Section 6 of the Ministers and Secretaries Bill was under consideration the last day. Amendment 25 had been disposed of. We will now consider Amendment 26, Section 6.
DÁIL IN COMMITTEE. - MINISTERS AND SECRETARIES BILL—(THIRD STAGE RESUMED).
I move the following amendment:—
To add a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) The Attorney-General may be or become a member of Dáil Eireann, and if he is a member of Dáil Eireann at the time of his appointment he shall not be under any obligation to resign his seat or to submit himself for re-election. He shall hold office so long only as the President of the Executive Council by whom he was appointed continues to retain the support of a majority in Dáil Eireann.
It may be said that this amendment is consequential upon the last. Partly it is. The case for this would be much stronger if the last amendment had been accepted and passed, but even without the last amendment, I think it is desirable that we should state specifically in the Bill that the Attorney-General may be, or may become, a member of the Dáil, and that he is not under any obligation to resign his seat in case of appointment, if he is already a member, and that he shall hold office only so long as the President, by whom he is appointed, is in receipt of the confidence of the majority of the Dáil. It does not necessitate that the Attorney-General shall be a member of the Dáil, and I can understand perhaps good reasons why an Attorney-General need not be a member of the Dáil. I think it is a very good thing for the Dáil that the present Attorney-General is a member. I do not want to make it obligatory that he shall be. The Attorney-General, I think, last week pointed out that the best lawyers might not be the best publicists—though they very often are. I think we should understand clearly, at least, whether it is the intention of the Dáil that the Attorney-General shall or shall not be a member of the Dáil, or whether it is intended to leave the matter optional. That is the reason I bring forward the amendment, notwithstanding the fact that the previous amendment touching upon this subject was defeated.
I understand that the President will accept that amendment. There is one matter in which I wish to make a reservation. It may be necessary on the Report Stage to modify the wording slightly, for this reason. There might be read into it a suggestion that a statute of the late Queen Anne, I think it was——
The lady who is dead.
Which caused certain Ministers in England to vacate office on appointment, had application to Ministers of the Saorstát. I know that that is not what Deputy Johnson has in mind, but it may be necessary in some way to modify the wording.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question: "That Section 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
(1) The Executive Council may from time to time, on the nomination of the President of the Council, appoint so many persons, being members of the Oireachtas and not exceeding seven in number as the Executive Council shall consider necessary, to be Parliamentary Secretaries to the Executive Council or to Executive Ministers, and may at any time remove any Parliamentary Secretary so appointed.
(2) Every person appointed under this section to be a Parliamentary Secretary shall continue to hold office so long only as he continues to be a member of the Oireachtas and the President of the Executive Council by whom he was nominated continues to retain the support of a majority in Dáil Eireann.
(3) Each Parliamentary Secretary appointed under this Act shall be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas such annual salary not exceeding in any case the annual sum of £1,200 as shall from time to time be fixed by the President of the Executive Council, with the consent of the Minister for Finance.
(4) Each of the Parliamentary Secretaries appointed under this section shall by his appointment be assigned to act as Parliamentary Secretary to the Executive Council or to an Executive Minister and shall have such powers and perform such duties as the Executive Council or such Executive Minister with the consent of the Executive Council (as the case may be) may from time to time delegate to him.
I move Amendment 27, which is to delete the section. It was said here, at the outset, that this Bill is in the nature of a permanent measure, that it may be added to, from time to time, but that its main provisions will remain as they are. That may or may not be. At this particular moment, when national economy is being urged on every hand, and particularly from the Ministerial Bench, it is undesirable that we should make a departure from our present practice, when that departure involves certain extra expenditure, however small it may be. It is unfortunate, as I said on the Second Reading, that this Bill should come forward immediately after these admonitions with regard to national economy. The Dáil has managed without Parliamentary secretaries —that is, paid Parliamentary secretaries. I agree at once that it would be very undesirable that people should be asked to undertake national service— although they frequently are, and are happy to comply—without remuneration. There would be nothing to stop a provision of this kind being introduced at a later stage, if found necessary, without being brought into a Bill for the foundation of constitutional Ministerial positions. I think it undesirable that we should set this headline at the present moment.
The first reason why I think this Section should be deleted from the Bill is that it is not in consonance with the preaching of national economy. My second reason is that the President, when recommending this Bill and supporting its principle, made it perfectly clear that it was not Parliamentary Secretaries at all he had in mind as being required. Before I quote his words I should point out that he was referring to a period which we have passed through—the last twelve months —when there were no such persons recognised and paid as such, in the service either of the Ministry or of the Dáil. He said:—
During the period that we have had experience of—that is the last two years—for something like twelve or eighteen months we have had three Parliamentary Secretaries. Two were attached to me: one in my capacity as President, and the other in my capacity as Minister for Finance.
I want to draw attention to the next remark of the President:
The third was the Assistant Minister for Industry and Commerce. The Parliamentary Secretary who was attached to the Ministry of Finance and the Assistant Minister for Commerce were approached by me in reference to one service, which was functioning under the Ministry of Finance, and in the course of their administration of that particular service they saved a sum per annum almost sufficient to discharge the entire estimate of the Oireachtas.
I ask particular attention to these words, too—that in reference to that one service they effected such an enormous saving. The President went on to say:
It is not by nominal economies real results are to be effected, and if excellent service can be rendered by a large number of Ministers, we consider that power ought to be given in a measure of this sort to enable the Executive Council to have available for the service of the State such assistance as they consider is necessary.
I have drawn attention to two sentences of the President, particularly, because the service to which he referred was not a Parliamentary service at all. It was a service that could have been dealt with by any one of the Civil Servants in his employment.
It was not any work in connection with the business here. It was work in connection with what is known as the Contracts Committee. Now, clearly work done in connection with any Department, any affiliation between that Department and the Contracts Committee, is work that calls for the administration of Departmental Civil Servants, not for the appointment of Parliamentary Secretaries. I have drawn attention to these two sentences for another reason. One of the persons to whom the President has referred was the Assistant Minister for Industry and Commerce. The Assistant Minister for Industry and Commerce was called in to serve in a certain capacity, to help in the work of a certain Department. Unless I am much misinformed, he is still serving in that Department, and is still doing the work in that Department that he did in the previous Dáil, of which he was a member, although he is not a member of this Dáil.
There is an aspect that I want to touch upon as lightly as I possibly can. I realise that we are in a formative period, and many things are done that would not be done under normal experience. But I do suggest, and I do think, that it is not altogether the very best possible practice that members of the Legislature should act as Ministers, and then, failing to be returned, in the next succeeding Legislature should continue to hold and discharge work that they did previously, having turned from being Assistant Minister to being Civil Servants on the staff. I think that is not altogether the best practice.
It is not altogether relevant to the amendment, Deputy Figgis.
I touched upon it in parenthesis, and I deliberately did so.
Irrelevant parenthesis is as bad as any other form of irrelevancy.
The main point is that that particular Assistant Minister is still doing that work that he was called upon to do in the last Dáil. Clearly, if he was called in to serve in a certain capacity, and he did good work in that capacity, and is still doing that work, then the reason for the appointment of a Parliamentary Secretary to discharge the work that he discharged is not apparent in this case. I think the President's own explanation, in speaking here on the Second Reading, makes it quite clear that it was not Parliamentary Secretaries that he had in his mind. A second reason, therefore, why I urge and why I think this Dáil should not pass or permit this Section to remain part of the Bill is that it is not Parliamentary Secretaries which the President made it clear that he wanted, but that it was a different function in the Civil Service. Therefore, it is the Civil Servants that he should be thinking of. The third reason hinges upon and follows from the other two. It is this: In the previous Dáil there were three persons acting in different ways in connection with the Civil Service, and we managed successfully with three, although they were not Parliamentary Secretaries. We were meeting very frequently. We met week after week. There was a lot of work to be done. It was pressed through this Dáil almost as quickly as bullets through a machine gun.
Were you ever closured?
As the President said, the work was all the greater because he exercised his generosity and never closured. This pressure of work was not placed, and is not placed, upon this present Dáil, and it will not be placed upon this Dáil during the coming year. We heard that there are arrangements to be made that there will be a lengthy recess during the summer months. It is obvious that the same pressure is not going to be given to the work of this Dáil as to the work of the past Dáil. If, therefore, we managed without paid persons whose whole time was occupied, then clearly, and a fortiori, these persons and these extra appointments will not be required in the present Dáil. A clear case has not been made out for the inclusion of Parliamentary Secretaries. I think that unless the circumstances were such that the appointment of such persons was imperative and unavoidable, only under those conditions could such provisions be introduced at the present moment, in face of the demand for economy. I know the expenditure is not much, but there is much in the force of example. Such a case has not been made clear, and because it has not been made clear I think the amendment should pass. If, eventually, such persons become necessary, in the present Dáil, let us at the present moment keep these conditions out of the Ministers and Secretaries Bill, and keep the question of Parliamentary Secretaries to be dealt with at a future day, when the financial pressure is not so much as at the present moment and when a clearer case is made out for their necessity.
We have all listened for the past ten minutes to a very learned dissertation upon what one would imagine would be the reason why this Section should be deleted. But it is in essence quite another thing. I do not know whether the Deputy has his mind upon the Dáil or upon the "London Sunday Times"—I think that is the paper. But, I do say that in considering a question of this sort the Dáil is entitled to much more substance than what we have just listened to. Most of the statement made is a statement which, when carefully analysed, is a case for the appointment of those Secretaries. He seeks to divide the Minister's responsibilities between attendance in the Dáil and the administration of his office. He never paid the slightest attention to one while he concentrated on the other. It is not here in the Dáil that most of the work is done, but in the preparation of the work and in the consideration that has to be given to the various measures to be put forward before they come here at all. Then, there is the general administration of the Department. The Deputy, I am sure, has had in his past life some experience of what the administration of business connotes, as well as the responsibility in connection with Parliamentary work. He knows very well that it is utterly impossible for any man who means to discharge his business properly to come here at three o'clock in the day and sit until 8.30 p.m. dealing with one section of his business and during the intervals of time at its disposal to look after the administration of the work of a big Department.
We got over two forms of Government here, one which was entirely and utterly disorganised, and the other which was in a sort of state of incubation; we got an amateur Government from one, and an utterly disorganised Government from the other. I am not at all sure but that within the next few years persons who occupy Ministerial office in the State will find out, day after day, serious discrepancies in administration. To a man of the conscience of the Deputy, I am sure that would not afford any loss of sleep, but to men who have consciences like the Ministers, it is very different. The Deputy has stated that we had an Assistant Minister. I put it to those who were here during the last Session that you had got that Assistant Minister acting practically as the Minister in charge of Bills, introducing measures, and dealing with subjects raised on the adjournment and other matters. The Deputy, perhaps, objects to the term Parliamentary Secretary. It is a much better term than Assistant Minister.
An Assistant Minister is not known in the Constitution, and a Parliamentary Secretary is not mentioned in the Constitution. It is known elsewhere, but Deputies, in considering this question and in comparing this State with other States, must remember that this State or this form of Government that we now have, really takes its date from the time when the administration of this country was handed over by the British. There are various dates for that. In some cases it occurred on the 15th January, 1922, and in other cases it did not take place until April 1st, 1923. There were some other cases in which administration was handed over somewhere about December, 1922. Each Minister, in his capacity as head of a Department had got to accept responsibility for running his Department during that time. During the last twelve or eighteen months the attention of the Ministry has been largely directed to the condition of disorder in the country that required some attention. Now, when that stage is passed, gradually it is coming home that there may be economies and improvements, and much greater efficiency effected in the services of the State, by the appointment of those additional officers or assistants to the Ministers. It is not by bustle and not by figurative economies that real economy is effected. The economies which I stated here more than once when introducing this Bill, which I knew had been effected by reason of arrangements made by the Ministry, would not have been possible in some instances were it not for the appointment of Parliamentary Secretaries. I consider the case that has been made in some instances by the Press, and in some instances by Deputies, is a faked case, faked to the knowledge of the Press making it, faked to the knowledge of the Deputies who are making it, and faked to the knowledge of the Deputy who has just spoken.
I intend to vote for this amendment in view of the unsatisfactory justification, or attempted justification, that the President has given. He suggests that the term "Parliamentary Secretary" is used because it is a little more convenient and better perhaps than the term Assistant Minister. By that statement he intimates that what is really intended is to appoint Assistant Ministers. The equivalent of Assistant Ministers in other Governments is an Under-Secretary of State. The Parliamentary Secretary does entirely different work. We gather what is intended is not a Parliamentary Secretary which would be equivalent to a Parliamentary Secretary in the British House of Commons, but an Under-Secretary who will answer for the Minister, and, as I fear would happen, who will take all the responsibility for answering the Dáil on questions of administration, which would provide Ministers with an opportunity of evading their Parliamentary responsibility, apart from their general administrative duty.
I am more impressed with the necessity for deleting this Section, because I can see that if we allow Assistant Ministers to do the work of Ministers in the Dáil, bear the brunt of criticism, and answer for a Minister with little less authority than the Minister—provided that he has the backing of a majority party, he would be able to carry off the honours in any circumstances quite apart from the merits of the case that may be made—that tendency will be to detract from the authority of the Dáil, and tend definitely towards more and more bureaucratic government and government by decree or semi-dictatorship. That is likely to be the tendency if the suggestions of the President, in defending this section, work out in practice. I believe it is very desirable that Ministers should have Parliamentary Secretaries, persons who will assist them in actual Parliamentary work. They need not be paid, and if they are to be paid they may be paid a very small additional salary, because of their more constant attendance. I would imagine that any Minister would be able to find active earnest members of his party who would be quite willing and capable to assist in the actual Parliamentary Secretarial work, but that is a very different thing from the appointment of Under-Secretaries or Assistant Ministers.
These Assistant Ministers, as designed by the Bill, were to be Assistants to the Executive Council, or to the Executive Minister. There has been an alteration made in the course of the discussion on that, and there may be Parliamentary Secretaries appointed, or Assistant Ministers to assist non Executive Ministers, but what is likely to happen with this as a foreshadowing is that Parliamentary Secretaries, or Assistant Ministers, would be appointed to the Executive Ministers, and in practice they would become more important than the non-Executive Ministers who are responsible to the Dáil. That is how it would work out. They would be Ministers to assist the Executive Ministers. They would be called Secretaries but they would be Ministers, and they would be deputed to attend the Dáil to answer criticism and to deal with matters which the Minister proper might find it a little inconvenient to deal with. They would tend to become more important than the External Ministers as they have been called. I think that is a very undesirable development, and I think we ought to know the reason for that development.
Under the Section as it stands, there would be possibly as many as 19 Ministers and Assistant Ministers, or, if you would prefer to call them Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, paid out of the funds voted by the Dáil. That is rather too large a proportion, considerably more than is desirable in an assembly of this size. I would just call attention to the last Sub-section of this Section. They are to have such powers and to perform such duties as the Minister, with the consent of the Executive Council, may from time to time delegate to them. The Dáil may say that the Minister shall be responsible for seeing the work done and of answering for the work of his Department to the Dáil. Then we are asked to give the Minister power to delegate such powers as we have given to himself—to give that power to another person. Now, I think that is altogether unwarranted and is inconsistent with the position of the Dáil and of the Executive. I think that the requirements of the case will be well satisfied if Ministers were to appoint Parliamentary Secretaries who would act as Secretaries to Ministers in relation to Parliamentary duties and to that alone, men who could be got to do it because of the training in public service it would give, and as part of their Parliamentary duties, and that there is not required the appointment of Assistant Ministers under the name of Parliamentary Secretaries, as is conceived in this Section, and as has been explained by the President. The fact that it is proposed to pay such Parliamentary Secretaries a sum of £1,200 a year places them in the position, not of Secretaries in the sense that that is generally understood, but of Assistant Ministers, and of having responsibilities for administrative work outside the Dáil and not necessarily connected with the Dáil. There is another consideration that ought to be taken note of, and that is that within this Section the Parliamentary Secretaries that are to be appointed may be members of the Seanad. I submit it is not desirable that such should be the case if they are to be Assistant Ministers. I could understand the appointment of an unpaid Secretary to a Minister who may have a seat in the Seanad, and who would assist in the conduct of a Bill through the Seanad, but I do not think it is desirable that we should appoint as Assistant Ministers men who would be, in fact, members of the Seanad. For these reasons I am prepared to support the motion for the deletion of this Section.
It is an extremely rash thing at any time to try and correct Deputy Johnson on a question of fact. But I think there is a little defect in the information in his mind when he refers to Parliamentary Secretaries. If he speaks of Parliamentary Secretaries, he speaks of a number of members who are Parliamentary Private Secretaries—young Members who attach themselves to Ministers, mainly for the purpose of getting experience of the official work, and for the purpose of seeing the papers and the files, and do an amount of routine work for the Minister. They practically never speak at all—in fact there is an unwritten law that it is bad form for them to speak in the House. But besides them there are Parliamentary Secretaries in the British Parliament, and attached to Ministers in every Department of the Government. There is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, and there is the Civil Lord of the Admiralty. There is the Financial Secretary to the War Office and the Under-Secretary for War. Recently additional Parliamentary Secretaries were appointed. In the new Ministry for Pensions there is a Parliamentary Secretary who is paid, and in that Ministry of Pensions that same man had directly to answer in the House of Commons; and so it may be with other Ministries. That provision is necessitated by the fact that the British Parliament consists of two water-tight chambers, and that if the Minister of one of the great services, or of the great Departments is in the House of Lords, then the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister represents the Department in the House of Commons, and he has most important work to do, and very often cuts a very much more important figure than the Minister himself. That was certainly so in the case of Mr. Winston Churchill when he was Under Secretary for the Colonies.
On a point of information, is this the British Parliament or the Free State Parliament?
It is neither.
I mean the Oireachtas of Saorstát Eireann.
I think I am in order and may continue. Generally speaking, I could not support the amendment, because if this power is given to the Ministry to appoint those Secretaries it may enable them to reduce the number of Ministers and decrease the number of salaries. In that respect this Section may lead to real economy. There is the further consideration that might sometimes arise. Suppose it was found necessary to appoint a Minister who sits in the Seanad it would be absolutely necessary for him to be represented by a Secretary here who could answer for him, because Members of the Seanad cannot speak here, and there should be someone to answer for the Department here; otherwise it would fall upon the shoulders of the President. Then, again, in yet another Parliament—the Parliament of Northern Ireland, of which Deputy Milroy is a Member—it was found necessary to appoint one or two Secretaries, even though it is a comparatively small assembly dealing with six counties. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment, although I hope that the Section will be considerably modified before it becomes part of the Bill.
I want to deal with one point raised by Deputy Johnson. I think it is a pity to mix up the position of the External Ministers and the Internal Ministers in connection with this Section. After all this Section only deals with Internal Ministers—or, rather, Members of the Executive Council.
The Minister forgets that an amendment has been accepted that covers the whole of the Ministry.
Mr. HOGAN
Would it not be better to deal with the Section as a Section as it is making arrangements for Parliamentary Secretaries to Ministers who are Members of the Executive Council? The whole question of the appointment of Parliamentary Secretaries might be decided when it will come up on Deputy Johnson's amendment and he may get satisfactory assurance.
The supporters of this amendment have made a great plea for a distinction between Parliamentary Secretaries and Assistant Ministers. In fact, most of their case, as far as I could follow it, has been in that direction.
But I cannot say that they have made it in any way clearer to me what precise functions they expect Parliamentary Secretaries to fulfil, if they are changed from the description of Parliamentary Secretaries to that of Assistant Ministers in regard to their Parliamentary duties. That does not carry us very far. Occasionally it is acknowledged they must speak for the Minister, but the one thing that seems to emerge from the arguments of the supporters of this amendment is that they wish that these Assistant Ministers shall have no practical knowledge of the Departments of which the Minister to whom they are attached is head. In other words, as regards the one thing they are to speak on, they might as well be gramophones. Gramophones would be quite cheap, but possibly not quite as dignified as Parliamentary Secretaries. What is the good in asking a question of a Parliamentary Secretary if he is merely to repeat the answer left for him by the Minister?
The real advantage in appointing people of this kind is that they have some knowledge of the administration, and as far as I can gather from the mover and seconder of the amendment that is the one thing that they are determined they would not have. I do not think that any Assistant to the Minister—even from the point of view of a Parliamentary Assistant—can be any good or of any use unless he has a knowledge of the Departmental work which the supporters of the amendment wish apparently to deprive him of.
It would have been helpful, in this discussion, if the supporters of this amendment could have come to some agreement, or to some identity of argument. I find the proposer of the amendment supporting it from a point of view which is an entire contradiction to that of the Deputy who seconded it. Deputy Figgis said he considered that a clear case had not been made out for this section. Whether that is so or not, I certainly think there has been no clear case made out for this amendment. The Deputy reminded us of the admonitions addressed to the Dáil, and to the country, by the Minister for Finance in regard to economy. There is such a thing as economy at the expense of efficiency. I have no doubt, if Deputy Figgis discovered that this Dáil came to the conclusion that his seat in the Dáil should be abolished on the ground of economy, that he would regard that as economy at the expense of efficiency. The trend of the argument of the Deputy who opposed this amendment, Deputy Bryan Cooper, seemed to me to be utterly misleading. I take it that the framers of this Bill did not design its provisions on precedents in other institutions, so much as on the requirements that the Ministry have decided are essential for the proper carrying on of the administration. It does not matter to us really what interpretation is placed upon the term "Parliamentary Secretary" in the British House of Commons, or in the Parliament of Timbuctoo, if there is such an institution, as long as we understand what exactly it means to us here. Deputy Figgis urged the deletion of this Section on the grounds of efficiency and economy. He urged that the Dáil should not be pinned to the expense which this would entail. Deputy Johnson supported him, but it seems to me his argument, if assented to, would lead to greater extravagance than is involved in this Section. The Section, as it stands, proposes to appoint Parliamentary Secretaries, and gives them a large amount of work to do, both in the Dáil and outside the Dáil. Deputy Johnson urges first, that the work they should discharge should not be nearly so comprehensive or so large as that outlined in the Section. I take it that to a certain extent it has been found necessary by the Ministry that some one should act or discharge the functions of an Assistant Minister. That appears to be considered necessary, and that is the reason why these appointments are suggested, and are termed "Parliamentary Secretaries."
If Deputy Johnson's point of view was carried into effect the function of Assistant Minister would still remain undischarged, and though there might be Parliamentary Secretaries appointed their labours would be confined to the Dáil. Later on the Ministry might find it essential to come along and say that the duties of Parliamentary Secretaries have been confined to the Dáil itself and that Assistant Ministers being essential, they would have to ask the Dáil to make provision for them. I think Deputy Johnson's suggestion would lead to greater extravagance than that outlined in this Bill. There are two more points I wish to make in regard to Deputy Figgis' amendment. He says, first, that he objects to this as being in a permanent statute, but the Section itself does not say that these Secretaries shall be appointed to the number of seven, but that the Executive Council may from time to time appoint such, and also that such appointments can be discontinued when found necessary. So that the danger of having what you would call a grotesque creature in a permanent statute need not unduly alarm the aesthetic sense of the Deputy. As to pressure of work, if ever there was a time when this Assembly is likely to be confronted with hard, strenuous and continuous work, I think it is in the immediate future. The work we have been doing so far was one of preventing the shipwreek of the State. The work that we will be engaged on in the future will be work of reconstruction. I do not know to what extent these Assistant Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries may be appointed, but certainly the task of building up the State again upon sure, stable and efficient foundations is a task that I think will tax the energies, not only of Ministers, but of this Assembly, to a much greater extent than it has done while the main burden of the work was that of saving the State from destruction.
I think a little too much has been made of the work the Assistant Ministers, as they are now called, did in the last Dáil. It was only in the last days of the last Dáil—I think it would be correct to say in the last few weeks—that most of the members of this Assembly became aware of the fact that Assistant Ministers were in existence at all. It was only when the Assistant Minister for Industry and Commerce had to answer questions here that most of the members became aware of the fact that such a Minister existed. The reason for his appointment, as everybody knows, was that the Minister for Industry and Commerce himself was engaged elsewhere, that he was not attending, or could not attend, to his Department, that all his time and energies were occupied outside of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce. For that reason an Assistant Minister became known here in the Dáil. The other Assistant Ministers that have been hinted at I do not think were known to this Dáil at all. They were absolutely unknown except to a few people in the inner circle of the Government.
They are not known now.
One reason perhaps that might justify these contemplated appointments would be that we might have a better attendance on the Government Benches than we sometimes have during the discussion of important Bills. The Government Benches might be somewhat better filled, and from that point of view it might be good. The reason given for the appointment of these Assistant Ministers is pressure of work. We all know that in the last Dáil there was considerable pressure of work. We had to begin from the foundation and try to evolve a new machinery of State. Will the Attorney-General tell us how long that process will take and when we shall have the full machinery constructed and working? When we have the normal machinery of the State constructed and working there will be no rush of Parliamentary business. We will only require to have Sessions of three or four weeks' duration two or three times a year. Then what will be the need for all these Secretaries and all this elaborate Government machinery? It is folly to tell us that there will be pressure of work after twelve months' sitting of the present Dáil. There will not be pressure of work. We ought to have some little sense of proportion and try to realise the smallness of the country that we have to deal with. I do not think that any case has been made out for these Assistant Ministers. We got on all right during the last Dáil when there was considerably more work to be done. The protection of the State that Deputy Milroy referred to and the work of erecting a legal machinery of the State had to be carried out. Still we did it, and I do not think there was any undue pressure. Now when, practically speaking, all this has been done, what do we want of Assistant Ministers? I do not think that a case has been made out for them and the people of the country do not think that a case has been made out. Of course the opinions of the people of the country do not carry very much weight, but I for one will vote for the amendment.
It is a matter of regret, I think, that the President, in dealing with the case that I tried to put as temperately as I possibly could, should have dealt with it so intemperately as he did. When a man gets excited in his defence it is a fairly clear indication that his defence is none too good in his own judgment. He did not only become intemperate, he proceeded to become point-blank discourteous. I desire here to make a very strong protest against the deliberate discourtesy of which the President was guilty in this Dáil. He said that this case was faked to the knowledge of the newspapers who raised it and to the knowledge of the Deputy who had just spoken. I venture to say in the most quiet and emphatic way that I am not in the habit of making either faked or excited statements in this Dáil. They may be inaccurate, but they will not be inaccurate to my knowledge. If any Deputy deliberately and to his knowledge made a statement that is not true that statement should be called to order. But it was not made merely from an ordinary Deputy, but from the President himself. Yet what did he do? Having charged me with making a faked statement, he went on to say that everything I had stated was correct. I had stated that he did not want Parliamentary Secretaries—that he did not want persons who would act in connection with the service of this Dáil, and, therefore, that a case was not made out. What did he say? What was his defence against this "faked" allegation? He said we had to remember that there was much greater work to be done than the work in this Dáil, and he led one to infer from his words that those persons whom he requires—who I said were not required because it would not be work in this Dáil but outside— would be required because of work somewhere in the Government buildings.
In other words, he takes up the very case I have made; he under-scores every statement that I made, and having done so he says it is a faked statement. I repeat that the President's own words have made it clear that Parliamentary Secretaries are not intended and are not wanted. What is wanted— seeing that the word efficiency has been used I will use it, too—is a more efficient administration in the Civil Service, because the assistance that is certainly and clearly required is assistance required in connection with work in preparation for this Dáil. Those are the President's words. He wanted those persons in connection with work of preparation for this Dáil. That work—I repeat his words—is not the work of Parliamentary Secretaries: that is the work of Civil Servants.
Deputy Cooper supported the desire for a decrease in the number of the so-called Under-Secretaries, but he said there was one advantage that occurred to him in having them, and that was that their appointment might tend to reduce the total number of Ministers.
When Deputy Cooper says that he states it because he sincerely believes it. I am sorry, but he has not convinced me that the Ministers or the Ministerial party intend to reduce the Ministers by one. Deputy Professor O'Sullivan made a very strange and quaint allegation against myself as one of the supporters of this amendment, that I had not stated what precise functions these Parliamentary Secretaries were to fulfil. The complaint I had made was that nobody else had stated what precise functions they were to fulfil, that nobody had discovered what precise functions they were to fulfil, but they were not to be Under-Secretaries. Reference has been made to Under-Secretaries in another Parliament. Everybody knows what caused the creation of such Under-Secretaries. It is that if a Minister is appointed in England from the House of Lords, he must be represented in the House of Commons. Therefore another Minister, called an Under-Secretary, represents that Department in the House of Commons, or vice versa. That is the cause of the creation of them. But it is a principle of the Constitution that Ministers are responsible to this Dáil and will be appointed from this Dáil. It is in connection with the Parliamentary work of this Dáil that such persons are required, if they are required at all, and I say that in connection with the Parliamentary work of this Dáil there has been no case made out for the appointment of such Under-Secretaries.
That statement I made when I first spoke, and I base it once again, not upon the arguments I might produce here, but upon the statement of the President himself. The President stated to-day, as he stated on the Second Reading, that such persons were wanted in connection with work elsewhere than in the Dáil: in other words, Civil Servants. If we are going to have a Civil Service, let the Civil Servants do that work, and let the staffs be arranged for them to do it. If Parliamentary Secretaries or Assistant Ministers are required, they should be required in connection with the work of the Dáil. The President has practically admitted the whole case I made in the first instance, and I intend, therefore, to press that there is no occasion, according to the case made by the President himself, whatever, at this time above any other time for the appointment of any additional highly-paid offices in the State.
At an earlier stage of the discussion on this Bill the President, in an attempt to justify the Bill to the people of the country, made the statement that in the last Dáil there were three Parliamentary Secretaries. I asked him to name the individuals, but I did not get an answer. I frankly admit, as far as I am personally concerned, that I have no knowledge whatever of the existence of Parliamentary Secretaries in the Third Dáil. During the discussions on the Estimates we had a feeling that certain members of the Government Party were doing certain work. We scanned the Estimates very closely to find out under which, or under what heading, these men were being paid for their work. We were told, and Deputy Gorey has reminded the Dáil of it, that there was an Assistant Minister for Industry and Commerce. I do not know, and I would like the Minister who replies to inform the Dáil, under what heading or Estimate the salary of that Minister was provided for in the Third Dáil. If no provision was made for any salary in addition to the £360 yearly that the Deputy was in receipt of, then I say that makes the case for the amendment proposed by Deputy Figgis. If men were found in the Third Dáil to perform these duties at the yearly salary of £360, I say it is an additional argument in favour of the abolition of this Section. I am personally inclined to think that if the Dáil assents to the passing of the Section, it will create such keen rivalry between supporters of the Government, who may be looking for these positions, that it will do the Government no good. I rose mainly for the purpose of making the point that if Parliamentary Secretaries did exist in the last Dáil, and were paid salaries, in addition to the salaries they received as Deputies, I think the Ministry is misleading the Dáil, unless it tells it under what Estimate the salaries were provided. If no additional salaries were paid to these men, then I think that is the best argument we could put forward in support of the amendment.
I have listened to a great deal of criticism as to the necessity or otherwise for these extra Parliamentary Secretaries. I have no experience of the last Dáil, nor do I know what the duties of the Ministers were then, but since I came to the present Dáil I have been impressed with one fact, and that, in my judgment, is that Ministers here are decidedly overworked. It will be within the recollection of the Dáil that a short time ago, owing to the other duties of Ministers the Front Bench happened to be empty on one occasion. At the time the President was engaged in very intricate work in connection with industrial disputes and Ministers generally had great burdens placed on their shoulders, owing to their work outside the Dáil. I think it was Deputy Byrne who immediately called attention to the fact that the Government Bench was empty and proceeded to move the adjournment of the Dáil. As far as I understand, the appointment of these Secretaries will make for greater efficiency in the carrying on of the work of the Dáil and for this reason I am opposed to the deletion of this Section. Deputy Hewat, I think, objected to the appointment of these Secretaries, and I think he took occasion to make an attempt to establish a sort of entente cordiale with Deputy Johnson on the head of it. I sincerely hope the entente will develop with very great effects in other directions. I think Deputy Hewat, as a prominent Dublin business man, will agree that no matter what else counts business efficiency should be the first consideration. I do not think it is possible, from the little I have seen of the work of the Dáil, that Ministers could conceivably carry on these duties efficiently without more help. I do not think the country ought to be too critical in a matter of this kind. After all the Ministry are carrying on the biggest business in the State, the running of the State itself, and for that reason I support the appointments.
In connection with Section 7, Deputy Egan has very rightly, I think, stated that efficiency in business is more important even than economy. Agreed. Deputy Egan has also stated that Ministers are overworked. I do not think any member of the Dáil is inclined to be too critical about affording any assistance Ministers require for carrying on their work efficiently. But the Bill before us is not a Bill for the present time. It is not a Bill to meet the urgencies or the needs of the present time. It is a Bill for all time, and when I find the Government asking for authority to appoint seven Parliamentary Secretaries it immediately occurs to me that this is a very unsuitable time, when the Minister for Finance is calling for economy all round to put forward any such proposition. More particularly is it an unsuitable time, and also unnecessary, as the President tells us he has no intention of appointing seven. That seems to be very contradictory. I do not see why it is necessary to put a Bill through the Dáil which is going to create for all time seven Parliamentary Secretaries, when the President says there is no intention of appointing more than three. I am in disagreement with the Section. On the other hand, as regards the claim that Ministers are overworked, I imagine that is a difficulty which, if Ministers come to the Dáil, will be sympathetically dealt with here, and that the Dáil will provide any assistance that may be required for the time being. If this Section is going to go through in its present form I see no reason why I should be called upon, as a business man, to vote for something that is not shown to be necessary, and which is making provision for appointments that will be very awkward in the future in connection with the administration of the affairs of the State.
May I point out that my amendment, No. 33, limits the number of paid Parliamentary Secretaries, in conjunction with Ministers, to a total of fifteen. Deputy Hewat should know that is a Government amendment and consequently the Government is not proposing to appoint seven paid Parliamentary Secretaries.
The objection that I have to this differs somewhat from that raised by Deputy Hewat, and perhaps Deputy Figgis to some extent. I do not stress what is called economy in this matter. I am doubtful whether the economy argument is very effective except on this ground, that a Parliamentary Secretary, who has to do the work of a civil servant, is less likely to be the most efficient man for that particular job than a duly appointed civil servant would be. He is liable to be changed every four years at least and that does not usually conduce to efficiency in detailed work. But I would draw attention to the Constitution respecting the limitation of the number of Ministers. The number was deliberately limited to twelve, and it was not for the purpose of limiting the number of Departments but for limiting the number of paid members of the Dáil in office. There was a deliberation in limiting the number to twelve, the desire to limit the number of Deputies who would be appointed to paid office. The effect of this Section is to cancel that section of the Constitution. A more straightforward way of arriving at the end, if it is necessary to have a larger number of Ministers, is to introduce a change in the Constitution. The Section, as presented, would allow of nineteen Deputies, and as things are, apparently those nineteen Deputies would necessarily be of the Party which was in the majority for the time being. In the case of the present Dáil that would be very nearly equivalent to one out of three paid out of State funds, and even with a limitation to fifteen it would be round about one out of four. I imagine that the number twelve is the maximum that we should concede as members of the Ministry paid out of the Central Fund or out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas—political appointments. The services to be rendered by these Parliamentary Secretaries, as has already been pointed out, are the services of a higher civil servant attached to the Ministry, for the purpose of his parliamentary work, if you like, but certainly the work of higher civil servants, and not members of the political majority for the time being. I imagine that the work would be more efficiently done by such servants, but I do not think there will be a large saving from the £1,200 suggested here. Therefore it is not from the point of view of saving. You may appoint as Parliamentary Secretary a cantankerous or a persistent member of your party who is likely to be a thorn in your side unless he gets an appointment—that is the experience in other Parliaments and we may not be free from similar characteristics—but the buying off of opposition by an appointment of this kind ought not to be possible. Bear in mind that the Constitution has laid it down that the President, in nominating his Executive Council, shall lay their names before the Dáil and get its assent, and that the Ministers who are not members of the Executive Council shall be appointed by the Dáil. But this proposition, so far from securing or requiring the endorsement of the Dáil, is to give authority either to these Ministers or the Executive Council to appoint a Deputy as Parliamentary Secretary or Assistant Minister to administrative office, though a political appointment, irrespective of the sanction of the Dáil. In the other case the sanction of the Dáil has to be secured. In this case there is no suggestion that such sanction will be required, and you will find yourselves in this position, that you may appoint a Deputy to be in charge of Local Government, or Agriculture, or Education, and that a defeated man, if there has been a contest, could be appointed over your heads by the Minister. True it is, of course, that the Minister is liable to the condemnation of the Dáil, but again you will be faced with the choice either of agreeing to the Minister's nomination or forcing his resignation, and that is not the kind of choice that should be put forward too often. You may say that for administrative purposes the Minister would be too valuable, and you would allow the undesirable thing to be passed rather than force a resignation. I submit that the constitutional intention is being evaded by the introduction of this Section.
Unfortunately I was absent during part of the debate, and some of the points that I may make may have been made already. There would be no use in a Parliamentary Secretary in the sense of a person who was not going to make himself familiar with the working of a Department and take his share in the work, with authority to take some definite departmental responsibility off the Minister's shoulders. There would be no use in a Parliamentary Secretary whose duties were confined to the Dáil. There was some confusion about that point when the Bill was introduced. I myself happen to have had experience of the working of two or three Departments. I am quite satisfied that there can be no justification for having eleven or twelve Ministers and seven Parliamentary Secretaries. I believe that the appointment of as many as seven Parliamentary Secretaries could only be justified if we were appointing under the charge of one Minister two or more of the Departments of State. In these circumstances it was suggested by one Deputy that it might be as well to say: "Have only seven Ministers and three Parliamentary Secretaries." I agree that I could conceive circumstances when that would be the best arrangement that could be made, and I think that it would be well to be able to make that arrangement. On the other hand, there are Departments, even as matters stand, which, I think, require, and will continue to require, the services of somebody in addition to the Ministers. You have matters that can only be decided by somebody who is not a Civil Servant. I think that it would be bad to have Parliamentary Secretaries for work that should properly be done by Civil Servants, and I say that the Civil Servant who spends his whole life at the work, who is not likely to be removed at the end of four years, can do work much better than a Parliamentary Secretary; but there are matters continually arising where the Civil Servant cannot go ahead without guidance, without the laying down of a policy by somebody who is not a Civil Servant.
Even some of the matters into which policy enters are in some respect matters of detail. They create precedents which involve the decision of somebody who is either a Minister, or, if you like to call him so, an Assistant Minister. In the Department of Finance, for instance, I believe there will always be need for a Parliamentary Secretary. Even allowing for the conditions of the present time, and the extra work that arises out of these conditions, I believe that it will be impossible almost at any time for any Minister for Finance to give attention to the matters that require what I call Ministerial decisions I know, so far as I have been in office, that there are many matters, whole sections of work, to which I have not been able to give any attention whatever, sections which would repay Ministerial attention. Then, apart from Ministries that would require, I think, at all times a Parliamentary Secretary, there are other Ministries that would require them in the present circumstances. Take the Ministry of Defence. Whether a Parliamentary Secretary would be permanently required there or not is a matter that would depend on the future army organisation, on the type of army you had, whether you had an army of the present or a territorial type. It would depend on a variety of circumstances, and I am certainly aware that at present, in view of the financial matters surrounding army administration, and the financial matters requiring a clearance of things that arose in times of stress and difficulty, the appointment of a Parliamentary Secretary would be economy in the present circumstances. I have no doubt that the appointment of somebody with, as it were, Parliamentary authority, and with the status that would come from being a Parliamentary Secretary, as apart from being a Civil Servant, would result in efficiency and improvement in financial administration that would repay his salary very many times, and would be a source of great satisfaction to those concerned with the financial administration of the army. The matter is simply one of facing our own problems. We have been told about the number of Ministers elsewhere, and we have had comparisons drawn between this country and Australia and other places. We have our own difficulties; we have problems of order, finance, and land of our own particular type. If we escape some of the problems of new countries, we have our own. It is not always a wise thing to go too far in the way of relying entirely upon the Civil Service. The fewer Ministries you have, the fewer Ministers you have, the more you depend on the Civil Service. The wider the scope of the Minister's Department, the less he can go into any matter in it, and the more he has to rely on his staff, not merely for integrity and fair dealing, but for the formation and execution of policy, and for the actual framing of measures to carry the policy into effect. You could have unnecessary duplication, but you have to learn to some extent by experience here. We might find it possible when we get normal times, and Civil Servants accustomed to the new conditions and the responsibilities that are thrown on Civil Servants by self-government, a Civil Service recruited and trained in the new school, and with its mind fixed on the problems of work and of government as it exists, to do with very little more than the seven Ministers, without speaking of Parliamentary Secretaries at all, but that time is certainly a very considerable way ahead. My own opinion is that for some time we could not go on very well with a lesser number of Ministers, and without, at any rate, two or three Parliamentary Secretaries. If circumstances change there will be opportunities of reducing the number, but we are providing machinery not for all time, but for some reasonable length of time. We are providing not simply what may be necessary for this year or next year. We should at least anticipate that what we are providing here will serve the needs of a reasonable number of years. I am convinced that we will need two or three Parliamentary Secretaries for a very considerable time, even apart from any reduction in the number of Ministers. So far as we can judge as to how business will go from the experience we have had, we certainly will require to put in a number of Parliamentary Secretaries who will take some section of the work from the Ministers, and give that guidance in policy and make those decisions that Civil Servants cannot make in a satisfactory way. Everyone knows that when in the rush of business, and the position was very difficult, all of us were giving attention to matters largely concerned with the preservation of the State and the defeat of the Irregulars, when there was a certain amount of neglect of Departments, and when Ministers could not give their minds to the work of the Departments, it was impossible for the Departments to go along under our present system of control.
Until we have settled down, until the Civil Service here, which was not created as a Civil Service for an Irish State, has grown accustomed to the new responsibility, until the ordinary routine machinery is working well and smoothly, until we have had some experience of its efficiency, it would be false economy to cut down the provision made in this Bill. I never heard it stated that it was intended to provide that no more than 12 members of the Dáil should hold political office. I think it was intended to provide that there should not be an unnecessary sub-division of the Departments of State, that there should be a limited number of people actually, primarily and, if I may say so, personally responsible to the Dáil for the carrying on of the work of the State. I did not hear the other suggestion made at all.
I would like to make acknowledgment, if I may, of the candour and—I say, by way of contrast—the courtesy with which the Minister for Finance made the case for this Section. He has admitted that there is, at least, some argument on the side of those who wish to have the provision for Parliamentary Secretaries removed. I am perfectly willing to admit that there is a great deal to be said for the case that is urged, but I think the great consideration at the moment is that it is unwise to proceed with this Section now. I desire to draw attention to one argument the Minister brought forward, which is certain to have effect on the future of the State. He said, as well as I recollect, that he hoped to see the day that there would be seven Ministries and seven Parliamentary Secretaries. The Minister will recall that about a year ago, in the Dáil, there was a certain very mordant critic of the Executive provisions of the draft Constitution, who said that that would be the exact result that would be ultimately achieved. I agree with that critic that it will be achieved; it is being achieved. If that were to come about—as it could come about and can come about despite the provisions of the subsequent amendment in the name of the Attorney-General, to which he has referred—it would mean that the provisions of the Constitution, providing for the existence of Ministers who should not be members of the Executive Council would have been automatically and quite neatly and deftly dodged.
The Minister, replying to my argument that this was work fundamentally for civil servants, said that while a great deal of the work could be done by civil servants, there comes a moment when a decision is necessary which cannot be taken by a civil servant, but must be taken by someone in charge of policy. I appreciate that fully, but I do say that that decision will have to be taken, not by the Parliamentary Secretary, but by the Minister, and that the Parliamentary Secretary himself will be running to the Minister for a decision in exactly the same way as the civil servant would. Therefore, I hold that the case has not been made, and that this Section should be deleted from the Bill.
It seems to me that the Minister for Finance, in his statement, has really put forward the argument that three Parliamentary Secretaries are required. He has never tried to make a case for any more. The next amendment, No. 28, confines the number to three. Would the Government say that they would accept that?
No. 33 is the Government amendment.
The amendment to which I refer is No. 28, which confines the number of Parliamentary Secretaries to three instead of seven.
We would not be in a position to accept that because it would not effect the purpose that has just been indicated by the Minister for Finance and which, I think, was also indicated by myself the last day—that the time might come when there would be a fewer number of Ministers than is proposed now and a greater number of Parliamentary Secretaries. The amendment that would be acceptable is the one in which it is stated that the number of Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries would not exceed fifteen.
I understand that the amendment before the Dáil is amendment 27.
I am well aware of that.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 24: Níl, 46.
Tá
- Pádraig F. Baxter.
- Seán Buitléir.
- Seán Conlan.
- Darrell Figgis.
- David Hall.
- Connor Hogan.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Patrick McKenna.
- Tomás de Nogla.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Dáimhín.
- Tadhg O Donnabháin.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
- Donchadh S. O Guaire.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
- Patrick K. Hogan (Luimneach).
- William A. Redmond.
Níl
- Earnán Altún.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus de Burca.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Henry Coyle.
- Sir James Craig.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí
- Dhrisceóil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
- Alasdair Mac Cába.
- Domhnall Mac Cárthaigh.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Pádraig Mac Giollagáin.
- Seán P. Mac Giobúin.
- Seán Mac Giolla 'n Ríogh.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Seán T. Nolan.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Próinsias O Cathail.
- Aodh O Cinnéide.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus N. O Dóláin.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Peadar O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon S. O Dúgáin.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Thomas O'Mahony.
- Pádraic O Máille.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
- Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
- Andrew O'Shaughnessy.
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment 28 (Section 7):—
In sub-section (1), line 34, to delete the word "seven" and to substitute therefor the word "three."—Bryan Cooper, Connor Hogan, Seán O Duinnin, Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
I put down this amendment in order to try and discover why seven was selected as the number of Parliamentary Secretaries. There was no explanation given on the Second Reading. I do not know whether the Government look upon the number as a lucky one, or whether they visualised the Parliamentary Secretaries gathering together and reading Wordsworth. The amendment, No. 33, which is in the name of the Attorney-General meets my point, which is that there shall not be more than three Secretaries. I think it is more flexible as it does not tie the Government down. I do not propose to move my amendment, but, of course, I cannot bind the Deputies on my left.
I beg to move the following amendment:—
"In sub-section 1, line 34, to delete the word `seven,' and substitute therefor the word `three.' "
I do so for the reason that we have already passed the incipient stage in the functions of Government. The Ministers are no longer with the sword in one hand and the trowel in the other. I notice that the Attorney-General and the Minister for Finance have put down at the end of Section 31 "provided the total number of persons who shall at any one time be in receipt of salaries as Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries shall not exceed 15." Superficially that is very fair, but while we listened to the Minister he pointed out it was the probable intention of the Executive Council, sooner or later, that each Minister would assume more than one Department, possibly two or three; in other words, the Executive Council would concentrate all power and authority in their hands, and they would work through subordinate Parliamentary Secretaries. I hold that violates the spirit of the Constitution, which expressly provides for Extern Ministries. I think when that was adopted here twelve months ago it was pointed out that some certain Departments might see their work and functions were more of an official rather than a political character, and would realise it would be wrong and contrary to public policy to have those come within party scope. The function of the Dáil, in those circumstances, was to control those by having Ministers directly responsible to the Dáil. For that reason I move my amendment.
What has this amendment to do with the question of External Ministers?
Is that a rhetorical question on the part of the Minister for Agriculture?
Amendment put and negatived.
I beg to move the following amendment:—
"In sub-section (1), line 36, to delete the word `Ministers' and to substitute therefor the word `Councillors.' "
The phrase in the Section "Executive Ministers," as a description of the Ministers who are members of the Executive Council, seems to suggest that the other Ministers are not Executive Officers but are merely administrative or some other sort of inferior Ministers. I think it is important that the dignity and status of these Ministers should be maintained and they should be protected from even inferential slight. If a short description is needed the phrase "Executive Councillor" suggests itself. In England or Canada you have the term "Privy Councillor," and turning to more honourable bodies, you have the "Executive Councillors" of Trade Unions.
I would like to ask, pertinent to the amendment moved, what is the meaning of the words "Executive Ministers." Are not all Ministers Executive Ministers?
Are we not to have any response from the Ministerial Benches in regard to this matter? Are we to understand that the amendment is accepted? Are we not to be told that it is accepted?
I thought the amendment was unconstitutional. I believe that in the Constitution it is laid down that they should be Ministers, and if you want to call them any other name it would be in conflict with the Constitution. I did not think it was necessary to say that.
It is not in accordance with the Constitution that only certain Ministers shall be called Executive Ministers. I take it a Minister has Executive responsibility even though he is not responsible with the Council. To say that a man is an Executive Minister, and to suggest that only he is an Executive Minister and that non-Executive Council Ministers have no Executive responsibility, is an interpretation of the term that is very foreign to me. I imagine at least the Minister for Fisheries, for instance, has Executive responsibility for the work of his Department. Perhaps the Attorney-General will tell us whether that is so or not according to the Constitution.
He will look it up.
I do not think it is requisite that he should look it up. He knows quite well from memory that the Minister is responsible for the Executive work of his Department. The phrase in the Section quite clearly would confine the responsibility for Executive work to those who are members of the Executive Council. Whether the term suggested in the amendment, "Executive Councillors," is the best, I am not going to say, but I believe it is very much better than Executive Ministers, and it is a surprising interpretation of Constitutional requirements for the President to say that we are bound to call them Executive Ministers.
I would like to repeat the question that I put and that seems to have aroused a certain amount of derision from Deputy Magennis. Every Minister is an Executive Minister, but these words suggest that certain Ministers only are Executive Ministers. I do urge that the better form of words could be devised. I admit I do not like the word "Councillors"; it has not gathered round it either very excellent traditions or procedure; but I do sugges you might use the word "Secretaries" to the Executive Council, or to Ministers being members of the Executive Council. That, I think, would meet the case with persons who had been appointed as Ministers by the Dáil and not as members of the Executive Council, but who were nevertheless Executive Ministers.
The point made by Deputy Figgis merely illustrates the remark that I made in an aside, and which, of course, was unparliamentary and not meant for the general hearing. It may be out of order to repeat it. What I said was that when Deputy Figgis is ignorant he is fearfully ignorant. He might have noticed, when he was furnished with a copy of the Standing Orders, which includes, among other documents, for the enlightenment of the members of the Dáil, a copy of the Constitution, there is an index to the Constitution beneficently provided to make it easy for Deputies to consult, at moments of stress and difficulty, the original version. On page 196, under the head of Executive Authorities, we get the number of Ministers. That is, the number of Ministers with Executive Authority.
The point is merely a small dictionary point, and Deputy Johnson is quite correct in saying that a Minister, in so far as he is at the head of a department, has Executive duties, but that is commonly called administrative work, and is exercised in the administration of the law and the carrying out of public administration. The term "Executive" has a specific meaning in our Constitution, and from Articles 50 to 56 what that specific meaning is, is stated in the most unmistakable fashion. Executive authority is to be exercised through the Executive Council, and the number of Ministers constituting the Executive Council is laid down to be not less than five and not more than seven. Then there are to be other Ministers, and these Ministers are not to be members of the Executive Council. At the time of the setting up of these arrangements, it was declared that it was for the better administration of their departments that they were not to be charged with the joint Executive responsibility which pertains to each member of the Executive Council, and to all of them. Those outside Ministers, by the way, are not necessarily to be appointed, but may be appointed —the clause is permissive. They have no Executive responsibility, no share in the Executive responsibility within the meaning of "Executive" in the Constitution. They are responsible for the administration of their departments, if, and when they exist, direct to the Dáil. There would be no room for mistake, it is true. So far, Deputy Johnson is right. "Executive Ministers" can only mean one thing for those familiar with the Constitution, and who will read the legislation of this Dáil with particular reference to the Constitution. But for people who have not any acquaintance with the Constitution it would be simpler undoubtedly if it read "Ministers who are members of the Executive Council." There is no question of policy or loss of principle in the matter. It is merely a question of what is or what is not a more desirable form of words. I would have assumed—and I would be surprised if it was an undue assumption—that every member of the Dáil is perfectly familiar with the terms of the Constitution. Constitutionally the Executive is a Council. I have not to look at these matters, but I am accustomed to document statements, no matter how sure I am of the facts. It is exactly what the Attorney-General would do in court. No matter how well he knows the law, he would make sure that he would cite for the Judge the particular case which is his authority. The fact of consulting a copy of the Constitution, before declaring what is in the Constitution, is in no sense an admission of being familiar with its contents.
I would just suggest that Deputy Magennis, while giving very excellent advice very shortly before told the Dáil that to understand what was in the Constitution the only thing they had to do was to consult the index. I agree that the matter is not a matter of principle at all. It is a matter of terminology and convenience. I would suggest that if we take from this Bill the term "Executive Minister," then it becomes fixed in everybody's mind that the Ministers who are members of the Executive Council are members of the Executive Authority, and that those without the Executive Council are the Ministers with Executive Authority for the work of their Departments. The implication will be in the minds of those not familiar with the Constitution—even Deputies of the Dáil are not familiar with the Constitution—that the Ministers who are not members of the Executive Council are not in the same position of having Executive control over their own department. That is the kind of inference that will inevitably grow out of the adoption of this phrase. I suggest that without pinning great faith to the phrase "Executive Councillors" that it is better than "Executive Ministers" to describe the members of the Executive Council.
The term Executive Minister seems to suggest that it is an exclusive one and that the other Ministers are not Executive in the same respect. Now we have been referred, not for the first time, to the Constitution. On looking at the Constitution, I discover under Article 55 that these Ministers are described in a very simple way. The total number of Ministers, including Ministers of the Executive Council, shall not exceed twelve. Well, I do not see why the Government could not adopt the wording of the Constitution and I think it would put out of our minds and the minds of the general public this misconception. It is only a verbal alteration.
I would like to remind the Dáil, without referring to the index, that this phrase has already been used in a number of Acts passed by the Dáil, perhaps in its less critical moods. In some of the more recent Acts it has become practically an established term and so it seems a very convenient term, to define the Ministers who are responsible primarily for the general Executive Government. We have no Privy Council, and I would suggest to the Party opposite that it would not be well to introduce the savour of that institution as we did know it in the past. We have escaped certain consequences perhaps that might accrue from such an institution. We do not want, on the other hand, to introduce the other analogy, and I suggest that the term "Councillor," from whatever angle you look at it, is not the best epithet to apply to a Minister, at any rate when you are describing him with good will. I suggest that the expression which has already received the legislative sanction of the Dáil should now be adhered to as the most convenient phrase.
Amendment put and negatived.
I beg to propose:—
"In sub-section (2), line 38, to delete the words `this section' and to substitute therefor the words `the next preceding sub-section.' "
Although this has been dealt with, as a matter of fact, on other occasions, it is really only a drafting amendment to the new sub-section proposed to be inserted before sub-section 3, so as to admit of the appointment of Parliamentary Secretaries to Ministers who are not members of the Executive Council. It can, therefore, be deferred if An Ceann Comhairle gives leave until those later amendments are disposed of, since it would become necessary in the event of their defeat. It would not make any real difference to the Bill, as it stands, if it were accepted, regardless of what happens to the other amendments. Therefore, I beg leave to move the amendment.
Amendment 30 put and agreed to.
I beg to move Amendment 31. Before sub-section (3) to insert two new sub-sections:—
(3) A Minister who is not a member of the Executive Council may, with the approval of Dáil Eireann expressed by resolution, appoint a person being a member of the Oireachtas to be his Parliamentary Secretary, and may at any time remove a Parliamentary Secretary so appointed.
(4) Every person appointed under the next preceding sub-section shall continue to hold office only so long as he continues to be a member of the Oireachtas, and the Minister by whom he was appointed continues to hold his office.
I should like to be allowed to alter the term "Oireachtas" in both sub-sections to the word "Dáil." The intention here is clear enough. It is intended to allow Ministers who are not in the Executive Council the same privilege, shall I call it, as members of the Executive Council who shall hold office, and the Secretaries shall hold office only so long as the Minister who appointed them continues to hold office. The possibilities are that if there is a case made for Secretaries to Ministers who are members of the Executive Council because of the pressure of work, the Department in charge of Extern Ministers may also be overworked and Secretaries appointed. It is even more important for non-Executive Ministers to have a right to appoint a Secretary, inasmuch as he may not be a member of the Dáil. It is possible for a Minister not a member of the Executive Council to be appointed from outside the Dáil. Therefore, in such a case it would be convenient for that Minister to have a right to nominate a Parliamentary Secretary. I move these sub-sections 3 and 4.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
It is proposed to accept the amendment moved by Deputy Johnson.
The amendment will therefore read with the word "Oireachtas" wherever it occurs altered to the word "Dáil."
Amendment put and agreed to.
And it being 6.30 p.m., and Private Business being set down by Order, it was decided to report progress.