Vol. 529 No. 4
1 Mrs. Owen asked the Taoiseach the number of vacancies for parliamentary counsel and assistant parliamentary counsel in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to the Government; the impact vacancies have on the Government's legislative programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29121/00]
There are seven vacancies for assistant parliamentary counsel at the moment, one at the grade I level and six at grade II level. One of these vacancies already existed and the others are additional posts recently sanctioned. They are to be filled by means of recruitment through the Civil Service Commission and this process is in train.
Given the nature of the vacancies, they do not immediately impact on the Government's legislative programme. The filling of the vacancies will, however, ensure that the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel will be better equipped to draft Bills, amendments to Bills and statutory instruments.
Will the Taoiseach elaborate on his comment that the vacancies are not causing a delay in the preparation of legislation? How long will it take to fill the vacancies and what is the exact nature of the work which will be done by the people who will fill the six new posts?
A written exam was held yesterday and interviews will follow. Some 29 applications were received from three barristers and 26 solicitors. The written exam will be corrected over the coming week and interviews will be held thereafter. I expect it will be about a month before the vacancies are filled.
The positions are being filled to increase the number of staff in the office who will deal with the drafting and processing of legislation. The statute law revision unit is up and running and the Statute Law (Restatement) Bill is currently before the House. Further proposals have been received in regard to the electronic formatting of statutes and the office is endeavouring to increase its work rate in these new areas. Most of the office's work will still concern what we know as "parliamentary draftspersons".
Will the Taoiseach clarify that there is no written or unwritten rule to the effect that only barristers can work in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel? Did any of the 29 applications come from people working abroad and, if so, will the filling of the vacancies be delayed if any of those applicants are selected?
For the purposes of accuracy, some 29 applicants were expected to sit yesterday's exams but only 18 turned up.
They were probably stuck in traffic.
I doubt it. Given our booming economy, they probably took up employment since applying for these jobs.
They are too busy elsewhere.
The legal profession is particularly busy. Both barristers and solicitors are eligible to apply for these posts. Barristers and solicitors must have practised for four years to take up a grade II position and there is a seven year requirement for the grade I post. It is expected that people appointed to these positions would have first hand experience as practitioners in all aspects of law and would satisfy formal legal requirements. They can be from either sides of the legal profession.
I note that only two-thirds of the applicants turned up for interview. Will the Taoiseach tell us how much he is offering for the job?
Does the Deputy want to apply? Deputy Yates is going. The Deputy might be next.
There are two levels. Assistant parliamentary counsel grade 1 has a salary of £49,237 to £60,721. The salary for assistant parliamentary counsel grade II is £37,878 to £48,676.
I put it to the Taoiseach that he is attempting to mask what is a serious problem in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to the Government. While he admitted that the vacancies amounted to six, will he express that in terms of the overall complement in the office? Will the Taoiseach acknowledge that there is a crisis in the parliamentary counsel's office that will impact adversely on our programme of work in the Dáil?
Under the previous and current Attorneys General the work output is well ahead of what we have been able to deal with. In recent years, 145 Bills were dealt with and in this session the number is 15 or 17 Bills. It always has been a busy office and because the people who apply for this job have to work in the common law system, the pool from which they come is limited. There are currently 11 permanent staff, one chief parliamentary counsel, three parliamentary counsel, five assistant parliamentary counsel at the grade 1 level and two at the grade II level but there is much other work they wish to do. We have often spoken during Question Time about the electronic formatting of the Statute Book, putting items in chronological order and all of that work. Some of that work has been done but to keep it up to date and to be able to automatically bring into place the chronological tables, the statutes and the index requires staff. The existing staff will be involved in drafting Bills. The order of the office now is that the staff are grouped around ministries and Departments so that they can work on and specialise in those Bills, which is appropriate, but it requires people to do that. That is the reason for the additional staff, only one of which is from the existing complement; the others are new. This will allow us to get on with this work.
I hope that later this year – I know I will be asked this question – the Statute Book from 1922 to 1998 will be updated but it will require a fair amount of technological work to make it available electronically. Once a Bill is passed here it will automatically form part of the chronological statutes and instruments. That will have to be done on contract, which is being examined currently, but it requires extra staff before we can do it.
The Taoiseach said there were 11 permanent staff. Are there people already employed on short-term contracts and what age groups would some of those fall into? Is it the case that at least one or two would be well past the normal retirement age? Has any instruction been given to all the Departments to improve and strengthen their own capacity in preparing legislation to ensure there is a sharing of the work in the preparation of legislation? Not all Departments have such expertise and very often the legislation, when it is submitted to the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to the Government, requires a great deal of work. Would it not also be practical that each Department would improve its legislative preparation sections to ensure legislation is written more quickly and effectively?
I do not have details of the ages of the people. There are two contract drafters and a third drafter will join the office in March. They are from common law jurisdictions.
Is that Australia?
I am not sure, but in the past we used drafters from Canada and Australia. It would be better to have our own. During the past decade the experienced drafters in specialist work have tended to have retired in other jurisdictions. The Deputy asked another question.
I asked about the capacity of Departments to prepare draft legislation.
We are continually trying to get them to do this and a number of Departments have succeeded in doing it. As Deputy Owen knows, the length, complexity and urgency of legislation are factors. If the Department had people who could give clear instructions and bring it to a certain stage, it would make it much easier for drafters. We have done this recently in the case of a number of Bills where people have legal expertise. The drafters and Parliamentary Counsel say they still have to check it, but if it is in good draft form it is easier for them to do that.
Does the Taoiseach accept there is a gap between the Government's laudatory commitment to promoting e-commerce and the failure to up-date in electronic format the legislative enactments which have taken place since 1998? What action is he taking to ensure the capability of the Chief State Solicitor's office, the Attorney General's office and the other areas responsible for legislation are properly maintained? Does he agree it is clear from his replies that the system is not working with the speed or alacrity required? Does he share this concern?
As I stated, the Statute Book from 1922 to 1998 – we want to keep it up to date – is available in electronic format. However, the statutes for the past two years are not. Some decisions were taken during the lifetime of this Administration.
The decision was taken by the previous Administration.
It was to go to tender but it did not happen until late 1997 or early 1998.
The format was initiated by the previous Administration.
I am not taking from it. The then Attorney General, Mr. Gleeson, was the person who started it and I do not want to take from the man's good work in this area.
The proposals are being considered as part of the wider project under which the statutes will be automatically available in electronic format once they are enacted. This was not done under the original project and additional staff are required to do it. It is also proposed that the chronological tables of statutes and statutory instruments will also be available in electronic format. I accept this is not the case now but the project is under way and hopefully it will be completed this year and once a Bill is enacted it will be automatically available in electronic format.
2 Mrs. Owen asked the Taoiseach if all special and political advisers in his Department have had applied to their salaries the principle that the salaries were to be based on an additional 10% of their existing salary package; and, if so, if he will make a statement in regard to the pre-existing salary package of each of the persons concerned. [29563/00]
3 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the salary packages of the special and political advisers in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the way in which those packages were devised. [3070/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 and 3 together.
When the Government came into office, the Minister for Finance laid down certain rules governing the salaries of special advisers. Their terms and conditions of employment had already been laid down under the Public Service Management Act, 1997, but the legislation made no reference to salaries.
The Government decided to introduce a degree of regulation on the question of salaries because of our concern about the cost to the taxpayer of advisers' salaries. The Minister for Finance established an attraction allowance of 10% on top of the previous salaries of appointees. The offices of the Taoiseach and Tánaiste are excluded from these regulations and the Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach were given authority to sanction the appointments and salaries of advisers in these Departments. In my appointment of advisers I have, with some exceptions, kept the increase on their previous remuneration packages to approximately 10%. In the case of the most recent appointment of a political adviser to my office the increase is in the region of 16%.
The salaries of advisers in my office are largely based on salaries of previous incumbents in the office. They are, in the main, related to Civil Service salary scales and on appointment the minimum salary applicable is the minimum of the assistant principal, general service grade.
Does the Taoiseach recall that on 5 December 2000 he categorically stated in this House that in respect of the appointment of a political adviser he was confined to 10% over and above the existing salary and he indicated to the House that a contract had not at that stage been signed? Is the Taoiseach confirming that he breached that 10% in the case of a political adviser? On what basis would that 10% have been paid? Is it based on the adviser's previous salary? The Taoiseach is giving different information now than he gave in December.
The Office of the Taoiseach is not covered by that rule. A number of people in my office got increases of 7% or 8%. The exact percentage received by the most recent appointee to my office was 16.24%. When I last spoke about this the figures had not been negotiated.
(Dublin West): What is the justification for exempting the Offices of the Taoiseach and Tánaiste from the 10% rule laid down by the Minister for Finance? Does the Taoiseach agree that in the context of the special adviser's increase of 16% on an already generous wage, the Government is guilty of the most monumental double standards? Likewise, in respect of the announcement made in the dead of night last week of huge increases for Ministers, Oireachtas Members and top civil servants, how does the Taoiseach justify the Government's intervention in and excoriation of secondary teachers' pay claim when he is doing exactly what he criticises the teachers for? What are the criteria for the pay scales of special advisers to the Government? Are there special criteria? Is there benchmarking? How is their performance judged? In comparison with a Dublin Bus driver, who has 50 people in his care at rush hour and has enormous responsibilities—
The Deputy should confine himself to the question.
(Dublin West): I am trying to get to the bottom of this curious question of how the Taoiseach can award somebody very high wages for being his adviser while other workers are hammered down to the terms of pay agreements worked out between the Government, employers and trade unions. On what basis are exceptions made for some while other workers who carry big responsibilities are hammered down to less than £20,000 a year?
I have no doubt the Deputy has worked out, in relation to his own salary increase of 18.7%, which was worked out under a benchmarking process, that the conclusion arrived at is that he is worth 18.7%. I am sure he is worth that.
On the generality of the question, the Deputy is well aware of grade structures, whether worked out under conciliation schemes, arbitration schemes or benchmarking schemes. The substance of this question does not apply to advisers. The salaries of special advisers are based on a figure which has not always existed but which has been in existence for some time. People who leave their jobs are, in many cases, unable to return to those jobs in the same circumstances. They take on different tasks, work different hours and must operate regardless of who is in Government, and they must be totally flexible. That is why they get an additional increase. They are not paid overtime, as are bus drivers or other such workers who very much deserve it. Because of that, the flexibility, the uncertainties and sometimes the short duration involved, they can be paid those increases. There is no more motivation than that.
Is the Taoiseach aware he said in December there are fixed guidelines within the Department of Finance, which fixes a percentage? I am seeking to clarify the position. Did the Department of Finance give the Taoiseach specific approval to give one adviser a 16.24% increase? What impact does he consider that will have on his other advisers who were limited perhaps to an additional 10% increase on their previous salary? Does he anticipate a rush in demand by other people for increases in their pay packets?
Are the salaries of the Taoiseach's political advisers and other advisers part of a benchmarking process? Perhaps he will share with the House how benchmarking in respect of a political adviser's salary works? Does it work on the basis of advice, bad publicity or good spinning? I do not want to be personal about any adviser. In general, how are the salaries of political advisers benchmarked? Having set the benchmark, how are their salaries increased?
The Taoiseach seems to be saying that his political advisers get a package deal, that if there are five or six people whose salaries cannot go above an additional 10% of their previous salaries, those salaries are added together and divided by five and if one person gets only an additional 7% increase another person can get the extra amount. That position needs to be clarified for the sake of anyone who might get a job in his office and who would want to know where he or she stands.
I will try to be as helpful as I can. I know the Deputy was listening to me but she may not have heard me correctly. I said that the Minister for Finance established an attraction allowance of 10% on top of the previous salaries of appointees. The Offices of the Taoiseach and Tánaiste are excluded from these regulations and the Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach were given authority to sanction the appointments and salaries of advisers in these Departments. Therefore, I was not curtailed to that particular figure. In answering questions on the last day, if could have been read that I was curtailed to that figure. I thought I was, but I was not.
Was the Taoiseach wrongly briefed on 5 December?
No, I was asked a question by Deputy Howlin and I read the text of what I said to him. I had not checked what salaries those people were on. I was not involved in the negotiation of their contracts. There is no benchmarking process for advisers. There could not be one, as advisers are in office for the term of a Government and they leave office when that Government leaves office. Looking back over the years, the figures involved range from 5% to 25%, which are quite different. Looking back on the files, the starting point is the salary the person concerned was on. Nobody received a reduction on taking up a job as adviser—
You can bet your bottom dollar they did not.
under any Administration. Some of them received an increase of 5%, 6% or 7%. What is taken into account is the type of post and the opportunities the person concerned is giving up. That was taken into account in a number of these posts over the years. I hope that fully answers the Deputy's question.
Is the Taoiseach aware that as a result of the reply he gave in December, he caused a stir in the former place of employment of his newest appointee at that time in the sense that a calculation was being made as to what the salary must have been if there was a 10% increase, if the salary of £70,000 included a 10% increase? That information can be transmitted to the former colleagues of that person so that RTE does not get a huge demand for an additional 16% increase in salary from its staff who are on the same level?
I accept that. The last thing I want to do for all my friends in RTE is create unrest among the staff.
There are implications for the licence fee.
I apologise for the information which was not absolutely correct.
The Taoiseach said in his original reply that he applied the 10% rule with a few exceptions. Leaving out the recent political adviser, what are the other exceptions?
A senior individual on my staff remained in one grade for 15 years. In 1997 that person received an increase above that level, but in fairness that person had remained in that position and had never requested anything, and did not do so in 1997 either. There was an increase at that stage but the others would be in that range.
