Vol. 531 No. 3
1 Mr. Shatter asked the Taoiseach if the positions of third legal assistant and fourth legal assistant in the Office of the Attorney General as advertised in a publication (details supplied) on 21 July 2000 have been filled; if not, the vacancies which currently remain; if and when these positions have again been advertised; the current vacancies in the Attorney General's office; and the qualifications that applicants for current vacant positions must fulfil. [3880/01]
As the Deputy is aware the Attorney General's office comprises both professional and administrative staff. On the professional side, the position is as follows. At the time of the advertisement on 21 July 2000 there were two vacancies for third legal assistant and seven vacancies for fourth legal assistant. As a result of the competition, one vacancy at third legal assistant level was filled and the other vacancy at this level was filled by promotion internally. Three of the vacancies at fourth legal assistant level were filled by way of the July 2000 competition.
There are no vacancies for the grade of third legal assistant and five vacancies for fourth legal assistant. The five vacancies at fourth legal assistant level arose as follows: four as a result of the shortfall from the July 2000 competition and one as a result of a person leaving to return to practice at the Bar. A new competition to fill these vacancies will be held this year.
For legal assistant posts applicants must be barristers and have practised in the State for at least four years.
The other vacancies on the professional side are: six vacancies for parliamentary counsel at grade II level and one at grade I level. Barristers and solicitors are eligible to compete for the posts. The qualification required for the grade I post is seven years practice and four years practice for the grade II posts. A written examination was held on 5 February last. Papers are being corrected and interviews are expected to be held by the Civil Service Commission in March.
On the administrative side vacancies exist for two higher executive officers, one executive officer, one staff officer and three clerical officers. One of the HEO positions will be filled on 20 March by seconding an AO from the Department of Education and Science and the EO vacancy is due to be filled within the next two weeks from a Civil Service Commission panel.
Steps are being taken to fill the remaining vacancies in the future. The qualification for all the administrative positions are the same as those required for general Civil Service grade posts.
Will the Taoiseach acknowledge, bearing in mind the level of work that must be undertaken within the Attorney General's office, that it is unsatisfactory that four of the positions for fourth legal assistant advertised last summer have not been filled? There is now a fifth position that has not been filled. Will the Taoiseach agree that these positions should be filled and that there is no reason these vacancies should be available not only to members of the Bar Library but to practising solicitors and academic lawyers?
One likes to fill any vacancy that arises as quickly as possible. I agree with the Deputy that the sooner these vacancies can be filled the better. On the second aspect, the Deputy is well aware of the long-standing practice. It is one with which I agree and it has not changed during all the other times when he and I discussed it in the House.
Will the Taoiseach confirm that the long-standing practice that has been implemented by successive Attorneys General is that these positions are filled only by practising barristers? Will he confirm that it is the wish of the Attorney General that these positions be filled only by practising barristers?
That is the position and has been the practice since the foundation of the State. There are four different sections in the legal services of the State. There is the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to the Government where there are solicitors or barristers; legal assistants have always been recruited from the practising Bar for good and often stated reasons by all the Attorneys General that I can see on file; the Chief State Solicitor's office is the bastion of solicitors, no barristers are allowed in that office, solicitors hold all those posts and the network of State solicitors offices is the same. That is the entire position. Practically all the positions in the State are for barristers only. The Parliamentary Counsel's Office has barristers or solicitors and the 18 or 19 positions in the Attorney General's office are filled by barristers from the Bar Council.
Is the Taoiseach aware it is the Civil Service Commission which is supposed to prescribe the qualifications for filling public service posts and not the Attorney General? Will he indicate what consultation has taken place with the Civil Service Commission to ascertain whether the commission has independently determined these posts should be reserved for members of the Bar? Will he agree it is illogical that they be so reserved in the context of the other posts he has detailed, which are available to members of both professions? Will he agree it is not in the public interest that posts that could be filled by qualified solicitors are kept vacant because members of the Bar Library have not seen fit to apply to fill those posts?
To correct the Deputy, positions in the Chief State Solicitor's office are not open to barristers.
What has that to do with it?
The Deputy said the positions are open to both. They are not open to both. All the positions are held by solicitors
Make them open to both.
I note from many letters over the years, many Attorneys General asked the Law Society to open up posts to both professions but, unfortunately, the files have remained blank. While the Law Society has written many letters on these aspects over the years, whenever Attorneys General asked if it would move to a dual position, it did not answer. Therefore, I do not have the answer to the question.
On the Civil Service Commission, to my knowledge it is satisfied with the existing arrangements for the reasons set out, that is, barristers provide specialist legal advice, services and representation in relation to litigation, and this has worked well in the past. As I said on many occasions during Question Time, if people were prepared to move to a position of a unified profession, matters would change. I note from many lengthy letters and correspondence from Mr. Gleeson that there were moves at the Bar in relation to the solicitors' profession to approve arrangements whereby established practitioners could transfer from one profession to another. He simplified the matter and set out his position in great detail. To my knowledge, that position has not been challenged by the Law Society. The society makes the case that it should be entitled to apply for the 19 positions but it does not agree that all the other positions in the hands of solicitors should be open to barristers. That is where the argument lies and it is the case which has been made within that profession for years.
Does the Taoiseach agree this is not a matter for either the Bar Counsel or the Law Society? Does he agree there is a need to shake up the legal services provided by the State in the context of recruitment to these services by ending all discrimination and distinctions between solicitors and barristers? Does he agree it is in the public interest that the Chief State Solicitor's office should be able to recruit from the qualified barristers profession and that the Attorney General's office should be able to recruit for any of the positions available within it from the solicitors' profession? Does the Taoiseach agree it is his duty to protect the public interest and that this should not be the privilege of either profession? Will he take steps to ensure these important posts in the Attorney General's office are filled by qualified lawyers, whether solicitors or barristers? Will he take steps to open up the Chief State Solicitor's office to the recruitment of barristers? Finally, will he inform the House of the specific work the four legal assistants in the Attorney General's office undertake and the extent to which the workings of that office are behind as a consequence of its inability to recruit the new staff required?
As I said earlier, a number of additional posts were approved last summer. However, all of these posts have not yet been filled. This argument has gone on for 31 years. I do not claim to be an expert but this matter has been considered by the individuals involved at least every second year for the last 30 years.
Vested interests are exercising a veto over Government action.
That is not so. The question is whether the professions want a unified profession and it appears they do not.
The question is about providing public services.
The Chief State Solicitors and Attorneys General have taken the view that the present system has worked, is working and will work well.
The Attorney General's office cannot recruit staff.
The Deputy and I have discussed the position in the Chief State Solicitor's office, yet when the post of Chief State Solicitor had to be filled last year he did not argue that the new appointment should be a barrister. Other solicitors have long argued for holding positions exclusive to their profession while at the same time they seek to be allowed fill positions which are the preserve of the Bar. I understand their position. The solicitors' profession is not unique in that respect.
I am concerned with the public interest, not with the interests of solicitors or members of the Bar.
The solicitors' profession dominates the areas of concern here. I do not mind if the solicitors and barristers combine to form a unified profession. However, there is no will on either side to take this route. I have read a number of the reports made to address this issue over the past 30 years and it is clear that barristers wish to ensure that Attorneys General continue to be recruited from the Bar because of the specialised advice they are required to provide in terms of litigation. Similarly, where it has been the long held practice for posts to be filled from the Law Society, solicitors do not want to change that. I do not have a vested interest in developments in this area, but I would not have any difficulty if it was agreed that the 18 posts reserved for the Bar, of the almost 150 available, were to be recruited from either profession.
Four or five years ago Mr. Gleeson considered an enormous correspondence on the arguments for and against change and set out the position very well. He made the reasonable case that the people advising him or any Attorney General are best recruited from the Bar because of the work they are expected to do. He equally made the case that recruitment to the grade of Chief Parliamentary Counsel can be made from either profession because experience of litigation in the courts is not necessary. The present and previous Attorneys General agree with him on that. I will not crusade for a unified profession when it is clear that neither side wants it.
Does the Taoiseach agree that it is not possible to compare the present crisis of staffing in the public service with what has been the precedent? Does he also agree that if the Strategic Management Initiative means anything, the demarcation that has characterised so many aspects of areas of expertise have been swept aside by modernisation and new practices? Does he recognise that citizens' interests are being damaged because there is no legal expert available to the Attorney General, be he or she a solicitor or a barrister? Against the background of the failure to fill these posts and the many vacancies on the administrative side, of which the Taoiseach's replies have given an indication but which could be replicated in most other Departments, will he indicate if he is to take any initiative to ensure that these posts will be filled by suitably qualified people so that citizens' interests and the task of Government can be properly advanced?
Yes. There is an urgency about this. Last year the case was put in different sections of the State's legal services, both administrative and the professional, that additional posts were required. They were sanctioned by the Department of Finance. While the competition of last summer did not fill all the posts it addressed the issue of third legal assistants but not fourth legal assistants. There is an urgency about filling some of the other posts so that the additional, heavy and demanding workload of that service is met. I have consulted the Civil Service Commission and the staff involved. While a large number of people applied to participate in last year's competition some did not take up the positions offered them. I understand the numbers were average by comparison with previous occasions. The profile and the effort to recruit people to these positions has to be given an extra impetus. I am certainly doing that and I have asked that this competition should be earlier and perhaps advertised in a more dynamic way to get a greater response. It is important that these positions are filled. Obviously, they would not have been approved if they were not necessary. The fact they are necessary means people should be in those positions.
