We will now take the Ministers and Secretaries Bill, 1924, from the Seanad. The Dáil will go into Committee to take the amendments from the Seanad to this Bill.
MINISTERS AND SECRETARIES BILL, 1924—FROM THE SEANAD.
I move:—
That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 1 as follows:—
Section 6.—In sub-section (2) the words "retain the support of a majority in Dáil Eireann" in lines 41-42, deleted and the words "hold office" substituted therefor.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 7.—In sub-section (2) the words "retain the support of the majority in Dáil Eireann," in lines 54-55, deleted, and the words "hold office" substituted therefor.
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in this amendment," which is consequential.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 8.—In sub-section (1) the words "Executive Council and the Oireachtas respectively," deleted in line 24, and the word "Dáil" substituted therefor.
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in this amendment."
There appears to be an implicit suggestion here that the Minister for Defence shall be responsible direct to the Dáil. I do not know if it is intended to place the Minister for Defence in a different position from that of any other Minister belonging to the Executive Council, or what the effect of the explicit statement—that the Minister for Defence be responsible to the Dáil—exactly would be.
There is no change in the position. It does not affect the position of the Minister, because if he is, as he presumably will be, a member of the Executive Council, the section simply says that there is nothing to derogate from his responsibility, which is the collective responsibility of the Dáil. As a matter of fact, the substitution of "Dáil" for "Oireachtas" was to have been made here, but through some slip it was not actually inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
In sub-section 5 before the word "members," line 55, the word "military" inserted.
In sub-section 5, after the word "Defence" in line 57, the words "but in no case for a longer period continuously than three years" inserted.
I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in these two amendments." They go together. The word "military" is put in there to distinguish as between, say, the Minister for Defence and the Parliamentary Secretary. It is really meant for the Adjutant-General, the Quartermaster-General and the Chief of Staff.
With regard to the second of these amendments, I am not quite clear as to whether its insertion would mean that an officer who had acted as Chief of Staff for a period of three years, and was, because of that, a member of the Defence Council, could be transferred to the position of Quartermaster-General, and thereby be left as a member of the Defence Council for a period of perhaps longer than three years. It does seem to me advisable that you would be able to do that if you desired to make the best possible use of certain officers in certain circumstances, and I think it would be inadvisable if the clause prevented you from doing that.
The only effect of it is that an officer is a member of the Army Council with a limit of three years. He would then revert to his military position, and he might subsequently go back in some other capacity into the Army Council.
What I want to make plain is that in the case of an officer who had acted for three years in the position of Chief of Staff, with the experience gained in that position, it might be very advisable, in making a change, that that officer, instead of returning to the Army proper, would become Quartermaster-General or Adjutant-General. If he had shown himself to be a man of particular ability he would have influenced matters to a certain extent in the Chief of Staff's Department, and have had to do with the work of co-ordination arising as between the Chief of Staff's, the Adjutant-General's and the Quartermaster-General's Departments. Both the Adjutant-General's Department and the Quartermaster-General's Department Minister to the responsibility of the machine; that is, a regular military machine should be worked in accordance with the ideas of the Chief of Staff in war time, and it would be most advisable that you would not prevent yourself, by legislation, from passing a Chief of Staff direct to the position of Adjutant-General or of Quartermaster-General.
Within the period of three years he may, of course, move about from one of these offices to another within the Council.
That is quite possible, but it is also quite possible that a man might spend his full three years in one of these administrative capacities and that it might be advisable to transfer him direct to another of them.
I think that Deputy Mulcahy rather agreed to a limitation being placed upon the period during which a soldier might be allowed to retain one of these offices and thereby be a member of the Council of Defence, the Army Council. The result of the suggestion he is now making might well mean permanence, because there might be a continual rotation of the same three men. That might be a very good thing—I am not arguing against it—it would be quite possible and perhaps reasonable, if this section had not been put in at all. The whole section seems to me to be very well worthy of reconsideration in view of recent developments, but certainly the view taken previously was that there should be some limitation upon the period during which a member of the Army Council should retain his position on that Council. Unless some limitation of this kind is inserted there might be a continual rotation and there might be a permanent holding of one of these offices.
The intention in putting in this amendment was that, first of all, three officers, however competent, capable or experienced, would not become what we call indispensable institutions, and that while there are enormous advantages to be gained through a good deal of experience and great administrative ability, one must consider that sooner or later one or other of these officers, or perhaps all three, may have to leave their positions. It was not intended, I think, that those three officers would come into office on a particular date and leave office three years exactly from that date; and it was certainly intended that while functioning in the ordinary way in their capacity as members of the Defence Council, they themselves would leave these offices, and enjoy some of the administrative institutions or regulations that they themselves drew up. In that way greater experience might have been learned by them when again they would take up these offices of Adjutant-General, Quartermaster-General, or Chief of Staff, and to that extent I think that the section as amended is better than it was as it left the Dáil. There is a limitation, and opportunities will be afforded to the Minister for Defence of getting other officers to take up these responsible positions as time goes on. It would not be necessary to change the whole three at first. A period might be given for a change, and it would be advisable, in the event of our ever having a war period, to have a number of officers capable of taking up the administrative duties of this particular Council, without giving a jolt to the administrative machinery of the Ministry of Defence.
Do I take it then what is intended is that an officer shall not be a member of the Council of Defence, in whatever capacity, for a period longer than three years continuously? I would like also if it could be made clear that this arrangement is not made because anybody who previously held any of the offices mentioned in the section developed any idea of proprietorship. A statement has been made in the Press, as from the Attorney-General, speaking in the Seanad, that it was consequent upon a danger of people developing proprietary ideas that this clause is brought in. The utility of the clause is that it gives rotation of duties, and whatever may be said about the danger, personally I feel very keenly that a statement like that should be made, and I protest very much against the suggestion. It is strong evidence of the dope that has permeated the discussions, and what went before the discussions, of the last month.
As a matter of personal explanation, what I suggested in the Seanad, according to the best of my recollection—I have not read the Official Report—was that the intention of the amendment was to permit of rotation, and to see that a number of persons gained this experience. I believe I did use a phrase as to anyone acquiring a sense of proprietorship, but I want absolutely to disclaim any intention of having referred to, or having in mind, any particular individual or individuals. If I had such an idea I would be prejudging other matters, but I certainly had no person in mind.
Question put, and agreed to.
I move: That the Committee agree with the Seanad in this amendment:—
"Section 18.—Immediately before Section 18 a new section inserted as follows:—
"Every mention or reference contained in any Act of the Oireachtas passed before this Act or which shall be passed in the present Session of the Oireachtas or in any order, rule, or regulation made or to be made under any such Act, of or to any of the Ministers mentioned in the first column of the Tenth Part of the Schedule to this Act shall be construed and take effect as a mention of or reference to the Minister, head of a Department of State established under this Act, mentioned in the second column of the said Tenth Part of the said Schedule opposite the Minister mentioned in the said first column."
I might explain that the object of this amendment is this: In a number of statutes which have been passed by the Dáil there are references to persons who are now Ministers and who are assigned to particular departments, and in order to preserve the continuity, and to interpret the statutes that contain these references it was necessary to have a Definition Clause of this kind showing that the Ministers under this Bill are the equivalent Ministers to those named in the various statutes.
Question put and agreed to.
I move:—
That the Committee agree with the Seanad in this amendment:—
Schedule.—In the headings to the First to Eighth Parts inclusive the words "Aire" and "Minister" deleted and the words "Roinn" and "Department" respectively substituted therefor.
Before we agree, I think that this is the same sort of amendment as in the case of the Courts of Justice Bill. The Attorney-General stigmatised it as very inconvenient to substitute certain words throughout the whole Schedule. Certainly it makes it read very badly; I am not criticising the Irish but the English, if you substitute "Department" for "Minister." It reads: "Department for Finance,""Department for Justice,""Department for Local Government and Public Health"—surely it ought to be "Department of"?
It ought.
I do not know if the Attorney-General would take a verbal amendment to substitute "Department of" and delete "Minister for." It would read better.
I think it will be found in the records of the Seanad that it should read "Department of." I do not think that would involve sending it back to the Seanad.
Then this is the wrong amendment.
I think the word is wrong. At any rate, it is entirely a matter of grammar.
Is it ruled that it must go back to the Seanad if this change is made?
I am afraid it must. The Attorney-General suggests that the original of the amendment is "Department of," and if we have that in the record it is only a printer's error or a slip in the office, and we can amend it.
I do not want the Bill delayed in view of the fact that we are paying the Parliamentary Secretary of the Executive Council at a higher rate than we would be after the Bill is passed, and, perhaps, even good English could be too dearly bought.
Amendment 7 is on the Paper as we received it. Is the Attorney-General proposing a new amendment, or is he simply going by the Seanad amendment?
I am putting it to you, Sir, for a ruling whether the Clerk cannot correct a slight matter of grammar, otherwise we will have to have a new amendment.
I take it that this has arisen in the transfer from the Seanad to the Dáil, and, therefore, the discussion had better be adjourned until we have had communication with the Clerk of the Seanad.
I wonder could we take it that the intention of the Committee is to agree with the amendment made in the Seanad? If the amendment as passed there contains the word "of," it will be right in the Act.
Question put and agreed to.
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in this amendment: In the Fifth Part after the words Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries' the word `except' inserted."
I should say that the word "except" was dropped in the printing.
Question put and agreed to.
I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 9: In the ninth part, in the fourth line, the word `solicitors' be deleted."
Question put and agreed to.
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 10: The following part added at the end of the Schedule."
|
TENTH PART. |
|
|
Ministers named in former Acts. |
Corresponding Ministers under this Act. |
|
Minister for Finance. |
Aire Airgid (Minister for Finance). |
|
Minister for Home Affairs. |
Aire Dlí agus Cirt (Minister for Justice). |
|
Minister for Local Government. |
Aire Rialtais Aitiúla agus Sláinte Phuiblí (Minister for Local Government and Public Health). |
|
Minister for Education. |
Aire Oideachais (Minister for Education). |
|
Minister for Agriculture. |
Aire Tailte agus Talmhaíochta (Minister for Lands and Agriculture). |
|
Minister for Industry and Commerce. |
Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála (Minister for Industry and Commerce). |
|
Minister for Fisheries. |
Aire Iascaigh (Minister for Fisheries). |
|
Postmaster-General. |
Aire Puist agus Telegrafa (Minister for Posts and Telegraphs). |
|
Minister for Defence. |
Aire Cosanta (Minister for Defence). |
|
Minister for External Affairs. |
Aire Gnóthaí Coigríche (Minister for External Affairs). |
Question put and agreed to.