Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

That is not the case. If somebody who is not a civil servant is appointed under section 31 as director, and if it is conceded — it has not yet been — that he will not become a civil servant by virtue of such an appointment, then the question arises as to whether such a person should perform properly for two terms, at a maximum, up to the age of 62 and then be told, unlike any civil servant in the State, that his term is over and he is no longer eligible to hold office. That is the question I am putting. The Minister knows full well that this is an indefensible proposition. First, it is indefensible that the staff should be civil servants but not the director. Second, it is indefensible that somebody who is in charge of all the staff should not be a civil servant ex officio- by holding the office. Third, there is no reason that the Legislature should say to a person who holds the position and discharges the functions satisfactorily for ten years that he or she must leave at the age of 62. No reason is being offered for any of this. No rationale is being offered. If that is the way this House, which is supposed to be the revising Chamber and which is supposed to ask why legislation takes the form it does, is going to be treated, that is contemptuous. It is simply contemptuous of the House not to offer any further explanation.I remind the Minister that so far we have spent less than one hour on each section of the Bill. It is not as if the Bill is not important. The Minister claimed many times himself that it was important. I say it is not important because I say it is going to damage the quality of our Judiciary. There are many other provisions of the Bill which are far more damaging than the proposal to make the director float in space as a non-civil servant with no job security when he or she comes to the end of the first or second term, having performed satisfactorily. It is a major fault in the legislation and no defence is being offered to it. It is indefensible as a proposition.

I ask the Minister to think of the common sense of this. If a clever man or woman applies for appointment to this job through the Public Appointments Service at the age of 52 and serves one term, he or she will have reached 57. If the commission considers that person to be the bee's knees and is very happy to reappoint him or her to another term, it will bring him or her to the age of 62. The House is being asked to insert into the terms of that person's appointment the proposition that he or she is denied civil servant status and must drop the job at the age of 62 with no pension entitlements or anything like that. It is scandalous and indefensible. The Minister can see fully why anybody would have the gravest difficulty accepting the section in its current form.

The Minister has the advantage of having advisors here and a Department which crafted subsection (4) to introduce this maximum ten-year period. There must be a note somewhere in the Department which says why that is being done. The legislative intent and the policy underlying it lie somewhere within the Department of Justice and Equality, but the Minister is deciding to withhold it from the House and refusing to tell us the basis on which the ten-year limit has been imposed. I find that very distressing. I served in the same position the Minister now holds and moved many important Bills in the Senate in my time. I never told a reasonable questioner in this House, "That's the why", when asked for a justification of some provision of a Bill I was moving. No Minister should ask the House to accept that situation.