Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Apr 1946

Vol. 31 No. 14

Proposed New Ministries: Motion.

Sir John Keane

I move:—

That the Seanad takes note of the intention of the Government to appoint two new Ministers within the Department of Local Government and Public Health, and requests the Government to issue a paper embodying the principles of the proposed change and further to afford the House an opportunity to debate the matter before the actual legislation is introduced.

I should like at the outset to say how gratifying it is to find that the Taoiseach has seen fit to come in here this evening. I hope it indicates on his part sympathy towards the subject of the motion.

What I am going to advocate and apply later on, more closely to the terms of the motion, is a new procedure towards large-scale public reform and the procedure is in this wise: instead of seeing the reform in the terms of a printed Bill the Government would prepare a memorandum setting out the framework of the new proposals. This memorandum should be free as far as possible from legal verbiage. It speaks the language of the ordinary man and—this is important — it is merely an indication of the Government's desires. It does not commit the Government to legislation in the exact or even in the approximate form of the memorandum. The object of the issue of this memorandum is to secure the co-operation of the humblest voter in the country and also of course of organised associations, professional and private, local authorities and the like.

Such experience as there has been on this procedure shows it is wise to allow a considerable period to elapse between the issue of the memorandum and the introduction of legislation, and during that interval organised bodies are encouraged to state their views and to criticise the proposals. This is very important in the case of local authorities and it gives a very healthy opportunity to local authorities to participate indirectly in the work of Government. This has come to be known— though it is a rather loose term—as the White Paper policy, but that is only a short term for convenience because one must be on one's guard against the term "White Paper". White Papers have come to mean any form of report on a matter of public interest.

I have heard in the news this morning that there had been a White Paper issued on the escape of the Gneisenau and the Prinz Eugen during the war. Another White Paper was issued on conditions in a detention barrack. The application I have in mind, however, would apply to far-reaching legislative reform. I may mention without apology three instances of where this method has been adopted with very promising results in Great Britain. After all, what more appropriate place is there for a fundamental change in the Parliamentary procedure than in the Mother of Parliaments itself? We may not all agree with what happens in the Mother of Parliaments, but we must say it is a House with a very long and great tradition and a House whose methods and procedure have been largely adopted in our own Parliament.

I would like also to say that this procedure has only a limited application. I do not suggest for a moment that White Papers in the form I have indicated should be introduced for all kinds of legislation. For instance, things like the Forestry Bill, the Harbours Bill and matters of that kind are not suitable for this White Paper method. It is suitable for measures that affect the daily lives of our people and that is illustrated by the three instances where it has been employed in Great Britain, namely, on the medical services, on education and on social insurance. In the case of the medical services, two years have been allowed to pass between the time the White Paper was published and when legislation was introduced. During that period all associations affected were very vocal. Frequent conferences took place with authorities before the legislation ultimately took final form. I would like to outline briefly some of the advantages which I claim come from this method; not merely the purely mechanical or machinery aspect. To my mind—and I hope to persuade the House on this—it is a new and lasting departure in the true democratic approach to law making. In the first place it serves to educate the people. By the issue of proposals, in the form I have suggested, the people, through the Press, through local associations, through possibly their own political clubs, and through a number of organisations in their daily lives, come to hear the matter discussed, and that is a most wholesome approach to any democratic government. I might almost call the Referendum an analogy because there is a certain but somewhat remote resemblance between the two ideas.

The Referendum seeks the advice of the people on some specific matter. We have the machinery for our Referendum in our Constitution but I think I am right in saying it has only been applied on one occasion, and that was in regard to the Constitution itself. I feel I should like to see the day arrive when White Papers dealing with fundamental reforms in our social system would themselves become the subject of a Referendum—that if they were published for the people the people's authority would be obtained before they were passed into law. Even if the Government did not get a favourable response from the people I do not think that would be any reason why they should necessarily vacate their office. It also to a certain extent enables us to restore the spirit of the old Greek democracy where it was possible for the laws to reach every single voter. We could approximate to that now with new methods of communication and radio. Leaders of all Parties might speak to the people on matters of importance. I even go so far as to hope that in time to come White Papers may be spoken on over the radio by the Leaders of the different Parties. In the modern curriculum of education the subject of civics plays a large part. What better approach to civics could there be than that proposals for reforms that affect the lives of our people in an intimate manner should be known among all classes and discussed as current affairs by our teachers and explained by them to the pupils? I hope I am not casting aspersions when I say we are singularly backward in political education. It is deplorable that important matters should be discussed in either of these Houses (I will not say which, but Senators can draw their own conclusions), with very small attendance. On one occasion I saw a "count out" during a debate on a matter of major importance. This question of approach, education and the co-operation of our people seems to me to be the only hope for Parliamentary government in the future. It is the only alternative I see to the totalitarian system. The totalitarian system gets things done, and provided the measures are wise, it is probably a good way of putting them through, but that is not our way or the way of democratically-minded countries.

I feel that if democracy is to survive it can only do so by extending to the humblest people in the country and by no longer being a mere appeal to the people at general elections to vote for a programme which of necessity can only be of a general character. The people are then left to get any scraps they can of what is going on. I want to see these reforms developed in a spirit of education and co-operation, in fact, that we should turn our backs on the bad 17th-century view about people which prompted a poet to write: "Nor shall the rascal rabble here have place, whom kings no title gave and God no grace." I am rather reinforced in this view by a recent broadcast from the Vatican which stated: "It is the democratic duty for Governments to educate and inform the people they serve." I stress the word "serve" because, after all, Governments should not deny that they serve the people and that in the last resort the people are their masters.

Now, having set down the general principles of this motion I would like to apply it to a piece of legislation which is now shortly approaching. We have not been told the form in which the legislation is to take place, but I think we have pointers to show that something very fundamental is contemplated. We have first of all the statement of the Taoiseach himself that two new Ministries are to be formed in the Department of Local Government. Then we have had an exciting and arresting speech by the present Minister for Local Government, who was speaking to the Fianna Fáil Congress. "A century of Local Government" was the title and he made these remarks: He said that the present system, and I quote him, "is gravely anomalous, calculated to hamper the rationalisation of our system of local government and impede the uniform development of those local services upon which the health, the convenience, the general activity and social wellbeing of the community so greatly depend".

He said that the present framework was an out-dated system of valuations and an obsolete rating code to complicate and defeat all attempts to give to the country a rational, convenient and economical system of local administration. I take it, this is not merely the personal view of the Minister for Local Government. I think I might say the Government as a whole shares this view. I myself feel that some reform is well overdue. To reinforce this belief, and I merely refer to this in passing—Heaven save me from raising a debate on proposals which may come before us—but we have the Public Health Bill and the statement made, and not contradicted, that an expenditure of £24,000,000 on health services is contemplated.

We have a far-reaching extension of schemes of nursing and an increase in local dispensary doctors—proposals which will place additional and very heavy burdens on local ratepayers. And that being so, I think I am warranted in concluding that a big reform is in the mind of the Government. Here I would like to stress the danger of piecemeal legislation such as we have in the Public Health Bill. We want to see, when legislation is introduced, a complete picture of what is intended including, especially, an estimate of the cost. When this paper has been published and criticised then is the time for legislation to be introduced. Legislation there could be by stages undoubtedly, because we could see how it was being pieced into the entire picture. Parliament and the country have a right to see proposals in their entirety before being asked to commit themselves to legislation in detail.

After all it is only sensible business. I will give an analogy which I am sure will be appreciated by my Labour colleagues. I knew an old tradesman who served my family for many years, a sort of carpenter who wore a bowler hat. He said he always saw the end of the job before he began it and that in fact every tradesman should see the end of his work before he commenced it. I am sure the Government sees the end of this reform but they have not told the country and I think the country and Parliament have a right to see it. Local government affects the whole lives of our people. It affects the fundamental producer—the farmer —whose rates on his farm are a fixed charge. Rates, in fact, are a form of land tax. Medical services, nursing and public health affect the daily lives of our women and children. It is eminently a subject in respect of which we should know the Government's intentions in their entirety. In that respect it is, perhaps, second only to education. Therefore, I ask, in the terms of this motion, that we should get this information. Without such an approach and without a continuance of that method, I do not think we can ever lay the foundations of democracy, based on adult suffrage, in a sure and lasting way.

Mr. Douglas

I formally second the motion and reserve the right to speak later.

Professor Johnston

I do not hesitate to jump in at this early stage in the proceedings although I was hoping that somebody else would help to develop the very interesting ideas Senator Sir John Keane has set out in this motion. I think that what he has specially in mind is that the functions of the central Government and of the Legislative Assembly should be used not merely as mechanism for steam-rolling legislation through both Houses by a powerful majority vote but also as a very important instrument of political education for our people, as a whole, regardless of Party. It is not democracy if Government is content to produce new legislation, as it were, like a conjuror from a hat and then push it through by the rigorous use of Party discipline. I do not say that the Government invariably uses those methods but I think that people would generally agree that there is too much of that kind of thing and not enough of the other kind—the kind of constructive development of political democracy which one would like to see taking place. There are matters—and matters of local government which are on the tapis at the moment are pre-eminently of this kind—in which the Government may well have certain general ideas gradually crystallising in their mind but in respect of which it is of the utmost importance that the people generally should have an opportunity of formulating their ideas. With reference to those things, the primary duty of Government is to give the people the material on which they can make up their own minds and to give them every opportunity, without necessarily committing themselves beforehand to any specific scheme of reform, of developing, in an atmosphere of freedom, their considered views as to what would be the best relations, say, between the State and the local authorities in matters of public health and local government.

A White Paper developing the intentions of the Government with reference to the proposed two new Ministries would be a very desirable instrument for enabling public opinion to instruct itself, to crystallise itself, and ultimately to influence the final decision of these matters before the Government would have committed themselves to any cut and dried scheme. In a mature democracy, we should have not only the influence of political leaders on the people, but also the reciprocal influence of public opinion on political leaders, regardless of Party. If we have only the first— only propaganda by well-organised parties—we have not even half what is requisite, because we are bound to turn citizens not only into thinking, active, public-spirited persons, but into mere yes-men of the political Party machines. What we want to do is to develop independence of thought and judgment on the part of our citizens, regardless of Party, and constructively apply that to the solution of all the problems that confront the Government.

I do not know whether it would be appropriate on this motion to deal in any detail with the two new Ministries which it is proposed to establish. If it is not out of order——

An Cathaoirleach

It would be out of order.

Professor Johnston

Then, I shall not pursue that line. I have a feeling that, in general, there is a tendency to tighten up too much the centralised control of the activities of local authorities. If that process is carried too far, it will destroy the value of those local governing authorities as instruments for the creation of a healthy public spirit and a healthy local public health opinion in the several areas of our country. In fact, it has been noted that one of our major difficulties is that there is a lack of interest in the doings of our local governing bodies. The more you hamstring and emasculate those local authorities, the less likely it is that any desirable development of local public spirit and local initiative will take place.

It may be that the units of local government are both too large and too small. After all, the counties of Eire are a somewhat artificial creation, with a history of about only 300 years. They do not always or necessarily correspond with any natural, social or economic regions of the country. In general, it may be that they are too small for efficient, economic, local administration, as the Minister for Local Government himself seems to believe. Without committing myself to this particular opinion, I should like to suggest that it might be worth while to consider the grouping of certain counties, not so much as counties but as regions, and reviving, for purposes of local government, some of the larger local divisions of our country such as Ossory and Oirghiall, which have certain traditions and really Irish history behind them. For certain local government purposes, the somewhat arbitrary division of the country into counties, which we inherited, could be ignored. I do not stress that. It is one of the aspects of this question that ought to be considered and made public, first of all in the form of a White Paper, to be afterwards thought out by the people generally.

Another difficulty of our administration is not so much overcentralisation as overdepartmentalisation. There is a certain tendency for "my right hand not to be allowed to know what my left hand doeth" amongst a number of our public Departments. It may be that that lack of effective co-ordination between different Departments at the centre would be qualified and limited if there were some kind of local focus in each local governing area and an executive official responsible to the local governing authority in each area who would also represent not one Department only but Government as a whole. I think also that, associated with local governing bodies—whether county councils or regional councils— there should be some permanent machinery for the intensive study of social and economic phenomena.

Sir John Keane

I hesitate to raise a point of order on my own motion, but I specially refrained from dealing with the various matters which might form the subject of White Papers. It may be discourteous to raise this point of order on my motion but I did specially abstain from doing that.

An Cathaoirleach

I take it that Senator Johnston is mentioning these matters as examples of what might be dealt with.

Professor Johnston

By way if illustration. If you think that I am dealing with the matter in too great detail, I am willing to cease.

An Cathaoirleach

The examples do not need so much elaboration.

Professor Johnston

We have not too much centralisation but too much departmentalisation. The attitude of the Departments to their administrative problems is too much that of the octopus, which is not noted for its centralised intelligence. I think that that could be remedied by the kind of relationship I am trying to develop between central and local administration if you had those local focuses for intensive study of social and economic phenomena who would be in touch not merely with one Department but with central Government as a whole.

Professor Fearon

May I make one or two observations, if merely for the purpose of clarifying my own mind which has become considerably confused? I should like to say, firstly, with regard to the proposed appointment of Minister for Health, that I most warmly welcome such an appointment as I have been urging it in my own small circle for years. I urged it because I felt the subject of public health was becoming a very complicated one indeed and that it was a whole-time job for one man. The question that keeps running through my mind is how many Ministers we are to have, and the answer that seems to present itself is that gradually, as these subjects get more and more involved and specialised, they will require Ministers. I presume the advantage of having a Minister for a particular Department is that his subject becomes more and more integrated into the work of the Government. In that respect, a Minister differs from a head of the Department. I do not know whether I am right in inferring that from these two appointments. Whether or not this motion is adopted, I should be very grateful if the Taoiseach would take this opportunity to tell us something about the functions and position of Ministers.

That may seem a rather foolish way of putting it, but the Taoiseach knows what I have in mind. We have been frightened very much by delegation of powers. In one way the appointment of more Ministers may be an antidote to that because you can get hold of a Minister when you cannot get hold of a head of a Department. I do not know whether that is the underlying idea or whether this is a further development of that extraordinary organism, the modern State.

Mr. Douglas

When Senator Sir John Keane asked me if I would second the motion, I said I should be quite glad to do so because it seemed to me that underlying it was a matter of very considerable public interest apart altogether from the specific proposal which the Senator makes in the motion. In seconding it, I did not speak because I thought that possibly there would be a more general debate. I have felt for a very considerable time that one of the most important problems of democracy is how to make effective contact between Parliament, as controlled by the Executive or technically in control of the Executive, and the people during the period between general elections in such a way that, on the one hand, the people would feel, and feel with justification, that their opinion mattered, and on the other hand, that Parliament would feel that it had a duty to try to ascertain, not in the particular but in the general, what was the mind of the people as a whole?

Senator Sir John Keane refers to what he calls "a White-Paper policy". I think it would be just as well for various reasons, in addition to those he gave, to drop the words "White Paper". We have, as any of us who have studied the matter knows perfectly well, moulded our Parliamentary system very closely on the British system—I think, personally, far too closely. I have never been an advocate of a too-close following of British precedents either in Standing Orders or other practices. I rather generally find myself in a minority as far as that is concerned, but the use of the words "White Paper"—they have now got a partial use here and are used for all sorts of purposes in Britain—may, I think, cause misunderstanding. I have some idea of what is in Senator Sir John Keane's mind and I am quite sure of what is in my own.

I do not suggest to the Government that they should set out in a White Paper their whole plans on a particular subject for a period of years. What I do suggest is, that where there is a problem to be tackled of a general character, the Government should cause a document to be prepared which would give an account of a scheme which could be applied as a solution or as an extension of a particular policy, or possibly of a revolutionary change in our practices, that that paper or that scheme, as prepared under the auspices of the Government, would be circulated, with their approval, only to the extent that they considered that this was one method of dealing with a problem which, they thought, would have to be tackled, a solution to which they did not have a fundamental objection. The circulation of the paper would not imply specific approval of all that was written in it. The most obvious instance of that kind was the Beveridge Report which was circulated by the British Government, it being made perfectly clear that the then Government accepted it with a sort of vague approval. Everybody knew perfectly well that they were not likely to carry it out in its details; what they wanted was to have it discussed.

If documents of that kind could be issued with definite Government sanction, or more or less Executive approval, that would go a long way towards awakening public interest. It would make the people realise that Parliament had a function, and remove the impression which now seems to obtain, that the people merely elect a Parliament which in turn elects a Government, and because that Government has a majority in the House it carries out whatever it wants and then, at the end of five years, comes to the people again. That is a very common view and people in the meantime say: "We are not interested. What is the good? We have no say, anyway." I think that is very largely what is at the back of Senator Sir John Keane's mind.

When one comes to the particular, I think there is a good deal in his suggestion. I am carefully avoiding a discussion on the merits of what may be the principles of the new Local Government Bill, but it is quite clear to very many people that very substantial changes will take place in regard to local government. Some of those changes have arisen because of the emergency, and may be of a temporary character. The Orders are not intended to be permanent; whether the principles they enshrine are intended to be permanent or not we do not know. There is a general belief that substantial changes are likely to take place. Obviously no Government in its senses is going to bring in a Bill without any idea at all as to its connection with the changes that are planned. You cannot hope for any possible success if you simply change the system of local government piecemeal without having some idea ahead of what you are aiming at. Is the general intention to get our local government in order and then to decentralise it as soon as things are working smoothly, or is it the general intention more and more to centralise matters and to take more and more power to the central authority? Is it the intention to make that a temporary step and gradually to get back again to effective and increasing local control?

I give that as an illustration. I think that if it were only a matter of appointing two Ministers, as mentioned in the Resolution, there would, of course, be no case for a White Paper. I imagine that would be Senator Sir John Keane's view too, although I have not discussed the matter in any detail with him. As far as I am concerned, I think there is a case for setting out a plan before future legislation is introduced. I would support Senator Sir John Keane in respectfully suggesting to the Government that this whole thing is well worthy of consideration, and that there is a good deal to be said for a more or less comprehensive plan—I think that probably it should be a more or less revolutionary plan— in dealing with local government. We want an efficient local government; we want it uniform to the extent of essential services, and I think that we want it free, so that local desires and feelings can be expressed.

While saying that, it is probably correct to say that none of us is satisfied with it as it stands. Legislation of an important character is envisaged. One Bill dealing with it will reach the House soon. That deals with only one aspect of it, and even that Bill is not intended to be complete with regard to public health. I think there is a very definite case for the preparation of a general plan which would be discussed over the next year or so, and which would undoubtedly influence the Government as the details came to be worked out. That would have this great advantage, that Parliament, in considering the detailed legislation, would know the scheme that it was intended to fit it into. For that reason I support the motion.

Mr. S. O'Donovan

I wish to address a few remarks to the House on the wording of the motion. It reads: "That the Seanad takes note of the intention of the Government to appoint two new Ministers within the Department of Local Government and Public Health,..." The first thing that I want to say on that part of the motion is that I am not exactly clear when it was ever noted that there were to be two further Ministries within the Department of Local Government. I understood that there would be a Minister for Public Health, a Minister for Local Government and a Minister for Social Services.

Sir John Keane

These give two.

Mr. S. O'Donovan

I am referring to the fact that they cannot be within the Department of Local Government as it exists at present. I fancy that the greater amount of effort in promoting social security is provided by the central authority. Some of the help of social security is provided by the local authorities. Therefore, social security as a Ministry would involve both central and local administration. I am just not clear on the fact that there were to be two further Ministries in the present Department of Local Government. Proceeding from that, the motion says: "and requests the Government to issue a paper embodying the principles of the proposed change." I want to point out to some of the previous speakers that Senator Sir John Keane was correct in not saying that the paper was to be red, pale pink or white. He just called it a paper. He was discreet enough to do that. Some of the previous speakers did not like the terminology "White Paper". In the motion it is called a paper, and I think that is good enough because many of the papers that are called White Papers are not white at all; they are coloured.

What I wish to stress is that, I think, if the motion ended there it would be quite satisfactory. I, personally, would like to see a Government publication indicating what the proposed changes were to be so that they could be discussed by vocational interests outside. After all, we here in this House are a vocational body. Therefore, the different aspects of these proposed changes would be discussed by different vocational interests throughout the country.

The motion then proceeds to say: "and further to afford the House an opportunity to debate the matter before the actual legislation is introduced." To my mind it is there that the danger lies. I fancy that either House at any time could on motion discuss some of these matters, but that would mean that we were bringing into public debate in the two Houses of the Oireachtas matters which, in the minds of the movers, were meant to be discussed by vocational interests outside. I do not think it would be advisable that the proposed changes and suggested alterations in the public published paper should be made the subject of debate in either House of the Oireachtas until they had come before the House formally as proposed legislation. We would get plenty of opportunity of discussing them when the proposed legislation came before the House, but I fancy we could develop endless debates in the House on different aspects of the proposed changes. A point that I desire to stress is that I would like to see such a publication indicating to the citizens outside what the changes were, the way in which they were going to be given effect, as well as the way in which they would affect the community at large. Some of the duties of the Minister for Local Government are designated by Order to the Parliamentary Secretary who, more or less, functions as Minister for Public Health. This delegation of powers to the Parliamentary Secretary at present causes some confusion in the minds of citizens, in the minds of members of local authorities, and of officials of local authorities. Therefore, it is an ambiguity at present to have practically three Ministers functioning within the Local Government Department. You have a Minister and two Parliamentary Secretaries.

An Cathaoirleach

That subject is not before the House for discussion.

Mr. S. O'Donovan

With one more remark I shall finish, though possibly it may be outside the scope of the debate. I wish to express the hope that, when these alterations are made, Local Government will be a more helpful Department towards local authorities, and that there will be much speedier decisions and much speedier work and co-operation between the central authority and the local authorities. I shall finish on that.

Mr. Foran

It was not my intention to intervene in this debate. In fact, I do so with great reluctance. But, as I am more or less definitely associated with what might be called the democratic side of this House, I thought that I should congratulate Senator Sir John Keane for having brought this motion forward.

The conversion of the Senator is very welcome to democracy. I want to support him 100 per cent. in this motion he has before the House and to express the hope that his conversion is of a permanent nature. Shortly before the adjournment, however, he seemed to have a different outlook altogether. This country needs political education. Our political education on self-government is of very recent origin and, consequently, our people have not the same knowledge nor unfortunately the same respect for their Parliamentary institutions as have the people in other countries.

Democracy has been under a great test. It has had to fight for its life in a world war and we who believe in democracy ought to do everything in our power to preserve it. We have a fine opportunity in this country of establishing a democracy that will wear well and stand the test of time. In Britain they have their Parliaments and they have preserved democracy, though they had to put up a fight to preserve it. We have not been called upon to suffer for democracy to the same extent as other countries. In saying that, I also want to say that there is definitely a tendency in this country to depart from pure democracy as I know it. I suppose I would be out of order if I went on to instance the practical disappearance of local government in this country?

An Cathaoirleach

I am afraid you would.

Mr. Foran

But there is no denying the fact that that is so. You are so limited in discussion, however, that you cannot develop on the lines foremost in your mind.

Mr. Baxter

Cannot you go on until you are stopped and do not invite the Chair to stop you?

Mr. Foran

Early on somebody mentioned that Beveridge published a statement on social security in Britain. Beveridge was honoured and respected by the government of that country for his effort. We had another Beveridge here who published his ideas.

An Cathaoirleach

I am afraid, Senator, you are out of order again.

Mr. Foran

One is so restricted in a discussion here that it is hardly worth while intervening in the debate at all.

An Cathaoirleach

There will be plenty of opportunities to discuss these matters later on.

Mr. Foran

Later on?

An Cathaoirleach

But not on this motion, Senator.

Mr. Foran

Really, I do not know where I am. I was full of things I wanted to say but I am so limited here that I think I will abandon any opportunity of educating the people.

The Taoiseach

I am sorry Senator Keane did not try to express in his motion something of what he said in his speech because, as was pointed out by Senator O'Donovan, the motion is almost incomprehensible. I take it from what Senator Keane has said that his real purpose in bringing the motion before the House was that we should initiate the practice or continue the practice, in so far as it has been adopted, of anticipating legislation that is of a comprehensive character, by some informative paper, something that would enable the people to see what was being contemplated and to express their opinions upon it in advance.

Now, those who have spoken in the debate have indicated different views as to what kind this paper should be and what authority it will have in expressing the views of the Government. I take it that Senator Keane would like it to contain the Government's proposals—what they really contemplate—but of such a kind that they could retreat from it without having any difficulty. That is, if they found that public opinion was rather strongly opposed they would not go ahead with their proposals at all. When he was speaking about White Papers in that connection I thought of kite papers.

The question is: are these to be in the form of a kite, to find out what public opinion is, or are they to be definitely just advance information of what the Government has decided upon bringing into legislation? Another suggestion has been—so as to get a little bit further—that we would have something like what might be expected from a commission set up to examine the question—the report of a commission. What commission are you going to get? Are you going to get some outside people to make their report quite independent of the Government and without the Government having any responsibility for it?

That would mean that legislation would have to be anticipated by having a commission that would examine the question and make suggestions and recommendations which the Government is free to adopt or not. I think there is some confusion of thought in the matter and that it has not been examined home in all its implications.

That it would be desirable to give the public as early information, in as complete a way as possible, of Government intentions is common ground. I think every one will admit that it is desirable. The unfortunate thing is, when you examine it from the Government's point of view you are so exhausted when you have got to the point where the measure is drafted that you do not like to think of another year or two of delay or something of that magnitude intervening. If proposals for bringing in an originating measure have to be published, though not really required to be done in the public interest, it will involve delay and you are already chafing at the long delay that must necessarily take place between the preliminary examination of the problem and the point where the Minister can propose the heads of a Bill. Not merely has the preliminary investigation to take place in the Minister's own Department but other Departments of State have to see these proposals, and their views upon them are expected.

That takes a long time and the experience of Ministers generally is that a great deal of delay is involved by the time the measure passes the various stages, as I might call them, before it is sent to the draftsman or before the heads of the Bill are brought before the Government. Then they are considered by the Government and, if the heads are agreed upon, they are sent to the draftsman. The draftsman takes a considerable time in drafting. He has to consult sometimes the originating Department about doubtful matters. Finally the draft Bill appears before the Government in the form of a printed paper which is practically the same, in many cases, as the paper printed in green for the Dáil. It is considered by the Government and gets its Final Reading by the Government but a very long period has elapsed and I can tell you that Ministers are constantly complaining, saying: "Where is this or that Bill? We got it drafted. What are the Departments doing with it?" Sufficient time has to be given to examine these matters in the Departments and are we going to add another stage now? Are we going to add a further stage in which before anything is done, before we get to the stage of bringing proposals to the Government and of getting the heads of a Bill accepted we will have to prepare and publish this explanatory paper? We could have Parliamentary debates here and then we could be held up for a year or two. The trouble about modern parliaments is that the procedure which worked quite well in former days is quite inadequate for dealing with the needs of the present time. That is why you have a lot of these Orders but you have not a debate about each particular Order as you have about a Bill. We have power given to make Orders which is strongly objected to but the pressure of the times makes it inevitable that we should have them. But after all those delays in preparing legislation for submission to Parliament is there going to be another stage? I think we would like to see explanatory papers. I think the system has been adopted by us—the system in which complicated measures when circulated are accompanied by an explanatory memorandum which enables the ordinary person to grasp the essentials of the proposed measure. It is not in legal terms but in the everyday speech which everybody will have little difficulty in understanding.

Now as regards this general question to which Senator Sir John Keane addressed himself I can only say that while the idea is a good one I do not think we can have a hard and fast rule, even in the case of large measures, that before they are introduced they must be published and criticised and particularly be debated in Parliament. I think Sir John himself will see how foolish this is. How could we have a debate upon a particular measure unless the Government was going to give its views upon it? The idea is being met to a certain extent by present practice and there may, perhaps, be a question of trying to make that practice more general.

With regard to this particular question of the formation of two new Ministries, in the Dáil on at least two occasions I indicated what the position was in this respect. There has been, as you know, a very strong public demand, and, I think you will admit, a very widespread demand, that there should be a Minister for Public Health. I do not know whether Senators are in favour of this being done or not, but there has been a strong demand and the Government has considered it. The view taken by the Government is that the situation at the present time makes it desirable that we should have this Ministry. There is contemplated a certain reorganisation, a certain extension of the public health services and to supervise this reorganisation and extension and also to administer the services when they have been reorganised, we think a Minister is necessary. I think it is right that I should point out what, perhaps, some may not realise, that there is a considerable difference between a Parliamentary Secretary and a Minister in matters of this kind. My opinion is that generally it is not a good practice to delegate, as we have done in the matter of public health, to a Parliamentary Secretary powers which almost take him outside the supervision of the Minister. When you do this the Government, as a whole, which has collective responsibility, has no way immediately of dealing with the Parliamentary Secretary. The Parliamentary Secretary is outside: he has, in a sense, a greater amount of liberty in a situation like that than the Minister. The Minister has to share the collective responsibility and is immediately responsible to the Government. He has to meet direct criticism which he would not probably hear if he were not coming to the Government meetings.

It is not desirable that this situation should continue for any length of time. In the particular case of the Department of Local Government and Public Health this arrangement is necessary in present circumstances because there is the problem of gradually disentangling the services. This requires the closest co-operation between the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary while the Minister remains in supreme control. Where then is the need for a White Paper regarding the setting up of this Ministry? This proposal has been indicated and the reasons for it have been given in general. There is a public demand for it. A White Paper would indicate the extent of the reorganisation of the public services contemplated. I have already stated that this is in preparation and that it was being considered by various Departments of State.

As a matter of fact there is very close co-operation. I have intimated for instance that whenever a new measure is under contemplation the Minister who is bringing it in has to get details from his own Department and he then prepares a memorandum which is circulated to the other Departments concerned so that Ministers and their officials may know what is proposed and the Ministers may probably consult particular officers affected.

The proposed changes in the public health system as we have it at the moment have been set out in the form of a draft White Paper. They have been circulated to Departments and are under consideration. In due course they will be considered by the Government. Is the White Paper going to represent the considered views of the Government? It must be close to the Government's intentions. Otherwise it would not have the same appeal and would not stimulate the type of criticism you want. It will not stir up public opinion if it merely expresses opinions which may or may not be adopted. You want to have it fairly close to the considered views of the Government—in fact, practically indicating the heads of a Bill which the Government would introduce. I have already told you that the Senator's demand is being met and that a White Paper will be circulated. How long it will be circulated before the Bill appears, I cannot say at the moment.

The drafting of Bills is a slow business and a much longer period than we should like inevitably elapses between the time the heads of a Bill are put up and the time when the Bill is presented to the Dáil. The procedure which the Senator principally requests is to be adopted in this particular case. It was indicated in advance that it would be adopted. That is why I think it rather strange that the Senator did not give a little more thought to the way in which he drafted the motion.

The next question is concerned with the social services. Any members of the Seanad who read the remarks I made on that subject on more than one occasion in the Dáil, will understand what our position is in that regard. We do not believe that there is any substance in the case which has been presented to us for the co-ordination of the social services as they stand at present. We have examined that matter over and over again. We came to the conclusion that the increase in efficiency which would be obtained by amalgamating those services and operating them through one Department would be negligible and that the amount of money which would be saved would be negligible. If that were the only reason put forward for amalgamating the social services, there would be no justification for a new Ministry at all. These services are being administered by Departments which have been associated with their growth. Their administration of them has been found satisfactory and there is at all times the necessary cooperation and co-ordination. It is often claimed that we have too many inspectors. If Senators examine the matter in the way in which we did, they will, probably, arrive at the conclusion that we were right in holding that the present system is not a wasteful system either in respect of the effort of public servants or in respect of the expenditure of money and that, therefore, we should not be justified in setting up a separate Ministry to administer them if that were the only reason for so doing. But we are going to set up a separate Ministry for a different reason.

This question of increase of social services has been engaging the attention of large numbers of our people. It is also a matter of considerable importance in the social thought of other peoples. Here, we have a difficult problem to assess: how far can we go? There is no limit to the desire of the Government to extend those services so as to meet the needs of the people; the question is: have we the means to do so? Will it be possible to give greater services than are being given at present unless our wealth is considerably increased or unless there is considerably more production here?

What we are establishing the new Ministry for is precisely this: so that we shall have somebody in authority, knowing the mind of the Government, examining this question in the necessary detail to enable us to satisfy ourselves, before we extend in any particular direction, that we have the means which will enable us to extend. It is very easy to get plans which would lead to extension for a time but which would have social and economic consequences which might be very serious for our people. If we begin on any scheme, we must be able to see that we shall not have to abandon it on account of the consequences to our national economic structure. Consequently, we want to have a member of the Government who will be in a position of authority, and who will know the mind of the Government, to take those services as a whole under his control, examine their working and see whether the view I have expressed —which is the view arrived at by the Government on more than one occasion—is true or not. More than that, we want him to examine this whole question and see, in view of proposals made elsewhere, whether there is any direction in which we can usefully advance and how that advance should be made, if it is possible. This way of attacking the problem means that the Minister is an investigator who will go into the thousand and one details necessary to satisfy himself that a scheme in a particular direction will be a wise and good one. We have come to that conclusion and it is not a recent conclusion. After two or three discussions of this question some years ago, we formed the opinion that the only way we would be certain that our conclusions were sound would be by having a Minister who would devote his time to investigating this whole problem and seeing what our means were and in what direction we should go in extending the social services which are being rendered at the present time.

It is quite clear that there can be no question of a White Paper in that connection. The only justification for such a course would be the sort of statement I have made. The Dáil and Seanad may agree that that is justification or they may not. They may say that they think that this is the right way of attacking this problem. It may be suggested that we should have a commission instead of dealing with the matter in this way and it would be a matter for argument whether that was the right way or not. I do not think that there would be any need for a White Paper in advance, because no further explanation than the general explanation I have given here could be given. We shall either convince the Dáil and Seanad that this way is the right way or we shall not.

Of course, these particular Departments will not be within the Department of Local Government. They will be separate Departments of State. They will have the full status of Ministries. The Ministers in charge will have Ministerial authority and responsibility. They will be independent Departments of State and there will be no question of their inclusion in some other Department. That brings us to the question which a remark made suggested was operating in the mind of one of the speakers—how many Ministries are we to have? Are we to have a gradual increase in the number of Ministries? If something requires to be done, it is frequently suggested that we should have a Minister to do it. It is quite clear that we cannot have a Minister for the doing of everything that can be thought of in isolation. Ministers must have sub-divisions of their Departments. Just before 1921 we had seven Ministers and one was Minister for Economic Affairs. He represented in the Government the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Labour, which we regarded as Ministries outside the Cabinet proper. He was responsible for those. Although we have not subordinate Ministries at present, still a Minister is responsible for a number of different sections. Take the case of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. You could get out of his Department a number of different Ministries. One which would strike you immediately would be Transport and Communications. In other countries there is a Minister for Transport and Communications. In some cases they are joined, in some they are separate. You can take any Department of State practically and sub-divide it. If you wish to take that point of view you might say of many services: "This deserves to have a special Minister in charge of it". It is obvious you cannot do that. You have to try to be reasonable, and in the Constitution, in view of the likely number of members in the Dáil, and to ensure that there would not be too many members in office, the maximum number of Ministers was fixed at 15.

It would be interesting to discuss the whole question of Parliamentary Secretaries, whether it is a good system or not. A Minister might very well say in dealing with it that it is a bad system. He may say: "A Parliamentary Secretary is far more independent than I am because I have at least to meet my colleagues a few times a week and they are likely to be critical of everything I do but he does not meet them at all. He is far away. I have to go into details and take responsibility for him. Sometimes my colleagues may object to what the Parliamentary Secretary does but I have to take responsibility for him without knowing thoroughly the various things that have happened." I know that some Ministers have expressed the view that the whole system of Parliamentary Secretaries is bad essentially and that it should be dropped altogether. However, we have managed to get along so far with these arrangements. Personally I can say that my whole effort has been to keep down the number of Ministers I think it is desirable that we should have only a reasonable number. If the Ministry becomes large, discussions at meetings become long and decisions become more difficult. The difficulties that we have already in connection with our work would be greatly increased if you were to enlarge the number of members of the Cabinet. I do not know how they have managed in Britain but I think that in a crisis it is very rare for the Ministry as a whole to meet. There is a certain amount of delegation of the power of the Government as a whole. A certain number will act in the name of the Government and the Government as a whole will discuss some of the measures.

I want to say finally with regard to the general idea to which Senator Sir John Keane gave expression that I see its value. We are doing something in that direction but I should not like to say that it is going to be a general practice. I have given some of the reasons why we could not agree that it should be a regular practice and why in this particular case it is being adopted in regard to public health services. In regard to income maintenance services there would be no point in adopting it because that is not considered a thing on which you want information. I do not know what I should ask the Seanad to do about the motion. But having expressed these views—I do not know if it is proper for me to make suggestions here—it seems to me that the terms of the resolution do not indicate exactly what the Senator wanted, and, having heard it discussed, I think that the motion might be held over.

Mr. Hayes

May I support the suggestion of the Taoiseach that the motion should not be put to the House? I do not know what Senator Sir John Keane intended to achieve by the motion and I sympathise with the Taoiseach in that he came here without knowing what case he was expected to answer. As for myself, I do not know precisely what case Senator Sir John Keane intended to make but I think he did make a case which, perhaps, was not appreciated by the Taoiseach. The case he made seems to be that we may gradually, by different pieces of legislation, accomplish a piecemeal revolution unknown to ourselves and that we may do something piecemeal towards achieving a thing which we have not ourselves in view. If the Government have had it in view then I think the Government should declare that plan and that policy beforehand. Let me give an example. We are accomplishing a revolution in local government and the White Paper explanatory of that particular Bill does not meet the case Senator Sir John Keane has in mind. I have some sympathy with the case he has in mind even though it appears to me that the motion is not drafted to indicate that case at all.

In the case of local government, we had to begin with a Managerial Bill applied to the City of Dublin only. That Bill was almost violently opposed by the Taoiseach himself and those who were associated with him. Then subsequently, when they became the Government, a County Manager Bill was introduced, applying the Dublin system to the counties, although a different position existed as between the county boroughs and the county. Now we have a Public Health Bill—I am not going to discuss it—and a Local Government Bill in the Dáil. Into the Local Government Bill, after it had been introduced, an amendment was put which takes away from local bodies the powers they had over the general financial position. These local government bodies must strike a rate at the request or on the order of the Minister for Local Government. That may or may not be a good provision but the point I want to make is that, taking all these things together, the result is that no power at all is left to local bodies. I think the case that has been made this evening is that the Government should declare in a general way its plans in regard to local government.

The same question arises with regard to rates. A matter of £24,000,000 was mentioned as likely to be spent on public health services. Is that £24,000,000 to come from central taxation or from rates? What is the policy in regard to rates? Is it intended, for example, that there shall be, so to speak, a destruction of local bodies plus a rise in rates as a result of legislation passed by the central Parliament? All that is something which might be envisaged in one White Paper. We might have a general view before we proceed to discuss particular pieces of legislation which will accomplish a very considerable revolution. Again, it has to be remembered that there is a very important difference between central taxation and local rates. If you have no income, you are not called upon to pay income-tax but whether you have an income or not you must pay rates if you have a rateable valuation on your house and you cannot have a house without a rateable valuation. A number of important points of that kind arise which are not explained.

Similarly, with regard to public health, it is not explained why it is proposed to appoint a Minister for Public Health. At the moment there is a Parliamentary Secretary in charge of that Department and, if I am to take the Taoiseach literally, Parliamentary Secretaries appear to have more independence than Ministers. That may again explain the behaviour of some of them but we shall let that pass. We have the decision on the part of the Government to appoint a Minister for Public Health. We have at the moment a Public Health Bill of a very drastic voluminous character going through the Dáil which will eventually come to the Seanad. When that has been passed, it will be presented to the new Minister. In other words, what the Minister has to do in detail, and what his relations are to be to the local bodies, is decided before he is appointed at all. That would appear to me to be rather a mistake. It is not, therefore, explanatory memoranda of particular Bills. You want rather to look at the problem as a whole, with an opportunity given to the two Houses of the Oireachtas to discuss these general proposals.

Examples were given from Great Britain of medical services. The difference in our method of approach to these things and that of the British method is very remarkable. We have a Public Health Bill which got no public discussion before it was printed. The Bill was presented to the doctors who are very important persons in this regard. They were not allowed to express their views to the Parliamentary Secretary in conference on the matter until the Bill had received a Second Reading, in other words, until the principle of the Bill had been decided. Now that is surely a wrong attitude. It is a different attitude from that of the British.

Even on education, I was wondering as the debate went on, whether if people had been compelled by usage and by circumstances to set out say 20 years ago what our policy was on education in a White Paper, whether it would not be very interesting reading now, and whether we would not be able to compare what has happened in the last 20 years to what we set out to achieve. Would it not be a good thing now, for example, in connection particularly with education, if we had set out a statement of Government policy with regard to some of the very important matters that arise in education? A Bill does not always explain Government policy. This House will remember a School Attendance Bill in which there was a particular section which we debated for days and days, and which finally was declared by the Supreme Court to be ultra vires the Constitution. In spite of the fact that that section was in the Bill, this House certainly failed to get any explanation as to what the section was intended to mean. Senators who were members of the House at the time will recollect the particular section to which I am alluding.

Take the British method of dealing with social insurance. The Beveridge plan was printed, containing certain very important principles to one of which the Taoiseach alluded. It was forgotten, in a good deal of the discussion on that plan, that the putting of it into operation depended on a rise in production in Great Britain. Here there is no such document setting forth what the attitude of mind of the Government is. You get it indicated by the fact that the Minister for Local Government sets forth a theory which is completely contrary to democratic policy and democratic procedure, namely that anybody he appoints must be his servant, not only for the carrying out of his particular duties but that that individual must never express himself in public in any way which would indicate that he disagrees with the Minister.

The Taoiseach appears to be of opinion—I have heard other Ministers say the same thing—that the procedure for turning out Bills is too slow for the public need. Long before Fianna Fáil came into office I did not believe that. I never believed it. My belief is that the procedure for turning out Bills is far too fast for the public need. What Ministers mean when they say that the procedure for turning out Bills is too slow for the public need is that the procedure is too slow for what the Government think is the public need, which is quite a different thing. I really think that, in spite of the fact that the motion does not express on its face, apparently, what Senator Sir John Keane means, he is quite right in saying that we should have, where it is possible, and even if it means delay, a comprehensive statement and general plan from the Government, which would be before the public and which would serve to educate the public. Members of the two Houses might discuss it in their own circles with interested people. We should not be in the position that legislation would be passed in this way: one Bill now and one Bill again, so that when they had become Acts you found that you had actually accomplished a revolution of which you had got no notice. I think that Senator Sir John Keane deserves our gratitude for having brought that point to the notice of the House and to the public. At the same time I think the motion is one which, obviously, could not be the subject of a division.

Sir John Keane

I have no intention whatever of putting the motion to a division. I do not know that there has ever been a division in this House on any of the motions which I have brought before it in this way. Their object is to stimulate discussion on matters of importance, and I feel that has been effected in this case. I agree with the Taoiseach that I might have been a little more precise in the terms of my motion, but I assumed, and I think rightly, that he knew what had been happening for years past in Great Britain on this subject of White Papers or, as one might call it, advanced news on the principles of legislation. I was rather disappointed that he should have stressed so strongly the differences in machinery and procedure as between ourselves and Great Britain and did not enter more into what I had in mind, namely the spirit of the whole proposal.

With regard to procedure, I am really not convinced by his argument. Take education, to which I was glad to hear Senator Hayes refer. Some reform in education is long overdue. We can go along perfectly well for the next two years, but would it not be possible during that time to set out the framework of that reform? Let me stress this, that I do not mean that the White Paper should set forth definite proposals to which the Government of the day would be committed. I think that if the heads of proposals were set forth in the White Paper they might serve the public need. We would not be committed to them, but we would like to get the reaction of the public to them. When we had heard what people had to say about them, then we could frame our legislation to a certain extent, and its preparation could go on concurrently with the discussion in public of what was in the White Paper.

I am very grateful to the Taoiseach for the sympathetic, although rather restricted, manner in which he has accepted my proposal. I do ask him to keep an open mind on the spirit of the proposal, that is, the necessity for bringing the people as a whole, as well as the various organisations of the people, into closer touch with legislation. Is it the intention that this White Paper which we are going to have on public legislation, and which I feel we should have had before the Public Health Bill was introduced, should be circulated to the local authorities and the health authorities for their comments, and will their comments be considered before the legislation is introduced? I am not asking the Taoiseach to answer that question now. In conclusion, I thank the House for the way it has received the motion. The discussion on it has not been in vain. With the leave of the House, I beg to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

The Seanad adjourned at 9 p.m. until Wednesday, the 10th April, 1946, at 3 p.m.