Amendment No. 2 is consequential on amendment No. 1 and both may be discussed together.
Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill, 1995: Committee and Final Stages.
SECTION 1.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 2, line 11, after "15,", to insert the following:
"and by the addition of the following proviso:
`Provided that the additional appointments not be made until a full examination of the duties, responsibilities and workload of the existing 15 Ministers of State be examined by the Committee of Public Accounts and that the report from that examination is laid before and adopted by both Houses of the Oireachtas'.".
Having witnessed what one could accurately describe as a pyrrhic victory — where there have been casualties in the course of victory — I do not intend to delay the House for long in discussing this amendment. I wish to make two points and my colleague Senator Roche will elaborate on the purpose of the amendment. My first point is — and I have reservations about moving an amendment at this point — that it is the function of the Executive not Parliament to make decisions in respect of the efficient management and administration of Government. The people will judge whether the Government is discharging that responsibility.
I referred today to specious arguments which oblige honest men to support cases they did not believe. I do not intend to embarrass them further beyond saying that clearly the Government has reached the decision for reasons known to every elector. It would be futile for me to suggest that any argument I advance here will get a response from the Minister of State or the Government.
The second point is that this is passing responsibility to the House or a committee of the House to undo bad Government decisions. I am aware that there is no disposition in the House to consider the validity of the arguments Senator Roche is about to advance. For that reason I propose the amendment in our name. It has a great deal to recommend it, but it will not get any response, having regard to the response we have already received to the arguments presented.
Like Senator O'Kennedy I am convinced of the realities of political life and that in many ways it is a numbers game. Arguments against what is proposed here will not be listened to on the other side of the House. This is sad, because I know many Members on the far side and in the Dáil are uneasy about what is proposed in this legislation.
Now that the Minister is here, I will correct one small factual error in his presentation and I am sure he will forgive me for so doing. He referred to my being an adviser in the office of the Department of Economic Planning and Development in the period——
Senator, you are moving away from the amendment. Please come quickly to it.
I wish to correct the Minister, because I know he is a man who likes accuracy. I was an adviser in the office of the Department of Economic Planning and Development for a brief period in 1977-78, a period when the economy grew dramatically. I left to go to the United Nations and within a matter of weeks the economy took a tumble, not that I would claim any credit for either. The salient point is that while I was an adviser to a Fianna Fáil Minister, a good Minister, I was also a full-time civil servant. We did not engage in the type of patronage we are seeing in this legislation.
The purpose of the amendment is to put it to those people who argue that there is a role to be played in public administration, that there is such a role to be played in the governance of this State by the elected Members of both the Dáil and the Seanad, and especially to those who argue that they are of independent mind that they could by supporting this amendment, play a role in expanding the traditional job of both Houses of the Oireachtas.
This amendment proposes simply that the necessity of having 17 Ministers of State, two at least over the odds, be considered objectively by the Committee of Public Accounts, a committee with an in-built Government majority, and that a report come back to both Houses of the Oireachtas. Both Houses would then be armed with the objective criteria on which to make the decision that is being made here. Senator Lee made a perceptive comment, when he spoke about genuinely not knowing whether 15, 13, 16 or 17 Ministers of State was the appropriate number. This amendment enables the Senator, and those like him who wish to approach this matter in as objective a way as is possible for politicians to approach it, to make some judgement, based not on the political factors which have determined the degree of cronyism which we are seeing here, but on factors related more to objectivity.
I suggest by the amendment that the Committee of Public Accounts undertake a quick review of the position of the 17 Ministers of State now proposed, ascertain if we need that number and if we could save money and return quickly to both House of the Oireachtas. If the answer is yes, that 17 is needed, let the appointments proceed with everybody's support.
This is not an entirely mischievous amendment. It is based on the view, which I share with many Members of the House, that we are more than merely ciphers and cannon fodder in the support of rather silly decisions which Governments sometimes make.
The Minister appreciates why we have had to create these two posts but would it not be a good idea if, just for once, we could give a real role to the Houses of the Oireachtas in the governance of this State? I doubt that anything I say will bring two people across the line to our side of the House, but it would be difficult for people who want to be objective about this matter not to at least give it some consideration. I commend the amendment to the House.
I do not understand this amendment and I require clarification. It does not, will not and cannot do what the previous two Senators have indicated it might. The amendment is very clear. It proposes to defer the appointment until such time as a report from the Committee of Public Accounts is adopted by both Houses of the Oireachtas.
In the course of his contribution, Senator Roche spoke of the answer being "yes" or "no." However, it is clear from a reading of the amendment that it does not matter one whit whether the answer is "yes" or "no", for as long as it is adopted by both Houses of the Oireachtas, the appointments will be made. It does not stop or qualify the appointments. It does nothing except defer them until such time as the report is adopted. It does not matter what is in the report.
It is irrelevant if it says that there is not enough work for 15 Ministers or there is enough work for 50 Ministers. The appointments will be made if it is adopted by both Houses. In view of this I wish it to be indicated what exactly is intended by the amendment? It simply defers the appointments, and the content of the possible report from the Committee of Public Accounts has no bearing whatsoever on the appointments. I presume if the report says we have too many Ministers of State, the Opposition would accept it, and if it says we do not have enough Ministers of State, the Government parties would accept it, but it does not matter. As long as the report is adopted by both Houses, the appointments proceed without change.
Apart from the fact that I have an in built abhorrence of the idea of a committee undertaking an assessment of work practices, work experiences and workloads, time and motion studies by committees are a recipe for disaster. I do not know what is involved in this. It is no more than mischievous, because it does not do what it purports to do. It is poorly put together, it has no relevance to the speech Senator Roche made and I would like an indication of what is meant by it.
If I do take the trouble of explaining to Senator O'Toole what is, after all, a very simple motion, would he accept it? The reality is that Senator O'Toole, who likes to posture about his independence, made his decision once he decided to take the shilling in this regard. Having taken the shilling——
(Interruptions.)
Senator Roche, please resume your seat for a moment. In fairness, I must ask you to withdraw that comment.
The shilling comment?
Yes.
If I explain what the comment means——
Excuse me. Senator. I think I understand and it is not a nice comment. I ask you to withdraw that comment.
I withdraw the word "shilling" and I will elaborate as to what I mean in more parliamentary terms. I withdraw the comment.
Withdraw it to the House.
I am withdrawing it to the House and to Senator O'Toole.
Thank you. Senator Roche. Proceed with your contribution.
The inaccuracy of the Senator's comments bothered me.
Precisely. As Senator O'Toole has said, it is not the comment; it is the accuracy.
The lack of accuracy of the comment.
I would never suggest that Senator O'Toole has sold his independence for a mere shilling. I would like to know, in this new age of transparency. objectivity and of all the other buzzwords, precisely what arrangements have actually been made. Perhaps when Senator O'Toole comes back on this——
This is not in the amendment, Senator. I ask you to deal with the amendment. I am trying to be fair.
Yes, you are and you have made your point. I will get on with Senator O'Toole's questions. Senator O'Toole said he could not understand what the amendment means.
I know what it means. How is it meant to do what you said it would do?
I will explain precisely what it is meant to do. The Committee of Public Accounts has in the last number of years extended its remit to look into the issue of efficiency in public expenditure, an extension which was led and pushed through by the Chairman of that committee, Deputy J. Mitchell. All Members in all Houses accepted this extension of the role of the committee as not just valid but timely and very worthwhile. The committee of the House that controls the public purse constitutionally, that is the Committee of Public Accounts, should have an objective look at whether or not we need to have 15 or more Ministers of State. If the answer——
That has nothing to do with the amendment.
I can understand Senator O'Toole's embarrassment, I really can. I have a certain sympathy for him. But the more he wriggles the more he will impale himself. The point here is that it will give the committee, which is made up of Members of the other House, a majority of whom are from the Government side, an opportunity to sit down and examine whether or not we need 15 or more than 15 Ministers of State and make a report — no more than that — to both Houses. Both Houses can either adopt or reject the report; and if they make a positive report, if we need 17 or 18 Ministers of State, would it not be a good thing? We could then endorse it. To answer the last part of Senator O'Toole's comment, if the Committee of Public Accounts came back and made such a report in a convincing manner I personally would have no difficulty in endorsing it, because I believe that we should have openness, transparency, accountability and objectivity.
It does not change the Bill.
You can scratch away — it does, it is an amendment to the Bill — you can scratch away and wriggle whatever way you want, everybody in this House knows what this amendment it meant to attain. If Senators do not want to vote for it, they should not vote for it, but Senator O'Toole should not put forward specious arguments to try and cover his evident embarrassment.
A Chathaoirligh——
I would like to bring in the Minister fairly soon.
That is all right, the Minister is a player as well. A Chathaoirligh, first, in regard to the specious comments of a personal nature that Senator Roche threw in, as he always does when he runs out of serious argument, I am a practical politician, but I have not sold myself for a shilling, a pound or any other item that I can think of either. That is for the record. Perhaps Senator Roche has difficulty coming to terms with that. I gave my reasons today why I was voting on the Bill. I want to put a particular point. If the Committee of Public Accounts comes back with a recommendation that there should only be 13 Ministers of State, that report is then adopted by the House. According to this amendment we then appoint 17 Ministers of State. That is exactly what is written on this amendment and I am simply drawing that to the attention of the proposers. That is not an interpretation of the amendment. That is the English language written here in front of us. I am simply pointing out to the Senators who proposed this amendment that it does not do what they are setting out to do, no more and no less. I would do that as a matter of course with any amendment.
Of course one is always ready to enlist help from people who have an independent and objective view. If Senator O'Toole would suggest to us — although I do not necessarily agree with his presentation — ways and means by which the amendment could be improved so that we could have the supremacy of the Committee of Public Accounts that Senator Roche has referred to, we would gladly welcome that advice and that sophisticated contribution. I ask Senator O'Toole through you, Sir, if he is ready to give us that suggestion so that we could implement what it is that he thinks we should be doing.
The rules of the House do not allow an amendment to an amendment, as the Senator should well know. He has been here long enough.
I am sure Senator O'Toole wishes to be helpful. If he is truly interested in the whole issue of parliamentary reform we could, as I understand the rules of the House, take a further amendment from him on Report Stage. We would be more than willing to take his expertise on board in that regard.
We do not want to engage in unnecessary political wrangling. There is no point in delaying the House on Report Stage unless we have an indication from Senator O'Toole that he has such intention. If he has then we will withdraw this amendment now or leave it be and have it amended further on Report Stage. If Senator O'Toole wishes to give us that useful contribution, we are all very anxious to use it.
It is open to any Member of the House who wishes to put forward an amendment on Report Stage to do so.
A Chathaoirligh, I support this amendment as well. In reference to what Senator O'Kennedy says, I doubt if Senator O'Toole could bring himself to support it because earlier on he said that were someone to repeat in this House what our Leader has said on television, namely, that if and when Fianna Fáil return to Government they would not appoint two extra junior Ministers, he would reconsider his position when the vote came. This was done, but unfortunately he did not do so. I doubt if he will change his mind in this case either.
Did I hear Senator O'Toole correctly as saying that if we withdrew this amendment at this Stage, he would actually provide us with an alternative amendment on Report Stage?
Let me clarify the position. It is unfortunate that the Senators were not following the debate during the course of the day. I made it quite clear why I was supporting this legislation today. I have made clear my reservations and my support for it. I made clear what I saw were the flaws in it and the difficulties that it created for Government and I also indicated the mess the Government has made out of this series of appointments. I have said, however, that I was prepared to support it and that remains my position. Nothing that I said in the last ten minutes changes my position. It is important to point out to the House that when people put forward an amendment which purports to do something other than it sets out to do, it is the duty of Members of the House to point that out. That is what I did. I have no intention of putting forward an amendment on Report Stage.
The amendments put down by Senator O'Kennedy and Senator Roche are to the effect that the Committee of Public Accounts should examine the duties, responsibilities and workload of the existing 15 Ministers of State and that their report should be accepted by both Houses of the Oireachtas. We could not accept this proposal for two reasons. First, it is contrary to the terms of reference of the Committee of Public Accounts, which state:
The Committee shall also refrain from enquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government or a Minister of the Government or the merits of the objectives of such policies.
I have just quoted from section 3 of Standing Order 130 of the Committee of Public Accounts agreed by Order of the Dáil on 3 March 1994.
The proposed amendment is contrary also to this standing Order in two other respects. First, the allocation of duties and responsibilities to Ministers of State is essentially a policy matter and, second, the examination of such allocation would involve the Committee of Public Accounts in a line of questioning of Ministers and Ministers of State which would be of a clear policy nature. However, even if the terms of the Committee of Public Accounts permitted such an examination and report, it would be highly undesirable that the committee should involve itself in such essentially political considerations.
The success of the Committee of Public Accounts and other committees which are and will be in place requires that party political division is put to one side and that a spirit of co-operation should prevail. This proposal would undermine this essential ethos of the Committee of Public Accounts and committees in general. Accordingly, this proposed amendment will serve no useful purpose other than to obstruct the business of Government. I urge the House to reject the proposed amendment.
I am aware — and I am sure the Minister knows this — of the terms of reference of the Committee of Public Accounts. It is a committee which I have argued and written about over the years. There is nothing in the terms of reference which would prevent the Committee of Public Accounts, with the agreement of both Houses of the Oireachtas, taking on this additional role. That is a specious argument.
The Minister made the point that this is essentially a policy matter. It is essentially a political matter. I accept what is being done is political; it is for politics and expediency and to get the Minister and his Taoiseach out of a hole which they dug themselves into. The reality is that it is also an expenditure matter. Hundreds and thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money will be invested over the next two years in these additional Ministers of State positions which are not needed. I believe that is a matter on which the Committee of Public Accounts could have a relevant role to play.
Senator Lee made the point about the necessity of developing some role for examining all of this. In fact, this is not alien to parliamentary procedures elsewhere. It could be done if there was a political will to do so. Without being personal, the only comment which came to mind when the Minister spoke was that parliamentary reform and Dáil and Seanad reform bites the dust yet again.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 26; Níl 31.
Tá
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Dardis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Haughey, Edward.
- Honan, Cathy.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Lydon, Don.
- McGennis, Marian.
- McGowan, Paddy.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- Ormonde, Ann.
- Roche, Dick.
- Wright, G. V.
Níl
- Belton, Louis J.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Calnan, Michael.
- Cashin, Bill.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Cregan, Denis (Dino).
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Gallagher, Ann.
- Henry, Mary.
- Howard, Michael.
- Kelly, Mary.
- Lee, Joe.
- McDonagh, Jarlath.
- Magner, Pat.
- Maloney, Sean.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Neville, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Jan.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Townsend, Jim.
- Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Mullooly and Fitzgerald; Níl, Senators Cosgrave and Magner.
Amendment declared lost.
As amendment No. 1 was defeated, amendment No. 2 cannot be moved.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Section 1 agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Before I call the next Stage, it has been brought to my attention that on page 2, line 18, of the Bill, after the words "this Act" the word "may" should be inserted. This is merely a very formal correction and I propose to direct the Clerk to make this correction under Standing Order 100.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
You have just pointed out a textual defect in the Bill. However, I want to address what is contained in the Bill and to explain why we cannot and will not support it. This is a bad Bill and it will set a precedent which will impact in a very negative and almost corrupt fashion on the working of parliamentary democracy. As the price of a coalition bargain — and I accept that this is not the only Government to make coalition bargains — we have undermined the role of the Oireachtas.
We have now brought about a situation where Members of the Dáil — a privilege which people used to respect — who do not hold office are being demeaned. When Members return to the people who elected them they will be looked upon as people of no quality or qualifications. With the plethora of responsibilities — if responsibility is not too kind a word — which has now been introduced by this legislation, that endangered species of backbenchers, who have no other role than that of being an honourable backbencher, is demeaned by this process.
This is a very bad day for democracy. This Bill which proposes to appoint two extra Ministers of State is a bad Bill, and not only because it does not achieve efficient administration. It was presented to us as part of a management deficiency. Would anybody dream of going to a citizen in any constituency and presenting this to them on that basis, without the confident expectation that they would be savaged or treated with contempt? This is the way this flawed Bill has been presented. It is a very bad day for democracy. I particularly worry about the fact that the influence of Government on its parliamentary party will, as a consequence of this Bill, be not just dominating but suffocating. The role of the parliamentary representative, which is — or should be — the essential feature of our democracy, is totally undermined by this type of nonsense.
We left it to the view of the Independents and it was sad to hear honest and honourable men present specious justification for this nonsense. However, they did so and it is another casualty of this pyrrhic victory. It appears Senator O'Toole indicated if he got a clear unqualified commitment on the part of Fianna Fáil that it would repeal this Bill, he would reconsider his position. Not only does he have the clear unqualified commitment from me as spokesman for Finance, that not alone will we repeal this Bill, but we will go further and review the role of all Ministers of State. We will repeal this Bill.
Review the Ministers also.
The Senator's party will repeal the drink driving laws too.
Senator O'Kennedy without interruption.
I give Senator O'Toole a clear unqualified commitment, as spokesman for Finance in the House, with the authority of my party leader——
Has the Senator got the authority?
Yes.
——and I state absolutely and without qualification that on return to Government Fianna Fáil will repeal this bad Bill and not just——
When the Senator's party is in Government.
——because it may enable Senator O'Toole to change his mind. This is hardly a sufficiently significant reason for any of us to give such a commitment, but simply because it is bad and tends to undermine the democracy we are here to represent. If it also has the consequence of enabling Senator O'Toole, in the light of that formal commitment, to reconsider his position, so be it. We oppose the Bill.
Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 30; Níl, 27.
Tá
- Belton, Louis J.
- Burke, Paddy.
- Calnan, Michael.
- Cashin, Bill.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Cregan, Denis (Dino).
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Gallagher, Ann.
- Henry, Mary.
- Howard, Michael.
- Kelly, Mary.
- Lee, Joe.
- McDonagh, Jarlath.
- Magner, Pat.
- Maloney, Sean.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Neville, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Jan.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Townsend, Jim.
- Wall, Jack.
Níl
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Dardis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Haughey, Edward.
- Honan, Cathy.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Lydon, Don.
- McGennis, Marian.
- McGowan, Paddy.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- Ormonde, Ann.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Roche, Dick.
- Wright, G.V.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Cosgrave and Magner; Níl, Senators Mullooly and Fitzgerald.
Question declared carried.