Ruairí Quinn
Question:11 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to increase the staff levels in the Office of the Attorney General; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5785/98]
Ceisteanna — Questions. - Attorney General's Office.
Since the review of the Office of the Attorney General in 1995, there have been substantial increases in the resources made available to it in terms of technology, facilities, accommodation and staffing. Ongoing improvements have been made and, while I understand that the office has 12 vacancies at present, arrangements are in hand to fill these as soon as possible.
Additional staffing requirements arise as a result of the Government's decision to establish a separate law revision and consolidation unit in the Office of the Attorney General. These are the subject of discussions between the office and the Department of Finance. The establishment of the unit was a recommendation in the report of the Review Group of the Law Offices of the State which was presented to both Houses of the Oireachtas last week.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. Is the Office of the Attorney General satisfied that it has the necessary resources to meet the requirements involved in drafting legislation? Is there an adequate complement of parliamentary draftsmen?
There is always a difficulty in filling vacancies for parliamentary draftsman. There are two vacancies at present. The first vacancy arose following the departure of a senior draftsman on a career break in June 1997. This vacancy must be filled by way of an internal competition, which has not yet proven successful. There is another vacancy at senior draftsman level. This post was sanctioned only recently and it has not been possible to fill it from the Civil Service panel. Efforts to fill the post from the panel are exhausted and consideration is being given to widening the qualification requirements.
Will the Taoiseach agree it is time to bring to an end the practice whereby the Attorney General's office is the private preserve of the barristers' profession? Will he confirm—
That is a separate matter. The question relates to staff levels in the office.
Will the Taoiseach acknowledge that it is difficult to recruit draftsmen for the Attorney General's office because people legally qualified to act as such, legal academics who are not members of the Bar or solicitors, are excluded from recruitment? Will he also acknowledge that the time has come to widen the scope for recruitment to that office and to bring to an end the practice of confining recruitment to members of the Bar Library?
The Deputy has an interest in the matter.
I declare an interest but I am not applying for the job. However, given some of the stuff being produced by the Government through the Attorney General's office, I might do a better job.
Is that why the Deputy is on the Opposition benches?
The Deputy should withdraw his remark about the staff of the Attorney General's office.
Under the procedures of the House I am entitled to a reply after I have asked my question. It is contrary to the procedures to have a conglomerate reply to three or four questions.
The Chair decides which Members should be called to ask supplementary questions. I call Deputy Quinn, after which I will give the floor to the Taoiseach.
With respect, Sir, I am entitled—
The Deputy must resume his seat. I have called Deputy Quinn.
On a point of order, will you indicate where in the rules of the House you are given discretion to deny a Member a reply to his question and to move on to the next question?
I have indicated that I will call the Taoiseach after Deputy Quinn has asked his question.
You are diluting the relevance of Question Time.
If the Deputy continues to interrupt the Taoiseach will have no time to reply.
On a point of order, the Deputy made a scandalous and scurrilous accusation about the staff in the Attorney General's office and he should be asked to withdraw it. It is okay to make political accusations but they cannot defend themselves in the House.
Moral indignation.
Will the Deputy have the good grace to withdraw the remark he made about the staff of the Attorney General's office?
The allegation was about the competence of the Government.
This is silly.
It is not silly.
(Interruptions.)
Is Deputy Bruton standing over the remark?
The Minister got out of bed on the wrong side this morning and he is being silly.
I am not being silly. It was a scurrilous remark.
It was not.
Deputy Bruton agrees with what Deputy Shatter said.
On a point of order, there is a longstanding tradition in the House that the Office of the Attorney General is not attacked in such a scurrilous way and I ask the Chair to insist that the remark be withdrawn.
The Chair did not hear the remark. I was trying to get the Deputy to resume his seat.
Maybe Deputy Shatter will repeat it.
He made the remark and it is being upheld by the Opposition.
If this is the best the Ministers can do it is pathetic.
Given his reply to my earlier question that the interview process conducted by the Civil Service Commission failed to produce a satisfactory candidate — presumably the list was confined to barristers — will the Taoiseach take on board the very sensible suggestion made by Deputy Shatter that the qualifications for appointment as parliamentary draftsman should be broadened?
I will check if they have been broadened. Reforms were introduced in the Attorney General's office in 1995 and attempts were made at that time to broaden the qualifications to ensure that the positions of parliamentary draftsman and assistant could be filled. The qualifications may already have been broadened.