Jack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his response. Is this change worth a 200-fold increase in the current funding arrangement? The Judicial Appointments Advisory Board, JAAB, has a budget of only €5,000, whereas the proposed commission will have a budget of €1 million. Is a 200-fold increase in funding for the work the Minister describes proportionate? No one would argue it is proportionate.

The commission will appoint a small number of judges. The funding and other arrangements the Minister proposes amount to a complete bureaucratisation of the Civil Service. Why can existing resources, for example, staff of the Courts Service or Department, not be transferred to the new office? The proposal to create such a layered structure is excessive. The Minister's party expressed pride in abolishing quangos, yet it proposes to create another large quango. It is proposed is to increase the current budgetary allocation for judicial appointments by a multiple of 200. Other areas of government and the public service require an increase in funding. This proposal is excessive and does not correspond with the logical funding arrangements the Minister set out a moment ago.

Research and development will not cost 200 times the cost of €5,000. I am worried by the funding changes proposed by the Minister in terms of this Civil Service change in the context of other changes within his Department. For example, the Gambling Control Bill requires significant funding but it has been kicked to touch by his Government. To propose increasing a cost by 200 times the existing amount for the appointment of ten or 11 judges, on average, is completely excessive. In my view, the proposal cannot be accepted. That is why the amendments put forward by Deputy O'Callaghan for a secretary and utilising, for example, the Courts Service or the Department to administer the scheme would be far more appropriate and a better use of State resources. It is well and good to mention the need for effective research and development but that is the classic speak around the bureaucracy of quangos. The funding arrangement for the office would only continually grow beyond the proposal of 200 times the cost. That is why I think the amendments proposed by Deputy O'Callaghan are proportionate to the work that the commission will actually do. The proposal by the Minister is completely excessive and illogical and that is why it is more prudent to take on the amendments that we have proposed. I do not think anyone can justify in any area of the Civil Service increasing a cost by 200.