contributory factor in the delay in legislation being published? I refer to a number of pieces of legislation which have been in the pipeline for some time, including the Ombudsman (amendment) Bill, originally promised in 2003, the broadcasting Bill, the employment agency regulation Bill, which now appears to be dropped from the immediate publication list, the employment law compliance Bill, the Dublin transport authority Bill and others. Is the delay due to a shortage of staff? Are contract staff employed in the drafting of legislation and, if so, are they from outside the State?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A number of points are raised; if there were a far bigger staff maybe it would ease the burden on the office. It is and always has been a very busy office. As Deputy Gilmore said, its title has changed from the Office of the Parliamentary Draftsman to the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. In three of the past four years it received increased posts and an increase in staff but overall numbers have not changed a lot — in my reply I mentioned regrading.

The office's legislation output keeps up with a very high average. If one looks at the capability of the office to produce legislation over a longer period rather than recent months one sees much of the legislation was enacted prior to the election, which cleared up a lot of the Government's legislation programme. Some 109 Bills were enacted in the 29th Dáil and plenty of Bills are before the House. Recently, the office finished very substantial Bills. The Finance Bill, the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill, the Motor Vehicle (Duties and Licences) Bill, the Student Support Bill have all been published and the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill also took a great deal of work, not to mind all the statutory instruments the office works on.

It is an enormously busy office. Last year again it turned out a higher number of Bills than in the previous period and a whole range of Bills are coming through. Often it is a question of Departments organising the data and the work rather than the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel which I find to be efficient and quick in dealing with the issues once they are clear in Departments. Bills such as the Finance Bill, the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill and the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill are major Bills and priority has to be given to them. Obviously other Bills will fall back, that is inevitable.

With regard to contract workers, at present there are a small number of staff under contract, I think it is four. Four people left for career breaks or secondments and two of them have returned. It is intended to phase out contract staff over a period of years because sufficient permanent trained parliamentary counsel are in place. The figure will remain at four — this year is a difficult year because one of the contract staff is not available for the year. Two more will finish up their time during the course of this year. The office is trying to engage more from common law jurisdictions. I am told there has been a positive response to a trawl of these jurisdictions and there are two potential drafters. They are working with four at present, with two of those due to go.

The difficulty, as Members know, is the length of time it takes to bring in and train experienced drafters. Most of these contract drafters brought in are people who have retired in common law jurisdictions who come here for a few years. They are and have been hugely important to the system. Obviously, as they are retired people, they stay a number of years and will move on. They are essential to building up the base. The office hopes to be able to get out of this situation. I have seen this develop over a number of years; the number is as low as it has been any time in the past 20 years.

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

Are particular difficulties being encountered in recruiting parliamentary draftspersons? In his reply the Taoiseach said five vacancies were advertised last July, three of which are about to be taken up in the coming weeks, which is welcome. He also said it is intended to re-advertise for two more positions. While I do not want to stray into us commenting on the qualifications and suitability of applicants, will the Taoiseach indicate why this might be the case?

The Government legislation committee is the body to drive the drafting and preparation of legislation. Who are the members of that committee and how does it function? We are dealing with the consequences in that the flow of legislation from the Government has slowed down significantly since the general election. Either Ministers are not driving the preparation of legislation or there is a problem possibly in the Attorney General's office.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The problem is with suitable staff. In the last Public Appointments Commission interviews for assistant Parliamentary Counsel in December, there were five vacancies. Three candidates will take up office from this. Only three qualified in the previous competition, of which two took up office in mid to late 2006. I am informed this is not unusual. In the last competition across the water, 359 applications were made for the Parliamentary Counsel recruitment scheme but only seven applicants were successful and up to the required standard. We did well to get three suitable candidates in the last round. Each time the problem is getting people of sufficient competence and standing to take it forward.

The committee, chaired by the Government Chief Whip, is responsible for the legislative programme. Senior officials from the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and the Office of the Attorney General are on the committee and consult all relevant Departments.

Before the general election a large number of Bills were completed and people worked to the end position. Obviously, the programme for Government took up much time in the autumn before much of the legislation was enacted. There are a large number of Bills coming through. In fairness to the Parliamentary Counsel staff, they had to deal with the immigration Bill, which is a very large Bill, the Finance Bill, the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill. A large number of other Bills are coming through, such as on health and retirement, and they have taken up much time.

When a large Bill is being prepared, it is allocated to one dedicated person in the Parliamentary Counsel office who is then out of the equation as regards other legislation. There are also statutory instruments. While it is a busy office, it is difficult to get the necessary people to do the work. We are fairly well up to full numbers in the office and we will be down to two vacancies in a few weeks' time.

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

In order to have a better understanding of the actuality of the Office of the Attorney General's role in the drafting of legislation, will the Taoiseach give a percentage of legislation prepared directly by staff employed in the Attorney General's office? What is the proportion or percentage of legislation contracted out? How is that divided up? Is there a pattern there on an annual basis? Do Departments draft their own legislation? Do they also contract out work for drafting? The Taoiseach referred to 19 staff and four consultant drafters in the Attorney General's office. Are consultant drafters employed in each Department?

In relation to the current trickle of legislation reaching the Houses of the Oireachtas, which has been a reality for some considerable time — certainly since the resumption after the summer — what responsibility would the Taoiseach ascribe to the Office of the Attorney General for this delay? Does he accept that it is wholly and absolutely his responsibility and that of his Cabinet colleagues? Can he be more informative and give the House a sense of the role, if any, played by the Attorney General's office in the delay in the presentation of legislation that we have experienced for a considerable number of months?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In answer to the Deputy's first question, some Departments have people with experience and expertise in drafting legislation, which is very helpful in the preparation of Bills, particularly in areas such as social welfare and tax law. In these areas, some Bills appear in the same format every year, so they are not as complex and difficult to draft as, for example, a Finance Bill or the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill to which I referred earlier. There is some expertise in the Departments. However, the Attorney General and the Chief Parliamentary Counsel will always say that even when a Bill is outsourced, it must be returned to them so they can check for consistency and ensure legal certainty. That has always been the case. They are not prepared to sign off legislation that has not been cleared by them to their satisfaction. I am not saying the work done in the Departments is not helpful, but even when the work is done by others the Chief Parliamentary Counsel and the Attorney General must be able to stand over it. If there are challenges, difficulties or problems, it is their responsibility.

Although I stated earlier that 109 Bills were enacted in the last Dáil, the total was actually 209 Bills. Much of the ongoing work of preparation and amendment of Bills during their passage through both Houses of the Oireachtas is done at short notice by the parliamentary draftspeople. Much of the legislation promised for the last session is technical and complicated and will require considerable legal checking. The Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill took a large amount of time to prepare.

Quite a lot of legislation is coming in, including two statute law revision Bills which have been dealt with in recent times. Over the past few weeks, we have passed a few Bills each week in Cabinet. Sometimes there are delays within Departments due to debates on policy issues that arise when Bills have been partially drafted or items that must be checked against previous legislation. Some of these prove quite complex. As I mentioned last week, the long-stay residential care Bill regarding the elderly raised legal questions and constitutional issues to do with property rights and these must be teased out. This takes time. It is not that anybody is delaying the process — it is just that the issues must be dealt with before moving on to the next stage.

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

I posed a question at the outset regarding the percentage of legislation dealt with in-house in the Office of the Attorney General versus that contracted out. If the Taoiseach is not in a position to give us an informed answer, I accept that. If that information is not immediately available we will understand. However, if the Taoiseach could obtain this information and provide it to us, it would give us a sense of the way in which things are working, or not working, as the case may be.

In 1998, the Government established a consultative committee on law reform under the aegis of the Office of the Attorney General. This was to assist the Attorney General in setting a programme of law reform, selecting specific topics for reference to the Law Reform Commission and monitoring the implementation of the commission's recommendations. Is the Taoiseach's Department represented on the consultative committee? Where stands its work at this point?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Very little legislation is contracted out. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform does so because it has the lion's share of Bills every year. That must still be vetted and cleared before approval by the parliamentary counsel. One gains some time but it does not alleviate the workload of the Department. Very few other Departments contract out legislation and most of it is done within the Department. Only a small percentage is involved. I will check the exact figure but it could be different in any one year.

A programme is fixed every few years and the Law Reform Commission works very closely with and consults people in my Department. It reports on that work programme on an annual basis. There are normally six or seven items on priority that it works through. It then sets a new programme at the end of every third year.

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

In respect of the Taoiseach's initial reply, does he accept that we are dealing with a bottleneck? Does he accept that legislation, having been agreed at Cabinet, then goes for formal drafting and that the difficulty lies in the technical procedure involved in that? Does he accept that part of the paucity of legislation in recent times has been solely due to the fact that the office is very much understaffed? Having regard to the fact that the primary duty of this House is the enactment of legislation after full deliberation, will the Taoiseach encourage the practice of publishing departmental heads of Bills and transmitting them to this House or possibly its committees for deliberation prior to the legislation coming in initial Bill form? That would allow for the input of Members and could give rise to a more efficient processing of legislation?

The former Minister for labour affairs, Eithne Fitzgerald, possibly pioneered the publication of heads of Bills, a practice which was, unfortunately, discontinued by various Governments led by the Taoiseach. Perhaps his office, in conjunction with the Office of the Minister of State at the Department of Taoiseach, Deputy Tom Kitt, will consider that as a reformist measure of some consequence?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not correct to say that we stopped that. The heads of two very substantial Bills were put out last year. That helped the Charities Bill, which was one of the largest Bills passed by the House in recent years, and the Broadcasting Bill, which was dealt with by way of a consultation process on the Internet. I am in favour of publishing the heads of Bills and having consultation on them. It is suitable in many areas although it may not be so in others. It is a good way of having consultation and it is usually done when working with the social partners. We do it for the reason that it leads to proper consultation. It was done in respect of a number of Bills last year and it is a good way of doing business.

When legislation leaves the Cabinet, further teasing out of policy issues often takes place. When that legislation is drafted, it must bear reference to any legislation in this area. That can be quite difficult when there is no consolidated Bill because one must examine Bills that go back to God knows when, such as pre-1922 legislation. That happens with many Bills before us, including justice Bills — I think we discussed 1935 legislation last week. The amount of checking of chronological statute tables that must be done is complicated. It might not be so complicated in an area involving a standard Bill where there is regular updating of legislation. Case law is also involved. Much of the legislation is difficult to deal with and, when dealing with large Bills, it holds up the system, as we saw recently with the Finance Bill, the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill and the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill. Those three Bills are highly complex legislation and that affects others that are coming through the system. The delay is not always on the Parliamentary Counsel side, it is often because issues have not been completed in Departments.

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

I suggest another approach to reforming the way we deal with this issue? This House makes laws. It is a Legislature and we seem to have an old-fashioned approach to the initiation and drafting of legislation in that, by and large, 99% of the legislation that goes through this House is initiated by Government. It goes through the Attorney General's office and so on and, as Deputy Flanagan said, it is bottlenecked there. Have we not reached the point where the initiation of legislation might be done here in the House, perhaps in committees, taking legislative proposals from individual Deputies or Private Members' Bills, some of which, in fairness to Government, were accepted on Second Stage subject to refinement later? Would that ensure that we had more and better legislation and a greater involvement of Members of the House in legislation if some Parliamentary Counsel were attached to the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas instead of to the Office of the Attorney General and were available to committees, individual Members or whatever to prepare legislation which could be put on the floor of the House? Many legislative initiatives could be taken by individual Members of the House from whatever side or by committees that would not necessarily be politically controversial but would ensure a greater output of legislation from the House and a more productive involvement by Members of the House?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The number of Bills introduced in the past two years was 42 and 38. That is a high number as against many other parliaments — I have seen that chart. It is not the case that the workload or throughput here was not high in the last Dáil. There were over 208 Bills, approximately 40 a year — that is the average — so we are covering a large amount of legislation.

Private Members' Bills, when they are focused on and confined to a certain area, can be very helpful. In the case of a large Bill the Parliamentary Counsel will find an enormous number of inconsistencies because the drafters cannot have available the chronological tables and database that the Attorney General's office and the Parliamentary Counsel has to check and cross-check. The green copy tends to have a huge number of inconsistencies. I understand that and it is not to say people are not trying their best. Even when Departments are trying to prepare Bills or in the case of an outside contract, if the legislation was to go through in that form it would be extremely faulty. I have heard probably ten Attorneys General give that advice over the years so we must be cautious about that.

Other parliaments try to have more discussion when Private Members' Bills are brought forward by members. That is not bad but if the concept or some of the work is useful they have to go back to be proofed. I have not seen a Bill produced that could go right through the system, except in the case of a very short Bill on a moot point. There is usually a lot of work involved in any substantive legislation, even from outside draftsmen or departmental Parliamentary Counsel. The Parliamentary Counsel have that specialist knowledge and perhaps they would always say that, but it has been the case that they have to proof it.