The discussion on this Bill has indicated a general welcome for the basic idea and an acknowledgement of the fact that something must be done to try to ease the burden which lies today on a number of Ministers. There is a widespread acknowledgment of the fact that the burden and complexity of government have grown enormously without any corresponding change in the structure and organisation of government.
Deputy Garret FitzGerald, Leader of the Fine Gael Party, complained that the Taoiseach was not here to deal with this Bill. It is a matter of opinion as to whether it required the attendance of the Taoiseach. It seemed clear that Deputy Cluskey as Leader of the Labour Party did not consider that it required his attendance or participation. The Bill shows on its face that it was introduced by the Minister for the Public Service and I thought Deputy Garret FitzGerald rather overdid that point.
I noticed that Deputy Garret FitzGerald and subsequently Deputy O'Leary urged that we should give consideration to the appointment of Parliamentary Private Secretaries, Deputies of this House who would assist the Minister but in an unpaid capacity. I know that in Britain there is such an institution but I am not too sure how it has worked out in practice. I would certainly give consideration to this suggestion in conjunction with my colleagues to see if sufficient benefit could be derived from it to justify the change.
Deputy Garret FitzGerald also referred to the Cabinet system. I am not quite sure if he was urging us to adopt it. I want to make it clear that as far as we are concerned we have not adopted that system but neither are we closing the door on that prospect. Certain arrangements are in train which would not amount in any way to a Cabinet system but would amount to most Ministers having an adviser or an assistant who would be brought in temporarily from outside the civil service. That is not, of course, a Cabinet system but I mention it because I want to make it clear that as far as we are concerned we are not tied to any particular line of approach in this regard. I do not want at this stage, because I do not think it would be relevant on this Bill, to go into the arguments in favour of and against the Cabinet approach. There are arguments on both sides and as far as I am concerned, the system that is best suited to meeting the problems that have to be faced will hopefully evolve as we get further into the problem.
I want to make it clear in regard to a point made by Deputy FitzGerald and others that the kind of duties that will be assigned to Ministers of State will be announced later, after the positions have been created. It is clear from the Bill that what is proposed is that the position of Parliamentary Secretaries are being abolished and they are becoming Ministers of State and instead of there being seven Parliamentary Secretaries, on the passage of this Bill, there will be ten Ministers of State. There will be three net additional persons available to deal with the kind of burden we have been talking about. Whether three will be adequate is a matter of opinion. However, after detailed consideration it was the Government's view that this would be sufficient. A good deal depends, of course, on how they are deployed.
As I indicated, it is intended to increase the scope and weight of duties of Ministers of State as compared with Parliamentary Secretaries. In other words, it is intended to use them to a greater degree and in many cases they will have a more detailed and weighty responsibility.
Deputy O'Leary made a point that was made by Deputy Barry today. A number of their arguments were based on what is a false assumption and that is that it was the Coalition Government who had experienced the burdens of the EEC membership, attendance at Council meetings and all that that involved and that we did not know about this and were only finding out about it now and that was one of the reasons we are bringing in this Bill. That is not so. I attended quite a number of Council meetings and engaged in negotiations during 1972 before we formally joined the EEC.
The Danes, the British and ourselves and also the Norwegians up to the time of their referendum participated fully in the various Council meetings. Therefore, we had considerable experience of the pressures that arise as a result of conflict for a Minister between his obligation to attend Council meetings in Brussels or Luxembourg and his obligations at home in relation to business in this House, to Government meetings and to the various other duties he must perform.
There is no satisfactory solution to this problem but the Bill is designed at least to ease the burden to some extent. Regarding the suggestion that the Bill was introduced on foot of our recent experience in the EEC, I would remind the House that on the first day of the new Dáil, 5th July, the Taoiseach announced his proposal to appoint Ministers of State. Consequently, there is no foundation in the argument that the Bill is a reaction by Fianna Fáil to their learning about the burdens of the EEC. We were not unaware of these burdens when in Opposition and when our opposite members were slaving away on behalf of the country. The burden is a heavy one but one should not make too much of it. It is not an excuse for electoral defeat. Some members of the Coalition tried to use it for that purpose. Indeed, there were people who tried to use a similar excuse in 1973. The burden is part of the way Government must be conducted so one must endeavour to gear the Government into running their business to the load placed on them. Failure to do this is not an excuse for any government in the event of their losing an election.
