I move amendment No. 7:—
In line 45, to delete the words " of State ".
Is there any necessity for these words ?
SECTION 10.
It is a legal term. The Minister would have no existence in law without it. There are ministers of religion and, I am sure, other types of ministers, but a Minister of State is a Minister in charge of a Department and when you refer to a Minister of State you are referring to a Minister of the Government and not to a minister of religion.
It does not make much difference, but the Minister is defined in the definition.
The definition says that the expression " the Minister " means the Minister for Defence.
This means any member of the Cabinet.
The Minister for Finance is in this Bill as well as the Minister for Defence. Where is there any other Minister ?
It is to cover any other Minister.
I am sure it is there, but where is it?
There is the Interpretation Act of 1937.
I am not asking that. Where is the provision in regard to any Minister other than the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Finance ?
It is not there, but if you put in only the word ‘Minister,' you are up against the difficulty that the Minister in this Bill is the Minister for Defence. A ‘ Minister of State ' may refer to any Minister.
It is a very simple way of getting over a reference to all Ministers.
Where is the reference in this Bill ?
Mr. Collins
I envisage that this might cover a situation where for morale purposes it was necessary for the Taoiseach or other Ministers of State to visit certain encampments or portion of the line if such existed. This is necessary to cover others besides the Minister for Defence.
Does Deputy Cowan wish to press that ?
No, I just wish to be clear in my own mind. The Bill deals with two Ministers specifically: the Minister for Defence who is defined and the Minister for Finance—I do not know whether he is defined but, if not, everybody knows who he is—and there are some functions which may be performed by the Minister for Justice.
For instance, expenditure on military prisoners in civilian prisons would be his responsibility.
It is a very peculiar thing that the Bill makes provisions for the discharge of soldiers who are sentenced to imprisonment or penal servitude. When they are discharged they cease to be military prisoners and become civilian prisoners but there are peculiar provisions as if soldiers undergoing imprisonment remained in the Defence Forces after they have been sentenced.
They may spend quite a considerable time on remand and until they are found guilty they are members of the Defence Forces.
We can deal with the expenses incurred by the Minister for Justice when we come to the section dealing with him, but I cannot see any reason for the words " a Minister " because we have a whole bunch of Ministers who have nothing to do with this and who could not incur a penny expense.
During the last emergency we had a Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures.
There is no reference to him in this Bill and we are dealing with this Bill. There is reference only to the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Finance and possibly the Minister for Justice in a particular section.
Deputy Corish raises a point worth considering. There might subsequently be a Minister for the Coordination of Defensive Measures to whom some functions under the Bill might be given and it is just as well to provide for that.
Leave the words as they are.
Mr. Collins
They are not doing any harm.
Occasionally a Minister might have to go away, abroad or on holidays, and he must then appoint another Minister as his agent. I am not certain whether that Minister might come under this.
I would say that he might.
The Minister acting as agent might be involved. Generally speaking, however, a Minister might incur expenditure and it is desirable not to confine this to one Minister, the Minister for Justice.
Mr. Collins
You might have a situation such as we have had before where a number of Ministers were in jail and one person held the portfolios of two or three Ministers.
You cannot get away from the Bill you are dealing with. The Bill does not envisage anything ; it provides. It provides for the Ministers for Defence and Finance and indirectly for the Minister for Justice. I do not know whether expense might be incurred out of the Army Vote or the Vote of the Minister for Justice.
The Vote of the Minister for Justice.
It does not come into the Bill at all then. That is why I thought where there is a little unnecessary caution in the wording " a Minister of State ", which is a wording with which I am not very familiar. It does occur——
Mr. Collins
In the Interpretation Act.
I will have to look into it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In lines 46 and 47 to delete " to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Minister for Finance ".
Mr. Collins
If Deputy Cowan's argument for the first amendment is correct there is no justification for the second.
This is in practically every Act.
Mr. Collins
It is the normal expenses clause.
Section 10 reads:
" The expenses incurred by a Minister of State in the administration of this Act shall, to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Minister for Finance, be paid out of the moneys provided by the Oireachtas."
To include " to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Minister for Finance " is pure nonsense because it suggests that the money could perhaps be paid out of something else.
Or could not be paid at all.
Does the Committee think there is nothing wrong with that ?
Would the Department of Finance have any power at all of checking if that were omitted ?
No auditing power.
Mr. Collins
I have seen it in many other Acts. It appears that the Minister for Finance allows expenses or disallows them. The Minister cannot be paid expenses for entertaining 1,000 people.
As it is the Department charged with collecting money surely we should allow them to give it out.
There might be a certain item which he would not allow and it is necessary to have a limiting clause.
I have watched Acts over a number of years. There used to be a general clause stating that certain things would be subject to the sanction of the Minister for Finance. Gradually we find more and more control being taken by the Minister for Finance. Even in this Bill I am amazed at the number of sections where the Minister for Finance is mentioned although he gets the widest powers in a general way. When a Bill goes to the Department of Finance everywhere they see the word " expenses " they shove in " to such an extent as may be sanctioned by the Minister for Finance ", but I suppose we have reached a stage now where we can do nothing about it.
Mr. Collins
If we did not leave it the Public Accounts Committee might have something to say.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section put and agreed to.
The Committee adjourned at 5.55 p.m. until 4 p.m. on Thursday, March 6th.