Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Section 30 is an important enough provision of this Bill because the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board that currently exists has no permanent bureau, office or infrastructure of a governance kind attached to it. It is my very strong view that the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board's system is far preferable to this one and if it needs a slight tweaking here or there, it will be far more effective than this one.

The Minister has stated that he believes his original estimate that it will cost €1 million each year to have the judicial appointments commission function was perhaps too pessimistic from the point of view of the Exchequer and he hopes it might be closer to €500,000 per year. That is significantly more money than is currently spent on the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board. I cannot see for the life of me why we need a complicated bureaucratic structure involving not merely the commission, which is just an ad hocgroup of people who meet from time to time, but now we are being told we need to set up a permanent institution, which will have permanent staff attached to it. It is quite unnecessary.

We have already had a discussion in the course of Committee Stage about whether the judicial appointments commission will require office accommodation, the word "office" in this case being with a small "o". That very much depends on how many people are to be attached to it. As far as I can see, the commission will need to have meeting rooms as it will not meet in an hotel or whatever. Unless it outsources to the private sector, it will also have interview rooms and committee rooms. In addition, it will have staff. If, as the Minister indicated, the commission will not be located in the same office as the Courts Service, one would imagine that it will have receptionists, telephonists and all of the usual panoply that goes with the establishment of a separate office. That is a very significant expenditure to add to the public service bill.

Section 30(1) states that the office is to "assist the Commission in the performance of its functions", while section 30(2) states the Office "shall be funded by moneys provided by the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform." Section 30(3) states the office "shall be under the management and control of the Commission and subject to the direction of the Director." We know that there to be a full-time position of director, under the commission, effectively to do day-to-day direction of the staff of the office. Section 30(4) states the commission "may, with the consent of the Minister for Justice and Equality given with the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, appoint such and so many persons to be members of the staff of the Office as it may determine." Prima facie, what we are dealing with here is a decision by an independent body as to what its staff requirements are and that filling those staff positions will be subject to obtaining the consent of the Ministers for Justice and Equality and Public Expenditure and Reform. We should have a very clear picture of what we are authorising the commission to do. How many people is it intended to have appointed under section 30(4)?

I believe the Minister told us on the last occasion the proposed seniority in public service appointment terms of the director of the commission. I will be glad to hear him state again what kind of job this will be. Will it be at principal officer, assistant secretary, assistant principal officer level or similar?