Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Minister has indicated that the proposed appointee would be somebody who would be remunerated at the level of a principal officer in the Civil Service. That is, I suppose, a reasonable salary range to nominate for this position, but if one looks at subsections (2), (3) and (4), then we have a slight difficulty because subsection (2) states: "The Director shall hold office for such period not exceeding 5 years from the date of his or her appointment as the Commission shall determine." The first thing is that we are saying that the director can be appointed for a period of less than five years, which would be a very temporary kind of appointment in the circumstances. If one is going to give somebody a senior position of this kind, I do not see why it should be open to the commission to say it would give someone a couple of years or three years to carry out one's function.

Second, subsections (3) and (4) have the effect of saying that if one is appointed for five years one can be appointed for a second period, not exceeding five years, but the total entitlement to hold the office is ten years. One of the problems with these kinds of temporary appointments is that it seems to me they have the effect of frightening off everybody who is not being seconded from some position in the Civil Service because nobody else in the private sector could apply for a job of such seniority and be effectively told after five years that he or she is gone.

It seems to me that this is designed to effectively frighten off people who are not already public servants, who might be seconded to act as director of the commission. Bearing in mind the high hopes surrounding the Bill and that we are told this will be a game-changing new institution, I wonder whether in all of the circumstances subsections (2), (3) and (4) are not going to have the effect of frightening away everybody except a career civil servant who will be shifted sideways in and out of the position for such term as the commission suggests.

Whereas section 31 might on the face of it appear to be a fairly standard provision, in the context of this particular institution I am trying to work out in my own mind what would happen in the event of a lawyer or administrator who was interested in taking up this position. Let us suppose it was a woman or man in her or his 40s or 50s and she or he is given a five-year term with no guarantee of reappointment. Unless one is a public servant, and teachers are one group who can be-----