Vol. 429 No. 7
1 Mr. Durkan asked the Taoiseach to whom the responsibilities of the Taoiseach and those of the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs were devolved during the period in which both were absent from the country; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
In accordance with normal practice, it was not necessary to make formal agency orders assigning to other members of the Government either my own duties and functions or those of the Tánaiste during our absence. Both the Tánaiste and myself remained in charge of and in direct contact with our respective Departments throughout the short periods of our absences abroad during the Easter recess.
May I ask the Taoiseach, in the event of an emergency arising in Ireland while both he and the Tánaiste were abroad, who would have fulfilled the role of the Taoiseach or Tánaiste?
While there is no provision in the Constitution for the making of any agency orders in relation to either the duties of the Taoiseach or the Tánaiste, they are normally made in relation to the statutory functions of Ministers such as the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Finance only. There is no other provision in relation to it. The normal practice is that the next senior Government Minister takes over. Both the Tánaiste and myself were in direct contact — because of our modern telecommunications system it takes only five or ten seconds to make a call — with our respective Departments.
Would the Taoiseach not agree that it is contrary to the spirit if not the letter of the constitution for the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste to be absent at the same time? Would the Taoiseach not agree that the thinking behind that constitutional provision was that one or other would be within the country while the other was away?
That is contrary to what the Deputy's learned colleague, the late John Kelly, an eminent constitutional lawyer, wrote about certain situations. If Deputy O'Keeffe is suggesting to me that this never happened before then he is not correct.
I am not suggesting that.
Since the Constitution states that the Tánaiste shall perform the functions of the Taoiseach when the Taoiseach is temporarily absent abroad, does it not follow that there is correlative duty on the Tánaiste to remain in the country when the Taoiseach is absenting himself?
No, it does not follow. It is not the first time it has happened and it is quite possible it will happen again.
If the Taoiseach's interpretation is correct and if I take the point to its absurd conclusion, is he saying that when both are abroad — and the Constitution states that the Tánaiste shall take over when the Taoiseach is away — that the Tanaiste, who I understand was on holidays in Morocco during Easter, was actually performing the functions of the Taoiseach, who at that time was elsewhere? Is that not the absurd interpretation that the Taoiseach is now putting on the constitutional provision?
That may be the absurd conclusion that Deputy O'Keeffe is taking from it, but it is not my conclusion or that of anybody else. The Tánaiste and the Taoiseach keep in regular contact with their Departments and consequently the question of acting when somebody is abroad does not arise.
Deputy M. McDowell rose.
Order, please. I want to bring this question to finality. I am calling Deputy De Rossa for a brief question.
Is the Taoiseach's position not leading to the conclusion that the role of Tánaiste is superfluous?
No, that is not my conclusion either.
Would the Taoiseach accept from me that the country did very well in the absence of both himself and the Tánaiste.
If both the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste were to depart for the afternoon we would do just as well today.
I thought we had dealt sufficiently with this question. I am calling the sponsor of the question, Deputy Durkan.
Is the Taoiseach now indicating that the role of Taoiseach and Tánaiste can equally be filled when they are both absent from the country at the same time? Does he accept, given the important and pivotal role the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste played in the negotiations prior to the formation of a Government, that their roles appear to be undermined by the absence of both from the country at the same time?
I am afraid we are having repetition?
I disagree with the Deputy in that totally absurd conclusion. If he wishes to read the late John Kelly's book on the Irish Constitution and articles by many other eminent writers, he will find that his conclusions are way off the mark.
Since Questions Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 to the Taoiseach have been withdrawn, we now come to Question No. 5 in the name of Deputy Jim O'Keeffe.
