I should like to point out that the Minister's opening remarks are liable to a grave misunderstanding. He said that we must assume or take it for granted, naturally, that the Government would not have included a section of this kind in the Bill—I think he was referring to Section 4—unless there was good reason for it. Now, I should like to take up that point. If we are to act on the assumption that the Government would put nothing in a Bill unless they were going to act on it, and that we must take it for granted that there was good reason for it, then there is no point in having this legislative Assembly. The whole construction of this State provides that those who are executively responsible, when they see that a certain change in the law is required, have to come and propose that change to the reason of the Legislature. If the Legislature is to act in the way the Minister seems to suggest, and if we must take it for granted that a clause would not be inserted in a Bill unless there was good reason for it, then you simply vitiate the whole idea of the Legislature, and we must either do away with Parliament altogether or accept that idea.
The Minister then went on, purporting to make a case for this section. I am not saying that a case cannot be made for it, but I do say that the Minister has not made a case for it. He talked about how beneficial it would be to have these experts or well-intentioned people to do the jobs that Ministers are too busy to deal with. We know that a Minister can work for as long as he likes or for as short a time as he likes, more or less. In some circumstances he works longer hours, and in other circumstances he works shorter hours, but so far as co-ordination is concerned, the whole scheme of the Cabinet is directed towards co-ordination. You have the various Departments of State which can be shared out amongst a number of Ministers, and you then have the Taoiseach. Now, the Taoiseach has a Department, known as the Taoiseach's Department, but, strictly speaking, its function does not categorise definitely any particular department of State activity. The Taoiseach's Department and the Taoiseach have essentially a co-ordinating function. The Taoiseach, as it were, should grip together all the various Departments, controlled by various Ministers, and then the Cabinet has joint responsibility and the Cabinet meets under the direction of the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach, by virtue of his office, being concerned with no particular Department, every ordinary Department of State is divided up amongst various Ministers, and the Taoiseach has what you might call a watching brief and a co-ordinating function as to all of these Departments.
I had not time a moment ago, or had not the opportunity, to question whether or not the Tánaiste, by the Constitution, has been made to have a specified Department of State. If we turn to Article 28 (6) (1), we find that it says that
"the Taoiseach shall nominate a member of the Government to be the Tánaiste."
Then, sub-clause (2) says that
"the Tánaiste shall act for all purposes in the place of the Taoiseach if the Taoiseach should die, or become permanently incapacitated, until a new Taoiseach shall have been appointed."
And sub-clause (3) says that
"the Tánaiste shall also act for or in the place of the Taoiseach during the temporary absence of the Taoiseach."
Then, clause 7 (1) says that
"the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the member of the Government who is in charge of the Department of Finance must be members of Dáil Eireann."
Now, I do not know what the legal advisers would say with regard to that, or whether you might say that, notionally, prior to the Tánaiste being Tánaiste, he must be a member of the Government. The Article says that the Taoiseach shall nominate a member of the Government to be Tánaiste. At the same time, I should like to be told whether or not we are legally advised that a specific Department of State must be categorically directed by the Tánaiste. I cannot see it in that part of the Constitution.
With regard to the matter of a Minister without portfolio, I was ready to hear the Minister make a case with regard to his power, but it would appear that he can do nothing except to impinge upon himself into the function of the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach is responsible for the whole co-ordination of Government services and Government policy. What is this other man, or these other men, going to do? The Minister made some sort of suggestion—and mind you I do not quite accept that—as to having someone, who would be acceptable to certain people, to be responsible for the co-ordination of social services. That is what I understood the Minister to say, and if that is the intention, then I take it that, once this Bill is passed, you are going to have a man whose functions will be specifically directed to that. On the other hand, if it is not the intention to appoint a co-ordinating Minister to go into the matter of social services, then that remark of the Minister has no reference to what is before us and is dealing with purely imaginary things. Now, I could think of dozens of purely imaginary things, and mention them, without any reference to what is before us.
Let us take this question of the co-ordination of social services. I might point out that the term "social services" is an ambiguous sort of term, but we will agree that the Local Government Department, the Land Commission, and various other Departments, administer some sort of social services, that the Department of Finance deals with old age pensions and so on, and that the co-ordination of the whole lot might be appropriate. How can that be done? This idea that you get some sort of expert from outside who arranges it all is altogether wrong. It would have to be done by the representatives of the Departments at present administering these services. It would be mostly Department officials who would do it and, ultimately, a report would be made and presented, presumably, to the Taoiseach, for consideration by the Cabinet sitting as a Government. The various Ministers involved would have to be represented at such a consideration, either personally or through their officials.
The Constitution and the whole form of government—I think that certain changes should be made, but not this— assumes that there are various Departments of State, and some Minister is responsible to the Legislature in relation to every act of State carried out through these Departments. At the same time, there is a joint responsibility which imposes a general responsibility on the whole Government in relation to these acts, no matter by what Department. You have the Taoiseach who deals with no particular Department of State. At the present moment, he does, because the Taoiseach at the moment is in charge of the Department of External Affairs, and also of the Department of Education. There is no reason why, under the Constitution, he should be in charge of them. The Constitution does not advert to his being in charge of any specific Department whatever. Consequently, if you like to put it that way, the Constitution assumes a Minister without portfolio, called the Taoiseach. That is a special Department and, as I said before, the function of that Department is the co-ordination of the whole State policy and of the activity of various Departments.
The Minister has not attempted to make a case for this clause. He has suggested that inasmuch as the Government proposes it to us, we should accept it, but if we take that line, there is no reason to have a Dáil or Seanad, because once the people know that the Government has proposed something, they will realise that the Government would not propose it if it were not necessary. Consequently, he has—I will not say "misrepresented"—misunderstood the general State arrangements with regard to the Cabinet, and a Minister without portfolio kicking around would be more of a nuisance than he could possibly be of use, because the authority and responsibility is already defined. To have a man butting in, without responsibility and without authority, when there is already somebody there with responsibility and with authority, only makes for disorder. I should be quite ready to give sympathetic hearing to any proposal for what is contained in Section 4, if a case is made for it.
I should like to ask: Is it a fact that, by the Constitution, no one can hold the office of Tánaiste unless he is already, and remains, in specific authority, and responsible for a definite Department of State, or one of the State activities? If that is not so, if that is not the correct interpretation of the Constitution, the Constitution already provides for two Ministers without portfolio, and what is the purpose of Section 4? I am quite open to conviction that, in these circumstances or as a general line of policy, such a provision is necessary, but the case has not been made to the House.
