David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

This discussion flows on naturally from our discussion on the previous matter, the Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2017. Sections 31 and 32 go together. Section 31(1) states that the commission shall, following a selection process held by the PAS, appoint a person to be the director. It refers to "a" selection process, which is not terribly specific. It could be any kind of selection process and it would be worthwhile to include some information as to what kind of process it will be. I assume the Minister means it to be a normal, run-of-the-mill selection process such as the PAS so excellently conducts but it does not state this. The whole business of the selection process is vitiated by section 32, which refers to the functions of the director, stating: "(1) The Director shall manage and control generally the staff, administration and business of the Office." That does not tell us very much and it tells us nothing about policy. How does this help the commission in researching and trying to find the correct person? The terms of employment are vague. Section 32(2) states; "The Director shall be responsible to the Commission for the performance of his or her functions." That does not give an appointments commission much to go on if it is looking for a particular employee. It is far too vague.

I share Senator McDowell's reservations about the five-year term. It is relaxed slightly by the provision that they can be reappointed by the commission but it seems otherwise pretty firm and it also states that they shall not hold office for a period the aggregate of which exceeds ten years.Again, I would like to hear the Minister's rationale for an appointment term of only five years, which may be extended to double the term to ten years. I really do not see the logic in that.

Having spoken about logic, I am going to talk a bit about the language in section 31(3). I would have thought it is a little elevated and it certainly does not help the common reader, the ordinary Joe who is trying to read this Bill. Subsection (3) states:

Subject to subsection (4), a Director whose term of office expires by the efflux of time shall be eligible for reappointment by the Commission.

The efflux of time, how Miltonic; why was it not worded "the passage of time"? I do not see why we are using this kind of language. I would be interested in the Minister's reply.