The Bill is required to give effect to the announcement by the Taoiseach in the Dáil on 5th July last that Ministers would be appointed who would not be members of the Government.
From time to time reference is made to ours being a young State. Such an observation carries with it a danger that we might underestimate the age of our political and administrative institutions and, therefore, fail to adapt them to the issues and circumstances which face us today. Furthermore, the accelerating pace of change in the post-war years makes it essential that we should, on occasion, look closely at the suitability of our institutions in a changing world. In the area of Government, this is an appropriate time for such a review.
The danger to which I referred has, for quite a period now, been appreciated where the public service is concerned. A general consciousness that segments of the civil service and many of its procedures antedated the foundation of the State prompted the initiation of the inquiry which culminated in the Report of the Public Services Organisation Review Group and the subsequent public debate on the necessity for keeping the machinery of Government under constant review. There has, until recently, been less awareness of the necessity for adapting the arrangements for ministerial direction of Government Departments and public agencies. This is not surprising. I think it was only those holding ministerial office who were fully aware of the burdens placed upon them by a combination of political, administrative and representational duties and even Ministers were inclined, perhaps, to regard these burdens as either an inevitable concomitant of office or the ephemeral product of exceptional times.
Up to 1937, the maximum number of Ministers permitted by the Constitution was 12; in addition the Ministers and Secretaries Acts provided for up to seven Parliamentary Secretaries. Under Bunreacht na hÉireann the maximum number of Ministers was increased to 15; the maximum number of Parliamentary Secretaries permitted by law remained at seven. In the 40 years since then no change has occurred in the limits on the number of members of the Government or of Parliamentary Secretaries.
Given the changes which our society has undergone in the same period, it would, to say the very least, be surprising if some modification in those arrangements were not now required. In so far as the assignment of tasks between members of the Government and other Ministers is concerned this Bill proposes the necessary reforms.
It might be appropriate for me, at this stage, to outline some of the changes in the business of Government which have come about since 1924 and to indicate their relevance to the present measure. The range of Government activity in 1924 was not, by present standards, extensive. Government activity in the social and economic fields was limited and international matters did not occupy a significant part of the time of Ministers generally. All in all, the size of the Government was by any standards adequate to deal with the work assigned to their members. Since then, and particularly in recent years, the volume of Government business has increased several fold. For practical purposes, no attempt has been made to lighten the load on Ministers and there is now widespread recognition that the burden is becoming unbearable.
The expansion of Government business and involvement in the daily life of the citizens is reflected in the growth of the administrative machine for which Ministers are directly or indirectly responsible. The civil service itself has expanded from some 20,000 to almost 50,000 members. A range of State-sponsored bodies employing 60,000 people has emerged in the same period and there has been a parallel growth in the numbers employed by local and health authorities. I need scarcely point out that the supervision, control and direction of the activities of these services has been reflected in the workloads of Ministers.
Development of the mass media and the emergence of a more vocal public opinion have also added to ministerial workloads. Ministers are frequently called upon to explain their policies on radio, television and, indeed, at social gatherings. The evolution of organised interest groups in almost every sector of national life combines with this trend towards more open Government to require that politically responsible figures be available for consultation on proposed or desired legislative and administrative changes. Ministers have, in recent years, accommodated themselves to these trends by extra effort so that, but for developments outside our domestic scene, we might have been tempted to perpetuate the 1924 arrangements. It is, however, the transformation of our position in international affairs which makes such an approach unacceptable.
International regulation or agreed action by several states on matters of mutual concern has been intensified in recent decades and proliferation of international conferences on topics as diverse as economics and aviation law frequently require representation at the highest level. While such conferences arise intermittently, it is generally accepted that the heaviest and most constant burden has been imposed by our membership of the European Communities. I think that everyone accepted at the time that Ireland's entry to the European Communities in 1973 was bound to impose new burdens on the machinery of government. Few, however, foresaw the extent to which those burdens would increase in a short span of years or predicted how heavy would be the load imposed on individual members of the Government. Apart from the constant demands of travel abroad. Ministers must also have time to reflect on, and to evaluate, Community policies and to consult with their colleagues at home. If they have not got the time to do so, our position in the Community will be prejudiced; if time has to be made at the expense of domestic affairs, the quality of government will suffer.
All sides of the House now recognise that these developments have produced a situation which threatens the effective functioning of government.
The constitutional limitation on the number of members of the Government precludes, without a referendum, an increase in ministerial strength. This Bill, therefore, seeks to remedy the problem by the creation of a new office of Minister who will not be a member of the Government.
As I have already mentioned, the Constitution states that the Government shall consist of not more than 15 members. It also provides that the executive power shall, subject to the provisions of the Constitution, be exercised by or on the authority of the Government; the Government shall be responsible to Dáil Éireann and shall meet and act as a collective authority and shall be collectively responsible for the Departments of State administered by the members of the Government. The Ministers and Secretaries Acts provide for not more than seven Parliamentary Secretaries to Ministers. The Parliamentary Secretaries are, in effect, junior Ministers.
The Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1939, provides for the delegation by Government order of the statutory powers of a Minister to his Parliamentary Secretary subject to certain conditions which are necessary to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. The main features of these conditions are that the Minister remains responsible to Dáil Éireann for the delegated powers; the powers delegated remain concurrently vested in the Minister and they are exercisable by the Parliamentary Secretary under the general superintendence and control of the Minister. Parliamentary Secretaries can undertake many of the statutory duties of a Minister but their main contribution has been in the lightening of his Parliamentary task and in the discharge of the many duties which, though not statutory, are integral elements of ministerial office. The time has now come when the support to Ministers needs to be significantly strengthened.
To begin at the domestic level, it is a fact of life that it is difficult to secure full acceptance for the discharge of ministerial functions in a representative or executive capacity by a man who not only lacks the title of Minister but is designated as the Parliamentary Secretary to a Minister. Abroad, the term Minister of State is fairly commonly recognised as meaning a junior Minister occupying an office immediately below Cabinet rank and carries more prestige and, therefore, more weight than the title of Parliamentary Secretary. The assignment of the title Minister for State to these Ministers, therefore, provides an opportunity by which a much greater delegation of functions to them will be acceptable at home and abroad. This Bill, therefore, proposes to create ten posts of Minister of State and to repeal the provisions of the Ministers and Secretaries Acts dealing with Parliamentary Secretaries, thereby abolishing that office. It is intended on the appointment of the Ministers of State to assign to them wider and heavier responsibilities than have hitherto been assigned to Parliamentary Secretaries.
Provision is, therefore, made for the appointment of Ministers of State and the delegation to them, subject to such reservation of ministerial powers and responsibility as the Constitution requires, of statutory powers and duties of Ministers. The Bill also provides for the abolition of the office of Parliamentary Secretary through the repeal of the relevant sections of the Ministers and Secretaries Acts. A number of consequential amendments to existing legislation arising from these provisions are also included. For instance, the title "Minister of State" is defined in the Interpretation Act, 1937 as a "member of the Government in charge of a Department of State" and is used in this sense in a number of subsequential enactments. It is, therefore, necessary, to make two legislative amendments. The first is that, in legislation enacted after the passing of this Act, the expression "Minister of State" will no longer mean a member of the Government having charge of a Department of State and that in previous legislation the old meaning will continue to apply. The second is that there should be a new expression to describe, in future, legislation, a member of the Government having charge of a Department of State. The most unsuitable expression is, I think, Minister of the Government.
Our corpus of statute law includes one reference to a Parliamentary Secretary outside the Ministers and Secretaries Acts. This occurs in section 11 (2) of the Defence Act, 1954, where the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence is included in the membership of the Council of Defence. Section 5 of the Bill alters this reference.
Apart from these consequential amendments, the Bill contains three further changes. One of these, in section 3, is a technical section designed to remove a doubt about proof of orders made by a Parliamentary Secretary or, in future, a Minister of State. The other two changes embody departures in the case of Ministers of State from the arrangements governing the tenure of Parliamentary Secretaries and their assignment to Ministers.
A Parliamentary Secretary at present ceases to hold office on the dissolution of the House of the Oireachtas to which he belonged. Parliamentary Secretaries who were not Members of this House therefore ceased to hold office on the dissolution of the Dáil but could, if re-elected, be re-appointed by an outgoing Government pending the reconvening of the Dáil. This procedure was based on an assumption that the duties of Parliamentary Secretaries were related to parliamentary duties and took no account of their evolution into political directors of large blocks of Government work. This Bill provides that Ministers of State shall continue in office notwithstanding a dissolution of the House to which they belong.
As they stand, the Ministers and Secretaries Acts preclude the appointment of more than one Parliamentary Secretary to each Minister. Recent experience has shown that imbalances between the responsibilities of various Ministers could become so great that the assignment of more than one Parliamentary Secretary to a single Minister might be required to offset them. This Bill accordingly imposes no similar restriction on the assignment of Ministers of State.
Finally, I might mention that provision as in section 8 of the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1939, which provides for the right of audience of a Parliamentary Secretary in that House of the Oireachtas of which he is not a Member, is not being made in this Bill. Doubts have been expressed as to whether this provision was in conflict with Article 15.10 of the Constitution which provides that each House shall make its own Rules and Standing Orders. In fact, the Standing Orders of each House provide that a Parliamentary Secretary who is a Member of the other House may be heard. I would, if I may, a Chathaoirligh, draw your attention to the amendment of Standing Order No. 45 of this House which will be required if Ministers of State are to be heard in this House.
This Bill then, is a recognition that the limits on the number of Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries which have existed for the past 40 years are in need of review. The Government's proposals are modest; indeed it may be argued that we are not going far enough and that we might well have retained the office of Parliamentary Secretary in addition to the new office of Minister of State. I believe, however, that they are the most suitable to our needs and conditions. They have the merit that they are simple in that there is to be a single tier below the level of Minister of the Government and at the same time, although the net increase in the number of offices is three, the increased allocation of responsibilities which is intended will be of substantial assistance to Ministers.
This Government are committed to substantial reforms in the structure of our administration. The actions proposed in this Bill are part of that process, and will have the effect of relieving Ministers of some of their growing workload in such areas as parliamentary and representational duties. Other proposals under consideration should help to lessen the involvement of Ministers in matters of administrative detail. I believe that Ministers are in need of such adjustments in the range of their activities, which will make for greater effectiveness in the conduct of the nation's affairs. I, therefore, recommend this Bill to the House.