Vol. 505 No. 1
7 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the number of parliamentary draftsmen employed in the Office of the Attorney General; the number employed at this time in 1998; if he has satisfied himself with these numbers having regard to the growing demands on the office; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12973/99]
Legal drafting services are provided in the Office of the Attorney General through the office of the parliamentary draftsman and the statute law revision unit. There are 14 approved drafting posts at present – 13 in the office of the parliamentary draftsman and one in the statute law revision unit. Of these, two posts are unfilled and one drafter is on leave of absence from the office. In addition to the approved posts, three draftsmen are engaged on contract in the office of the parliamentary draftsman.
In May 1998 there were 13 approved posts, two vacancies and one drafter on leave of absence. I am conscious of the demand for legal services, particularly drafting services, and the impact developments or initiatives in other areas can have on these services. I have asked the Minister of Finance to monitor these developments with a view to ensuring resources are adequate to meet the demands which will arise for the office. I also understand the Civil Service Commission competition to recruit drafters is now complete and this will enable the vacancies to be filled.
Many Members present have shared in the honour of being in Cabinet. No matter how hard an individual Department works to bring forward a party policy platform to convert it into draft legislation, the ultimate delay is due to the funnel arising from staff shortages in the Office of the Attorney General, and the office of the parliamentary draftsman in particular. There are approximately 32 Bills pending in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform which cannot be drafted due to the capacity of the drafting office, which has 14 draftsmen and two on contract. Does the Taoiseach agree there is a need to radically change the way legislation is drafted as the system simply does not work? This has been a problem for successive Administrations and it is not a partisan observation. Does the Taoiseach accept that the system does not work? We have a legislative backlog, not to mention the secondary legislation in relation to compliance with the Internal Market. Does the Taoiseach believe the Civil Service Commission advertisement will solve the problem?
I acknowledge this has always been a problem.
It is considerably worse now.
We are passing more than 60 Bills a year.
It is not enough.
It is never enough because there are always Bills outstanding. There are approximately 100 Bills outstanding at present. I, and other Ministers, have outlined the difficulties over the years. The size of the office allows two or three draftsmen to be trained. It is always difficult to recruit draftsmen. Barristers and solicitors are eli gible to apply for the posts but they must also have a number of years experience and it takes almost five years to go through the system. Even if work is done in Departments – and increasingly, much of it is done in Departments – the Attorney General, like his predecessors, believes this work must be checked. The Attorney General and the parliamentary draftsman's office believe strongly that they must play a key role in this. Although parliamentary draftsmen are under pressure, when they are asked to provide legislation urgently they do so. The Social Welfare and Finance Bills, constitutional Bills and other urgent matters are dealt with. There is pressure on the office and there always will be.
The statute law revision section has opened and staff have been recruited for it, but unless one has an enormous office with a large number of staff, procedures cannot be quickened. It is difficult to recruit highly experienced draftsmen and that has always been the case.
Does the Taoiseach not agree that we have moved on from the position he describes? All legislation passed since 1922 is now on disc with an indexed electronic reference system. This kills one of the old arguments which used to come from Upper Merrion Street. When the Fianna Fáil Party was in opposition it had the capability, which the parties in opposition currently possess, to draft legislation. Fine Gael, when in opposition, tabled legislation which the Government of the day enacted.
The ground rent Bill, for example.
Let us not be polemical. That is nonsense and this is a serious matter.
We are not meeting our legislative requirements. Would the Taoiseach agree that when the Fianna Fáil Party was in opposition it generated legislation with the back-up which was available to it? The Fine Gael and Labour parties do likewise. The argument being made by the Taoiseach is not tenable. The suggestion that parliamentary draftsmen are magical witch doctors whose skill takes ten years to acquire is nonsense. The Taoiseach must know this from his experience in opposition. Does the Taoiseach not agree that we are falling behind in meeting our secondary legislation requirements? Will he review the situation and make a greater response to this crisis in the administrative system? We are not doing the business of parliament because of a bottleneck caused by a group of lawyers who have created a monopoly and who will not allow the bottleneck to be cleared.
The Department of Finance is working with the Attorney General in an effort to increase numbers in the office. The office of the parliamentary draftsman has undergone a major review in recent years and its technology has been updated. The former Attorney General, Mr. Gleeson, did much of this work. The number of staff has been increased and systems have been modernised. The demands on the office are enormous and its workload has increased dramatically.
The demands will grow.
More than 60 Bills are being produced as well as all legal advice to the Government. The parliamentary draftsman is called upon, more and more, to provide priority legislation. I am sure that if the Department of Finance approved the appointment of ten more staff they would be welcome but that would take time. The present and previous Attorneys General have said the office can train two or three people at a time. People with relevant experience are not easily found. A competition was recently held to recruit a senior draftsman and one has been found. There is capacity for six contractors. Much preparatory work on legislation is now done in Departments but all legislation must be completed in the office of the Attorney General.
We are talking about a monopoly.
Does the Taoiseach think it might now be appropriate to ask if the emperor has any clothes? It appears to be accepted that the method of drafting legislation derives from the occult and is known only to the select initiates in the Attorney General's office who must go through the seven stages of preparation before they are allowed to draft legislation. Has it occurred to the Taoisach that this may be a worldwide form of restrictive practice which benefits those engaged in it?
Did that ever occur to Deputy Bruton?
Amateurs such as politicians and individual lawyers have done as good a job as some of the initiates of parliamentary drafting. Would the Taoiseach not agree that as many problems have arisen in the courts from legislation drafted by parliamentary draftsmen as from legislation drafted by others?
Hear, hear.
Will the Taoiseach undertake a study of what differentiates the drafting skills of parliamentary draftsmen from the drafting skills possessed by others which makes them special and requires that those who possess them have a monopoly in the drafting of all Government legislation apart from Revenue?
It might be easy to jump on a bandwagon but the current and past parliamentary draftsmen have been competent and have served us extremely well. Their job is difficult and requires skill. This has been portrayed as a unique skill and it is. Much legislation tabled by Opposition parties is straightforward and does not require references to, or consolidation of previous legislation.
That is not true.
It happens all the time. If one examines the amendments made to Private Members' Bills one sees that they are required because the Bills are often drafted without reference to preceding legislation.
The debate on Committee Stage could deal with those shortcomings effortlessly.
Let us not criticise people unfairly.
Since last December the entire legislative body is on electronic record and can be instantly cross-referenced.
The drafting of legislation requires skill. It is not a simple matter and it should not be portrayed as such.
Deputy Bruton's proposal has already been put into effect. I continually raise the questions of how best to fulfil the legislative programme, how many people are needed in the Attorney General's office and how much work can be done by other Departments. These matters are being discussed by the Attorney General and the Department of Finance following work done by the Attorney General. I recall the Industrial Relations Act, 1990, one of the most complex industrial relations Bills which referred to legislation going back to 1810. Approximately 95 per cent of that Bill was drafted outside the Attorney General's office although the office checked the draft. It is almost ten years since that was done.
The Taoiseach succeeded because the people who drafted the legislation were going to agree to it.
A legal person drafted the Bill. There was, admittedly, good consultation.
I am in favour of that.
That sort of work is done in the Revenue Commission, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and others.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the idea of granting a drafting monopoly to an office like the office of the Attorney General was introduced in Britain in the middle of the 1960s? It was adopted here in the second half of the 1960s. One of the consequences of this has been the reduction in the number of amendments made by parliaments. The number of amendments made in the House of Commons fell from 80 per cent to 17 per cent. Parliament is damaged by the acceptance of the monopoly of legislative drafting. This is not a reflection on those who hold offices but simply to ask—
The Deputy is giving information.
He is giving good information.
—will the Taoiseach make a comparative study of this problem in other parliaments, even those in the European Union, so that we know how the problem commenced and how, with fairness to everybody, it can be addressed?
I endorse the suggestion made by Deputy Higgins which is similar to mine. Will the Taoiseach undertake the study suggested so that we will know what is the best way of drafting legislation and the advantages of a monopoly as against a dispersed or decentralised system of drafting?
This issue has been looked at probably by every Government. I have discussed it privately with Deputy Higgins. In talking to officials in the United Kingdom I found out that they enact far less legislation and that the changes did not help the overall legislative programme. The reports state that while some of the preparatory work needs to be centralised, the legal ramifications in a constitutional context need to be looked at.
Who prepares these reports but the people themselves? This is a report about a monopoly prepared by monopolists.
If in preparing legislation the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources runs into difficulties in the courts, to whom will it turn for legal advice?
Quis custodiet?
It is easy to give off-the-top-of-the-head solutions but I will look at the position which is being looked at by the Attorney General to see if he can improve the system.
