The Minister, apparently, did not examine this amendment very closely. As the section stands, it gives the Taoiseach power to terminate the assignment of a particular Department of State to a Minister having charge of it, and to assign that Department to another Minister. Presumably, it is not intended that that is to be an inconsiderate or unconsidered act. There must be some reason for it. Presumably, it is not going to be done every day in the week. It is, apparently, one of those things that may happen, perhaps, once in a session—even if it should happen so often. If it were to be nothing else but a matter of politeness, I think that the approval of the Dáil should be obtained in such a matter. It is not likely that such approval will be withheld without a sufficiently good reason, but it is more than likely that, by reason of the changes that have taken place recently, the public mind has been disturbed as to the reason for the changes which took place recently. It is equally likely that, if these matters had been put before the House, and if the reasons for those changes had been submitted to the House, the public mind would not be so disturbed. It is for that purpose, and rather with a view to harnessing public opinion and public support behind the Ministry, that this particular amendment has been put down. It has not been put down from the point of view that the Minister, apparently, has in mind—that is, that it is provocative. It is not provocative. The reason for putting down the amendment is to bring about a closer association between the Ministry and the Dáil and, in consequence, the people. If there is a strong reason why that should not be brought about, then we should like to hear it from the Minister. Nobody wants to put anything in the nature of unreasonable or onerous duties on the Taoiseach, or the Prime Minister—or whatever he is—either now or in the future, but we do expect that if these particular changes take place, the House should be taken into his confidence, and that that confidence should be extended, through the House, to the people.
I examined this amendment very carefully with a view to finding out what reasonable objection there could be to it, but I cannot find any ground for objection. For the best part of 15 years that has been the procedure here. Occasionally, it may have brought about a discussion in the House, and a very marked controversial discussion at times, due, perhaps, to the circumstances of the period in which we lived. However, I do not look forward to that being the case in the future at all. I think the House would be willing and anxious to know the reason why a change of this sort is taking place. Possibly, there would be no discussion at all on the matter.
In this country, the public mind has been agitated very much during the last ten or 15 years—and by the Party opposite more than by any other Party in this country—but I think there will be a considerable change in that public mentality in the future, and it is to restore and to ensure public confidence that this amendment is put down. I think the Minister should agree with this amendment rather than with what is in the section as it stands. I know what is in the Constitution; I do not approve of it and I did not approve of it when it came in. I say, however, that the collective responsibility of the Executive is scarcely maintainable under those circumstances. It would seem to be what one might call the collective responsibility of one individual. Apart from that, I do not see that there is any reason why this amendment should not be accepted and why the former practice should not be adhered to, because, unquestionably, the adherence to that practice would inspire more confidence in the public.
