Vol. 303 No. 1
I move:
That Standing Orders 14, 56, 70, 88, 112, 118, 119, 125 and 126 of the Standing Orders relative to Public Business be amended by the deletion of "Parliamentary Secretary" where it occurs and the substitutions therefor of "Minister of State"; and that Standing Order 54 be amended by the deletion of "and a Parliamentary Secretary shall be referred to as the Parliamentary Secretary to" and the substitution of "and a Minister of State shall be referred to as the Minister of State at".
I wish to say something brief about this motion. Seen formally the motion is merely intended to tidy up a necessary consequence of legislation that was passed here a few months ago in regard to the abolition of the old and honourable title of Parliamentary Secretary its replacement by the title of Minister of State and the creation of another three offices with that same title.
While this Party have no objection to this obviously necessary consequential measure being enacted, I should like to remind the House of what was said by the Tánaiste on 2 November last when he introduced the Second Stage of the Ministers and Secretaries Bill. He gave many reasons for the proposed change, some of which could be taken less seriously than others as, for example, that office holders with the puny title of Parliamentary Secretary were not being taken seriously by foreigners whom they met at meetings in Europe and elsewhere. There were other reasons somewhat more serious than that, with one of which I had to agree, that was, that there was a very high increase in the burden of work which office holders have to endure particularly, as the Minister had just then realised, as a result of the additional functions connected with membership of the European Communities. The Minister explained to the House that these Parliamentary Secretaries, with their new and improved titles and salaries could, because of their greater numbers, not only be helping the Ministers to whom they would be junior but in regard to themselves individually would have what the Minister called "wider and heavier responsibilities than have hitherto been assigned to Parliamentary Secretaries".
If I have missed a Government announcement in this regard I am sorry for holding up the House, but I do not recall any announcement describing or listing these heavier and extended responsibilities, commensurate with the heavier and extended titles and salaries which these office holders were to be called on to discharge. On the contrary, it seems to me—I make no special point on this since I may not know what is going on inside that Department— that in the case of one of these office holders, and here I beg pardon for appearing ungallant in mentioning this one in particular, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, who has been joined by another office holder of the same rank, has diminished responsibilities. I am glad to have the opportunity of wishing Deputy Burke well but I am not sure that Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn's responsibilities are not being diminished instead of extended by this other appointment.
I do not see how this arises on the motion which is very limited and deals with changes in Standing Orders. The motion has nothing to do with the offices concerned.
The motion proposed to reword five or six Standing Orders which have referred previously to Parliamentary Secretaries and to describe office holders referred to previously in that way as Ministers of State.
It would not be in order to discuss the offices at this time.
Since this House was told first that these officeholders would have wider and heavier responsibilities than was the case previously, surely we are entitled without straying outside order to inquire on the first occasion on which this matter is relevant to the House, as it is now, what these extra responsibilities are. I do not believe, for instance, that the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach has any extra responsibility.
The Deputy will have to await another occasion on which to raise these matters. The motion before us deals only with a change of title in Standing Orders. We cannot go beyond that.
I shall not argue with you, Sir, but——
But the Deputy is going ahead.
I shall conclude with a query, that is, to ask the Tánaiste— I think it was he who moved this motion—whether he will give the House in his reply an outline of what further responsibilities——
He would not be in order in doing so on this motion.
The Deputy should know that I did not move the motion.
Perhaps he will give us some indication of these further responsibilities.
It is totally out of order to discuss at this time the functions of the Ministers of State.
I have too much respect for the Chair to argue with him but I do not understand why I am out of order.
It would be wrong of me merely to stand up and make a formal reply. Like the Leas-Cheann Comhairle I, too, was surprised at Deputy Kelly. I know the Deputy has strong opinions on a number of items. Nevertheless, I was surprised at his personal reference to me, I can assure him that I have additional responsibilities.
Then, the Dáil should be told what these additional responsibilities are.
The Minister of State may not discuss on this motion the functions of Ministers of State.
I accept that.
No doubt there will be an opportunity on another occasion for such discussion.
I am sorry if I have given the impression of wishing to reflect on Deputy Lalor but the House should be told the nature of his additional functions.
As my Minister of State is a very sensitive young man perhaps the Deputy will apologise to him also.
Anything I have is new because I had nothing before.
The seven dwarfs.
