Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Those are issues which concern me.

I fully understand the need to open up a subhead in the Estimates. Towards the end of the year, it is conventional and utterly unobjectionable to put in a nominal amount and to thereby create the opening in the public accounts for the expenditure of a greater amount in the year to which the Estimates are likely to have effect. However, what does a start-up funding of €250,000 represent? The Minister will be aware since taking office that the gestation period between the enactment of the former Minister, Alan Shatter's legislation on the regulatory body for the legal profession, its actual taxiing on the runaway and it taking flight, has been very long. It is nearly two years since it has been in the process of formation. I am not sure as to the extent to which it is actually functioning. Will the Minister indicate what office accommodation is anticipated for this body when it is up and running? What is the total staff complement likely to be? Will it be housed in existing rented accommodation or given its own accommodation? Will it be housed in conjunction with the proposed judicial council, a body with entirely different functions? Will there be shared staff between the two bodies? How much is anticipated will be spent on consultants and advisers in a full year?

Paying an annual rate of €15,000 for a board member is inherently unacceptable if those members have to participate frequently in the interview process and the board's other committees. Instead, there would have to be a per diemapproach to make it attractive for a person of quality to participate. With a person having to pay 50 cent to the euro in taxes, USC and the like, a net benefit of €7,500 for such a position would not be adequate if a recipient were asked to tog out for multiple interviews, attend multiple meetings, consider multiple applications and take an active role. It is quite possible that persons who are paid of the order of €15,000 or €20,000 to be on this board, with a net benefit of €7,500 and €10,000, would regard their own input as being of marginal value to the State and one which would compete with their other activities. Unless they had much spare time on their hands, it would disincline people to participate in a body of this kind.

In these circumstances, it is much more reasonable to think that the members of the commission will have to be remunerated over and above an annual retainer with a per diemrate for carrying out specialised functions such as interview processes and the like. The Minister indicated on the last occasion that he would inform us on this occasion how the €500,000 is computed. Of that €500,000, what is envisaged will be spent on the salaries of public servants? What are the pension costs for those public servants as time goes on? What is the annualised real cost of establishing this body? What will the office accommodation needs be, which necessarily reflect the size of the staff to be appointed? What sums will be paid to the consultants and advisers? How much will advertising for such positions come to? How much will the running of interviews and the rental of premises to conduct interviews come to? Will they be held in hotels around the country? Who will attend those bodies? All of these are mysterious amounts about which the Minister says he cannot be absolutely clear. However, when he says the €1 million is an overestimate and €500,000 is more accurate, how can one run a body of this kind on such an annual budget if it is to do its job properly, attend to the work it is supposed to do and have its members involved in face-to-face interviews with applicants for judicial appointment?