Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have said a fair amount about section 31. I do not propose to say much more. I will outline the problem I see with the section as currently drafted.What kind of person would take a job of such seniority for five years? It seems tailor-made to exclude people who are not in the public sector or in a position to take secondment from another form of employment. There are very few people wandering around who are qualified to take a job of this kind. I do not understand why the maximum employment period is ten years. If a person aged 52 is suitable to be appointed as director, why can they not serve out their period in the role until they are 65? Why are we bringing in this constraint? The commission might be totally satisfied with the person but will have to dispense with their services after ten years. I can see that two terms as a member of a board is enough and that, in many cases, certain positions require freshness after a certain period but this is different. Is this director going to be a civil servant? A member of staff is referred to as a civil servant in section 30(6) so if the director is a civil servant, why would he or she have to go after ten years? What commonsense objective is served by introducing such an artificial limit of the time the director can serve in office?

Section 30 states that there shall be attached to the commission an office to be known as the judicial appointments commission office, which shall assist the commission in the performance of its functions. With the consent of the Minister given the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, the commission may appoint such and so many persons to be members of the staff of the office as it may determine. However, there is a different provision in section 31(1), which states that the commission shall, following a selection process held by the Public Appointments Service, PAS, appoint a person to be a director. The strange thing is that the person in question is not covered by the terms of the provisions of section 30(6), where an employee is a civil servant. That is my reading of the Bill and I would be glad if the Minister would elaborate on this. If the appointment provision is different from that for staff members under section 30(4), it seems to follow that the director will not be a member of staff and will not, therefore, be a civil servant. I would like some clarity on this because it is problematical. Is the director a member of staff appointed under subsection (4)? If he or she is appointed under subsection (4), are the provisions of section 31 in substitution for, or in refinement of, the provisions of section 30 as they relate to staff? Will the director be a civil servant? Can the Minister say precisely why, if somebody is appointed to the job of director aged 52, they should be out of the job aged 62?