Jack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the decision by the Government to increase the maximum number of Ministers of State from 20 to 23. As the House will be aware, the number has remained unchanged for the last 18 years, since 2007, when Minister of State numbers increased from 17 to 20. The Bill will also allow for the existing allowance for Ministers of State attending Cabinet meetings to be extended to four Ministers of State. At the moment, a maximum of three Ministers of State may receive the allowance for attending Cabinet.

In relation to the first proposed provision, the Ministers and Secretaries Act 1924 first provided for the appointment by the executive council of a maximum of seven parliamentary secretaries to act as junior Ministers. In 1977, the provision was replaced by the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, which allowed for the appointment of Ministers of State from among Members of either House. Section 2 of the 1977 Act provides for the delegation of functions to a Minister of State. A Government order may be made on the request of a Minister, delegating to his or her Minister of State all the Minister’s powers and duties under a particular Act or, more narrowly, any particular statutory power or duty. This reflects the role of the Minister of State in facilitating the Government to work more efficiently by allowing the appointment of junior Ministers and delegating to them specified functions to progress Government priorities. The 1977 Act set the maximum number of Ministers of State at ten. This was increased subsequently to 15 in 1980, 17 in 1995 and 20 in 2007. The major consideration for seeking the proposed change to 23, as was the case in 1980, 1995 and 2007, is the increased volume of Government priorities and business. Since 2007, the expansion in ministerial duties has stemmed from the growing complexity of policy issues, the challenges of steering vast Government initiatives and the heightened involvement with stakeholders at all levels, both nationally and internationally. Many of the new challenges we face are cross-cutting and require cross-departmental responses. For this reason, the Government is reorganising some Departments to better address the main issues that have been identified with a whole-of-government approach.

In relation to the second proposed change, the role of a Minister of State is important in ensuring policy implementation under his or her area of responsibility. With the additional role and responsibility for contributing to Cabinet meetings, it is appropriate that the relevant Ministers of State should receive the allowance relating to the role. The purpose of this amendment is to progress in that context. New ministerial responsibilities at Minister of State level will be delegated to ensure there is an appropriate focus across all Government priorities. Through improved cross-cutting departmental working and promoting simultaneous action, Ministers of State will enable a more cohesive approach to delivering the programme for Government.

There are a range of areas on which the Government will focus its attention. The assistance and support provided by Ministers of State will be essential to achieve our ambitious targets: accelerating the number of homes available; implementing new programmes of health digitalisation and modernisation and reform of the education sector; supporting Irish businesses not only to find new markets but also to reduce costs; bringing together relevant stakeholders to address the needs around community development and policing; providing more focused leadership in management of immigration; and achieving climate and biodiversity goals by focusing on energy transformation while supporting our rural communities and the agrifood sector to prosper.

In addition, and as set out by the Taoiseach, given the global uncertainties and threats we face, this Government is prioritising the protection and strengthening of Ireland’s international relationships with a particular focus on trade and collaboration within the EU, especially during our upcoming Council Presidency. The Minister of State with responsibility for Europe will oversee these efforts. The Government will also focus on developing a new relationship with the UK, with all Departments building bilateral relations with their UK counterparts. Our focus will be on fortifying ties with all international partners, especially in Europe, to boost trade and create more opportunities for Irish businesses.

Public policy has become more complex as our society has grown and developed. We are all aware of the need to tackle various policy issues in a cross-departmental and more focused way. The increase in the number of Ministers of State will enable the Government to extend this cross-cutting approach to the many issues in which more than one Department has a significant role. It will play an important part in delivering the extensive programme of Government and the additional work of the Ministers of State, reflecting their attendance at Cabinet.

I commend the Bill to the House. My colleague Deputy Gallagher will use the remaining time in the slot.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire Stáit as ucht cúpla bomaite dá chuid ama a thabhairt dom chun tacaíocht a thabhairt don reachtaíocht seo atá ag dul tríd na Dála anocht. I welcome the appointment of the additional Ministers of State and, in particular, the appointment of a Minister of State who will have responsibility for fisheries and the marine. This will be the first time since 2011 that we will have such a Minister of State with full delegated authority. Going back too many years ago to 1987, I recall very well when the Taoiseach and the Government of the day appointed the first Minister for the Marine. That was a Clare man, the late Brendan Daly. I was appointed as his Minister of State. There was no necessity for delegated authority because at the time every file that came up the line to the Minister went through me first. That was the way he operated. I was back in the Department in 2004 and had responsibility for the marine. I requested delegated authority and I had authority at the time. The industry and the sector had a Minister of State to go to and it could be in contact regularly. It was decided some years ago that a Minister would take responsibility for the marine. That was the wrong decision because the marine needs a hands-on Minister of State who is available daily to deal with the sector. For this reason, I welcome the Bill.

We are at a critical stage when it comes to the fishing industry. We lost 25% of the value of our fish because of Brexit. This is a loss of €200 million to coastal communities in which there is no alternative source of employment. I recall very well former European Commissioner Michel Barnier, who was negotiating at that time, addressing this House. I met him afterwards and he looked me straight in the eye. I told him I was concerned about the future of the sector. He said I need not have any concern because he would ensure that in the negotiations on fishing and trade would be inextricably linked. They were not inextricably linked. The industry, the country and our rural communities lost out as a result of this. He said there would be no great implications. Regardless of whether he meant what he said, the fact is that there were serious implications.

I welcome the appointment of the new Minister of State, Deputy Dooley. I believe he will have the support of the sector because prior to the election the sector made a case that a Minister of State with responsibility for the marine should be appointed. It lobbied extensively. I did so in my party and it is fair to say there was cross-party support for such an appointment. In his new role, the Minister of State will need the full support of the Government. That support must include additional current and capital funding. The industry employs 16,000 people in coastal regions in the north, south, east and west of the country. All of them have no alternative sources of employment. It is forgotten by those who criticise the industry that so many people are employed in the industry.

It is not all about those who are making the investment and who appear to be doing well. There are the small farmers who work in the fish factories. I remember when I was involved in processing in Killybegs years ago that it went on for weeks and weeks throughout the winter. They came in to process whitefish and pelagic fish, such as herring, mackerel and blue whiting. Of course, boarfish is becoming available now and we have a very high percentage of the quota. We do not have big quantities now, but when we do, we will have 80% of the quota. I would like to think I played no small part when I was a member of fisheries committee in the European Parliament. The industry is at very critical stage and I cannot overemphasise this. We need action from the Government and the Minister of State who, I hope, will work hand in hand with the industry over the coming weeks, months and years. I know first hand about the decline of the industry and the pressure it is under.

We in Ireland are too fond of interpreting the directives that come from Europe and European legislation in a way that is different from the interpretation in other countries. That is particularly the case when it comes to fishing, but I am sure it is no different in other Departments. I will provide an example. When we were in opposition I led out on introducing the rescinding of a statutory instrument laid before the House. I did so within 21 days and got it overturned. Unfortunately, for some reason not known to me, that was overturned some time after I left the House. We interpret the legislation in different ways. We look at it as being a criminal offence. I challenge anybody to point out instances where penalty points are dealt with as a criminal offence in other countries. They are dealt with by means of an administrative sanction, and that will be for another day. We have to look seriously at this.

I again welcome the appointment of the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley. I know that he will engage with the fishing sector the length and breadth of the country and that he will represent us well in Europe. I have experience, not alone as a member of the European Parliament but also as a member of its fisheries committee, of attending, with delegated authority, many Council meetings at which we fought into the early hours of the morning to secure the best deal for our country and our fishers. Mar fhocal scoir, tá áthas orm go bhfuil an reachtaíocht seo ag dul tríd na Dála agus nach fada go mbeidh Aire na mara agus iascaigh againn a dhéanfaidh gach uile ní chun cuidiú leis na hiascairí sa tír seo. Cuideoidh sé ní hamháin leis na hiascairí ach leo siúd atá ag plé le próiseáil éisc sa tír.

Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am totally opposed to the Bill. I am deeply frustrated with how our amendments have been dealt with. I will first speak to the matter of the Bill. Recently, the Taoiseach described the Opposition's rejection of the Government's stroke politics as a subversion of the Constitution. Talk about a subversion of the English language. The Government was forced to row back on its outrageous plan to have Government supporters sit on Opposition benches. It was not enough for the Government to already have one of the most centralised political systems in Europe in which power overwhelmingly rests with the Cabinet, it also wanted to try to install it supporters on the Opposition benches. Today, we are dealing with further fallout from this. The Government is proposing to create more officeholders in the form of Ministers of State - the so-called junior Ministers. All this is about is more deals, more Mercs and more perks.

These are not positions born out of any serious attempt to deal with the issues the Chamber is supposed to address. No, these extra positions and pay are simply a function of coalition talks and jobs for the boys. Again, the Taoiseach thinks opposing such things is a subversion of the Constitution. Let us look at the Constitution. The Government has seen to it that all Stages of the Bill will be taken in the Dáil today. It is trying to railroad it through, and that is a disgrace. We need to talk about the amendments that we, as a collective Opposition, have tabled. All of the amendments bar one have ruled out of order. Why is that?

Apparently, my amendment went against the spirit of the Bill. Saying that Opposition amendments cannot conflict with Government Bills is like saying the Opposition cannot conflict with the Government. That is an outrage. Standing Orders state that amendments must stick to the subject matter of the relevant legislation, which ours do. We constantly hear from Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael about the need for respect for our institutions. Those parties are riding roughshod over the rules of the House by putting everything through in the one day. We know this is in complete defiance of public opinion. Cabinet confidentiality means that the practice of super juniors was something that had been questioned before. There is an important article in relation to this matter, Article 26.1.1°, which states that in the case of any Bill, other than a Money Bill or a Bill proposing to amend the Constitution:

The President may, after consultation with the Council of State, refer any Bill to which this Article applies to the Supreme Court for a decision on the question as to whether such Bill or any specified provision or provisions of such Bill is or are repugnant to this Constitution or to any provision thereof.

There are cases before the High Court in respect of this Bill. In the interim, the Government is trying to get it through the Dáil before we have any guidance, let alone a decision, in respect of it. I hope people looking in at what is happening can see it for what it is. It is clear that if this Bill is accepted and the number of Ministers of State is increased to 23 and the number of super junior Ministers is increased to four, what is to stop that happening again in five years' time? What will we do then? Could we find ourselves in 2030 looking at a situation where there is a similar Bill to increase the number of junior ministers from 23 to 30 and the number of super juniors are increased to ten? The fact is that if this goes through there will be nothing to stop a repeat performance in five years' time and again five years after that. The role of Minister of State and the questionable concept of super junior Ministers will not be seen as meaningful institutions of public office, rather, they will be reduced to political bargaining chips and the outcome of coalition talks.

There is an old saying that when something cannot go on forever, it stops. We must stop what is happening. We will be opposing this legislation even if our amendments have been ruled out of order for questionable reasons. The fact that all Stages of this Bill are being taken in just a few hours on the same day and that Opposition amendments are not being countenanced brings into question our democratic values.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tá mé buíoch as ucht a bheith in ann labhairt ar an mBille seo anocht. Tá an Bille seo náireach. Tá sé absolutely náireach gurb é an chéad phíosa reachtaíochta atá tugtha chun tosaigh sa Dáil seo ag Fianna Fáil agus Fine Gael ná chun níos mó Airí Stáit agus níos mó super juniors a bheith againn, níos mó airgid a thaobh dóibh agus gurb iad seo na príomhfhadhbanna a shíleann an Rialtas atá sa tír seo. Mar a dúirt mé, tá sé náireach.

The fact that this is the first legislation that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael thought necessary to bring forward sums up the priorities of this Government. I listened to my colleague from the constituency talking about the marine and fisheries. Most of what he said is accurate. However, this Bill does not deal with those matters; it relates to additional junior Ministers. We could have a junior Minister for the marine included in the 20 who were already there. We do not need additional super junior Ministers. Indeed, not one of them will have responsibility for the marine.

What this Bill is about is very simple. It is about the first action of this Government. It is part of a grubby deal made by this Government, a deal that was struck with the Lowry Independents. It is all about lining up the plum jobs and finding out how many snouts we can get into the trough. It is tone deaf. It is not just a bad look; it is also completely and utterly wrong. It is wrong to prioritise your own interests. It is wrong to feather your own nest. It is wrong to do that while working families are struggling to get by. People are being fleeced by the ESB, in terms of electricity costs, and by insurance companies. There is no legislation on those issues. What about the section 39 workers? There is no legislation to deal with them. What about the carers who are still subject to means testing? There is no legislation to deal with them. The priority of this Government is this Bill, which increases the number of Ministers of State from 20 to 23 - the highest number in the history of this State.

The Government is not stopping there. It wants to make sure that those Ministers have more money than ever before. They will have more money than ever before because they are now going to get salaries of €160,000. In addition, €32,000 of expenses was also negotiated as part of the Lowry deal. That is not the end of it. There is then a sweetener, because the four of those special junior Ministers are going to get another bump in their salary of more than €13,000. That is what this Bill is about. What is being done is shameful, particularly in the face of the many challenges that exist.

People in my constituency today are looking at their loved ones on hospital trolleys. Individuals have phoned me from my constituency about relatives who cannot get places for children with special needs in local schools. There are those such as the person I described yesterday who is 85 years of age, who has very little money and who was left without electricity for ten days. This shows the priority of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Deputy Michael Lowry. We know what his priorities are because he has been feathering his nest for many years. This sums up exactly who the members of our Government are, what they are about and the priorities they have.

Worst of all is that this is not just a grubby deal or about snouts in the trough. What is being done is unconstitutional. There cannot be super junior Ministers. I applaud my colleague Deputy Pa Daly for taking the Government to court. Let us wait to hear what the court decides. I remember when I had to take the Fianna Fáil Government to court, when Deputy Pat The Cope Gallagher was elected to the European Parliament. Because of the self-interest of the Fianna Fáil Party at that time, it refused on three occasions in this House permission on a vote to hold a by-election, leaving my constituents a year and a half without the representation to which they are entitled under the Constitution. The Taoiseach, Deputy Micheál Martin and the then Government denied the constitutional rights of my constituents, but I won my case. Today, they are again subverting the Constitution. The Constitution does not allow for what they are trying to do. The grubby little deal, the attempt to have more Ministers than ever before, more super junior Ministers and more salaries for them is not just bad politics, it is not just a stroke, it is unconstitutional. What is the defence we hear from the Taoiseach, Deputy Micheál Martin? He says that the population is growing so we need more people. Does that mean that the next time when we see the population increase we are going to have 30 junior Ministers and maybe seven super junior Ministers? This needs to stop. It is being called out. We will fight this tooth and nail, and not only in this House. Thankfully, Deputy Pa Daly has taken the Government to court. We will allow the courts to decide in relation to this deal.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is not a great deal to this Bill on paper. There are only two sections to it. In relation to super junior Ministers, rather than saying “appoint not more than 20 persons” it states “appoint not more than 23 persons". Rather than “not more than 3 specified holders of the office of Minister of State who regularly attend meetings of the Government” it states “not more than 4 specified holders of the office of Minister of State who regularly attend meetings of the Government”. It does not say a great deal on paper, but it says a great deal in the context of the tone it sets at the beginning of the lifetime of this new Government. What it says is that there will be more Mercs and perks and more jobs for the boys. The arrogance it shows can be seen in wasting more money on Government pay. What they are doing is casting lots for our clothing.

As has already been intimated, there are genuine concerns about whether the Bill is constitutional and whether 19 members can sit at Cabinet. There are also issues in respect of Cabinet confidentiality. We will await the outcome of the High Court decision and maybe beyond that, depending on what decision is reached. Arrogance was displayed in the immediate aftermath of the formation of the Government in the context of the decision on Government and Opposition speaking time. The fact that said decision had to be reversed was a bad start. What happened was not surprising. Many of deals of this type have been done in the past, going back to the 1990s and even before that. Perhaps the arrogance has reached a new level when it comes to dealing with Deputy Michael Lowry and his grubby deal. Rather than dealing with the issues that arose during the most severe storm in living memory, Government members decided to give themselves a week off.

When they came back, the first thing they did was to introduce legislation that is designed to give them more money. Then they lied about the housing figures, or maybe they are "ag insint bréag" because apparently they did not say that. They are kidding nobody. They are waiving pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill, taking all Stages in the Dáil on the same day and applying a guillotine. This is a very bad start by the Government. Over the weekend, we heard there would be tax breaks for large property owners and institutional landowners. They are the priorities of this Government as they were the priorities of the previous two or three Governments. Do we really need more units that will cost €3,000 per month to rent?

In the context of the reference in the programme for Government to the town centre first approach and the Government policy of promoting town centres, I wish to raise the sale of the An Post depot adjacent to Tralee courthouse. I appeal to the Minister, who will be dealing with the financial issues relating to this to talk to the Courts Service about reconsidering the refurbishment of the courthouse and to consider freeing up space at the Denny site. A small bit of extra money will reap huge dividends. We oppose this Bill and reject it completely.

Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That this is the first Bill the Government has sought to pass in the new Dáil is instructive. To say that this Administration has got off to an appalling start is an understatement. The Bill will create an unprecedented 23 Minister of State posts at a cost that makes some State agency building projects of recent times look prudent. It is a jobs-for-the-boys Bill. I use the word "boys" deliberately because these new posts are being handed almost entirely to men,

Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The birthing of so many baby Ministers would make boom-time Bertie blush. Figures compiled by the Labour Party suggest that each of these new posts will cost the State upwards of €500,000 annually. The starting cost to the public of this stroke Government will be over €1.5 million per year when we add in the new overnight allowance for Ministers of State the creation of further super junior positions. That amounts to €7.5 million over the prospective five-year term of the Government. When I spoke during the election campaign on the need to focus on creating well-paid indigenous Irish jobs, this is not what I meant. The boom-time baby Minister bonanza is back it seems. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are prepared to spend a shedload of taxpayers' money to keep Independents and their own TDs happy with new positions.

The latest stroke by the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and their partner in government Michael Lowry has smashed the pre-crash record of 20 Ministers of State. By the time the committee chair gigs are doled out, we will have in excess of 50 TDs with Government-sponsored jobs. The idea clearly is that once they are bought, they will all stay bought and remain loyal. It is clear as day that there is no objective justification for these new roles despite the honeyed words in the Minister's script. It is not as if the business-as-usual programme for Government requires a series of newly minted junior Ministers to deliver its extremely modest and conservative set of ambitions over the five years of the programme. This is a self-serving move designed to keep sweet as many Government-supporting TDs as possible. Since the general election, we have seen the unwelcome return of the arrogance and hubris the country came to associate with Fianna Fáil in the past. That is writ large in the Bill. Along with the proposed undetermined tax breaks the Taoiseach wishes to award to property developers, we know this type of thing never ends well. It is a case of back to the future. If the Bill progresses unchanged, we will have seen an expansion from 15 junior Ministers in early 2015 to 23 today. We in the Labour Party are convinced the creation of these new posts will not prove to be value for money for the State or the taxpayer.

The Minister mentioned the 2007 legislation that provided for 20 junior Ministers, but we, in government in the crisis years and picking up Fianna Fáil's mess, did not see that as a target; it was a ceiling. Some 16 were appointed by 2016. It was a ceiling, not a target.

We are proposing amendments to the Bill which will require the Government to not only put a lid on the expansion in the number of junior Minister posts but also to be transparent about the costs of each new baby Minister. Our amendment would require the Comptroller and Auditor General to require the Secretary General of each Department of State by April of each year to report on the costs incurred in the previous year attributed to any Minister of State in that Department. This would include the cost of special advisers, civilian drivers and staff working in the private office of the Minister of State. The statement of costs could include the cost of any functions performed by and official responsibilities carried out by the Minister of State. The statements would be open for review by the Comptroller and Auditor General. That is one of the few amendments that has passed beneath the watchful eye of the Bills Office. That is an argument we will have later.

If the Government is truly convinced these new posts are both necessary and value for money, it will support that amendment. It will have nothing to fear from an amendment that aims to protect the public purse from any waste that may occur by the creation of these unprecedented posts.

Labour estimates the cost of each new Minister of State is approximately €500,000 per year, while the all-in cost of three new positions, an extra Minister of State attending Cabinet and a new overnight allowance for eligible Ministers is over €1.5 million per year or €7.5 million over the lifetime of the Government, not including pension, office or establishment costs. In addition to the annual TD salary of €113,679, the new Ministers will receive a Minister of State allowance of €45,846, bringing starting pay to just under €160,000. Junior Ministers can hire two civilian drivers with annualised salaries of close to €45,000 and there are expenses associated with that; that is only fair. The Minister incurs mileage as well, which nobody disagrees with here. They also retain their two TD staff members, a parliamentary assistant and an administrative assistant. Officeholders, including each new Minister of State, receive a special secretarial allowance of up to €48,515, not from their own Department but from the Houses of the Oireachtas, which allows them to hire an additional staff member or contract, for example, secretarial or PR services. That is paid for by the Houses of the Oireachtas and is an entitlement not extended to Opposition TDs, with the small number of staff we have to try to mark the Government and make it accountable.

I have tabled what I might describe as a negative amendment. It would not incur a charge on the State. In fact, it would ensure that the cost to the State was reduced

Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That amendment was not accepted, however. We can interrogate that matter further later on. There is a strong argument for doing away with that allowance in its entirety. There is no requirement, rationale or justification for it. Ministers of State have private secretaries, which they are entitled to. That has traditionally been the case and should be the case. However, they also have special advisers and up to four additional civil servants appointed to their teams in their Departments to assist with the admittedly heavier workload Ministers of State have. That in itself requires further interrogation. Ministers are not entitled to the travel and accommodation allowance paid to TDs, but the Oireachtas's travel costs are met by their line Department. I do not think it has been clarified - I stand open to correction on this - what type of additional overnight allowance will be paid to Ministers of State from outside Dublin thanks to the new Government deal done with Michael Lowry and others.

Minister of States who attend Cabinet, the so-called super juniors, are entitled to a further salary top-up of €13,145, and that adds up to a basic salary of €172,670 for super junior Ministers. To put it on the record - and the Minister knows - I served a number of years ago as a super junior Minister but I will tell him this. I can remember a time, and I am old enough to remember, when there was only one at the time. There was only one, and also the Chief Whip. There is no requirement or justification for the expansion in the ranks of Ministers of State. It is simply designed to keep Government TDs sweet and on side.

I am not one who complains about the cost of doing politics. That is the road to nowhere and it feeds an anti-politics sentiment in this country and elsewhere. Democracy has a cost, and ordinarily that is a cost worth paying but we have to give value for money and accountability to the taxpayer. Baubles for backbenchers and compliant Independents bought and paid for by the Taoiseach and Tánaiste is no way to do business. in the first week of this Dáil, the Government tried to pull a stroke by attempting to convince us and, more importantly, citizens of this republic that Members of this House who negotiated the programme for Government could take a place on the Opposition benches. It is moves like this that further demean and undermine confidence in politics.

This Dáil is barely a month old now, and we are conferring office on a record number of junior Ministers for no better reason other than keeping the Lowry lot happy. It is shameful, and it is safe to say, as I said at the outset, that this Government is off to a bad start.

Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We in the Social Democrats reject this Bill. We want to rebuild public trust in the State, trust which has been chipped away and eroded over the years by scandals of misused public funds, by headlines about waste and lavish spending, by a failure to look after taxpayers’ money and by a proliferation of ministerial appointments.

Creidimid, mar Dhaonlathaithe Sóisialta, sa Stáit. Creidimid gur chóir go mbeadh muid ag bailiú cánach agus á húsáid chun sochaí cothrom a chruthú, áit atá seirbhísí poiblí cearta ar fáil, ina bhfuil bunriachtanais maireachtála ag cách, agus áit a gcreideann an gnáthdhuine go bhfuil siad ag fáil luach a gcuid cánach ón Stáit.

The Social Democrats is a party that believes in the State. We believe that we should collect taxes and use that money to create a just society, where everyone has the services they need, has their basic needs met, and feels they are getting value from the contributions they make to the State. To achieve that goal we need ordinary people to have trust that when someone is given a title and status in government, those positions are thought out, necessary and actually functional in improving people’s lives. This Bill does nothing to those ends.

It is no surprise that ordinary people are frustrated to hear about an ever-expanding list of Ministers of State, and Ministers of State attending Cabinet. Our system of governance seems constantly bloated with waste and duplication. For example, I find it very difficult to justify the need for a Minister of State for digitalisation, and a separate Minister of State for digital transformation. The lack of transparency and accountability is there for all to see, as we struggle to answer the simple question: “Who is responsible for this?”.

Tá sé de cheart ag pobal na hÉireann fios a bheith acu nach bhfuil aon duine le teideal ag fáil liúntais nach bhfuil go hiomlán riachtanach. We in this Chamber are all privileged to hold elected office. The chance to represent our constituents is an honour that very few people in this country have had or ever will have. We should not need to be appeased with nonsense promotions.

We have heard very helpful facts and figures so far from Opposition colleagues but I would like to speak to the ideology that underpins this type of politics. What is the mindset of a Government that thinks it is okay to dole out useless ministerial appointments like party favours, with allowances to match, all with the intention of appeasing backbenchers, and ensuring that there is something for everyone in the audience?

I fully appreciate that the complex job of running our country needs to evolve over time but it should evolve in a way that is thought out, considered, provides value to the public and actually makes the running of the State more efficient. We need to carefully consider the roles of Ministers of State, their remit, and the necessity and goals of each and every office. We should be presented today with data, evidence and compelling business cases for the creation of each of these roles. It is not the first Bill rushed through so that everyone who has been promised a plum job is kept on side.

When and if the number of Ministers is expanded on the creation of a new Government, when they are given titles and cars and half-cars, we need to see careful consideration and I have seen no evidence of this consideration taking place. What I have seen is the formation of a Government steeped in clientelism. The public is expected to believe that the recipients of Cabinet posts who have been clear that their participation in government hinged on constituency favours and jobs for the boys, are actually filling posts which have suddenly become absolutely necessary to the functioning of the State since the election.

To aimlessly expand the ranks with no considered process or strategy undermines trust in our political system and in those who hold public office. It reinforces the idea that I came across on the doors during the general election time and again - that politicians are only out to line their own pockets, boost their own personal importance, and that serving the people of this country is a secondary goal. We have a chance today to prove that is not the case by rejecting this Bill.

I have worked in the public sector. I have been an Accounting Officer, and I can tell Members this. Apart from the cost that we can and should account for on each additional ministerial appointment and each allowance increase, the hidden cost is the loss of productivity associated with the time and work that goes into supporting each new post. To what gain? More Ministers of State at more photoshoots. They do not have a seat at the Cabinet table so they cannot actually influence policy in a way that is of benefit. For people trying to hold their representatives to account, there is nothing more frustrating than being shunted back and forth between junior and senior Ministers, and trying to unpick the web the Government has spun for itself with regard to who is responsible for what, and who actually has the power to change things. It undermines faith in the State. The people are tired of it, demoralised by it, and we must reject it.

On the topic of Ministers of State attending Cabinet, why are they getting an additional allowance if they are not getting the corresponding responsibilities, power or voting influence of a full Cabinet Minister? Are we suggesting that it costs an additional €13,145 to the taxpayer for these individuals to attend one meeting every week, where constitutionally, they have no role? We have heard from the Government how this shadow expansion of the Cabinet is popular and is necessary due to the constitutional limit on Ministers. Should the Government be so keen to prove the necessity and popularity of the posts, it should hold a referendum to put that particular question to the people.

Cabinet Ministers should be able to stand over their complex and broad portfolios, direct the civil servants in their Departments and, of course, call on their party colleagues for assistance and collaboration. However, that last bit can be done without doling out more useless titles. It sets the tone for governance in this country where Government politicians are more focused on status, allowances and expenses and their own importance. I desperately want to see the evidence and data to support the creation of these new Ministers of State. Before the Minister goes there, an increase in population and Dáil size is simply not enough.

On the topic of delegation of authority, there are limits. Migration is now relegated to the responsibility of a Minister of State with a custodian who has no ability to actually make a difference on this complex and challenging issue. At least in the previous Government, the area was represented at the Cabinet table. To see the Gaeltacht be under the banner of a senior Minister for the first time in more than ten years is to be celebrated as a step toward better meeting the needs of Gaeltacht communities. However, these two examples emphasise the same point. When we have too many things delegated to Ministers of State, people go unheard and key issues go unaddressed.

I will quote from John B. Keane’s Letters of an Irish Minister of State, written as political satire in 1978. This is from the last letter:

Dear Tull,

My heartiest congratulations. At the back of my mind I knew you’d get there but I ventured no opinion here, having to play my cards close to my chest so to speak. He gasped when I recited your terms. Then he settled back in his chair tweaking his upper lip. Your coming back will mean a majority of three. He feels this would be safe enough. Quite frankly he is relieved, we all are, that he doesn’t have to go to the country again. Here is what he is prepared to concede. Alexander Muffy’s sons to be made district justices before the end of the year. You retain the Ministry for Bogland Areas with Special Responsibility for Game and Wildlife and Mick to be made a Health Inspector. Under no circumstances will he nominate your brother-in-law to the Senate. I think it’s a good deal. If I were you I’d take it. Our man will not be pushed beyond a certain point.

In haste,

James McFillen.

As a new TD, I would love to think we have moved on from this type of stroke politics, but what I have seen from the Government in the past few weeks tells me that it is very much alive and well. It is embarrassing enough being a parody of contemporary satire but this book is nearly as old as I am, so the Government is managing to caricature figures from 45-year-old humour.

Once again, we reject this Bill.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sharing time with Deputy Healy. I will leave at least three minutes for him, maybe more. We will see.

Here we are with the first Bill of this Dáil and this Government, and we are off to an extremely bad start, both procedurally, because the debate is being guillotined, and with respect to what the Government is proposing. We are having a short Second Stage debate and then we will be straight into our amendments, all of which have been ruled out of order. We will have a tiny amount of time for that and then - bang - it will all be voted through this evening. Regarding content, the purpose of the priority, first Bill of the Government is to create an additional three new junior Ministers and one additional so-called super junior Minister. It is the highest number of Ministers, junior Ministers and super duper junior Ministers and the highest percentage there has ever been. Not far off one in every two Government TDs will be a Minister or so-called Minister in one form or another, that is, 38 of 95 Government TDs. It is incredible. It gives us a hint about what the negotiations between Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Lowry Regional Independent Group and the Healy-Raes were really about. It was not so much about policy because effectively the Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael manifestos were mashed together, concrete targets were left out and then the Regional Independent Group nodded that through with a tweak here or there. Instead, the focus was clearly on how many snouts can fit into the public trough.

The Government has tried, in a way impressively - with a brass neck - to say all these extra Ministers of State are needed because of the bigger population or the additional complexity of running things and so on. The Government does not believe it. The public does not believe it. No one believes that is what is really going on here. The idea that it is linked to the size of population does not hold any water. The other night, I looked up the size of the government in various countries around the world. It varies quite a bit, but there is not much correlation between the number of ministers and the size of the population. There are larger countries with fewer ministers. Denmark, for example, has a population of 6 million and 25 ministers. Other smaller countries have more ministers. It does not relate to population size. That is just cover for the real reason, which is the sharing of the spoils of power between a number of different parties and groupings. That is revealed by the fact that this is the first Bill and includes extra allowances for the so-called super junior Ministers. The next act, which I presume will be done by ministerial order - the Minister might clarify that - will be to push through additional expenses for junior Ministers.

Previously, junior Ministers had to make do on the supposedly modest combined salary and expenses of €176,000 per year. That is more than four times the national average earnings. Some of them were putting on the poor mouth, saying they are losing out because as a result of getting that, they lose access to the travel and accommodation allowance TDs get, which is a banded system based on how far away from the Dáil Members live. For those who live farthest away, it is in excess of €35,000. The former Fine Gael Chief Whip, Paul Kehoe, claim that junior Ministers were sleeping in hostels as a result. They are paid €176,000 between salary and expenses, yet somehow were unable to afford hotels and, therefore, needed these additional tens of thousands of euro in another set of expenses.

This is an idea that supposedly has no parent. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae said it has nothing to do with him. Supposedly, this idea emerged from nowhere in the negotiations and did not relate to the various people who were to become the junior Ministers saying they wanted these extra expenses.

The other clear example of the sharing out of the spoils of power that this is really about is the increase in the number of so-called super junior Ministers. What started out as one super junior Minister to facilitate Democratic Left being in government in 1994 has now ballooned into a record four. How many will it ultimately end up being if the Government is not stopped in the courts? Their role in the secret deals between Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the groups of Independent TDs is revealed by the fact that two of the four so-called super junior Ministers are from the Regional Independent Group, with Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael getting one each.

It will not ultimately be decided here, but there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the super junior Ministries are a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution is clear that the Government should have a maximum of 15 members and that it should act collectively and confidentially. The presence or attendance of these so-called super junior Ministers is clearly in breach of that. I do not know whether it was conscious or unconscious, but former Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, gave away the game about this when he wrote in The Sunday Times three weeks ago that the super junior Ministries were used "to get around the rule of 15", explaining that at Cabinet they are treated as equals, they have a full set of advisers and bring their own memos for decisions. They get the extra allowances, attend and participate in all Cabinet decisions. They act as Ministers, breaching the Constitution for the sole purpose of spreading around the spoils of office. It is another grand political stroke for which ordinary people pay.

Former Deputy, Leo Varadkar went on to make the point that it is time to bite the bullet and amend the Constitution to allow for the number of senior Ministers to increase. That is fine; let us have that discussion. We are in favour of a different kind of constitution, which puts people's rights to the fore and there would not be secret discussions. Let us have a discussion in that context about how many Ministers we have. That is fine, but one cannot just get around the Constitution by this invention of the concept of super junior Ministers. If the Government wants to change the Constitution and the rules, that is fine, but it has to go to the people to do it, because the people have the right to decide.

Séamus Healy (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the basis for these additional ministerial posts? I listened to the Minister and Deputy Gallagher earlier and the Taoiseach and Tánaiste in recent days trying to justify the creation of these posts and quite frankly these justifications amount to a poor excuse, dressed up as policy to facilitate a shabby deal with the Regional Independent Group. The new posts are being created, effectively, to keep the Regional Independent Group sweet. Anyone who looks at the situation is clearly of the view that there is no objective justification for these posts. I know from speaking to Government backbenchers, that many accept and complain that the Regional Independent Group got too much out of this agreement. The Minister of State, Deputy Michael Healy-Rae, told us all earlier how he and his brother, Deputy Danny Healy-Rae, were intimately involved in the negotiations for the programme for Government. It was quite clear that one of these ministerial posts is payback for their support for the Government and into the bargain, Deputy Danny Healy-Rae also wants to sit on the Opposition benches.

There are also legal issues with these appointments, something which has been referred to by other speakers, in particular, the number of ministerial posts provided for in Bunreacht na hÉireann and the question of Cabinet confidentiality. These issues are before the courts and will be decided by the courts. It is to be hoped they will be decided shortly.

The cost of the new posts has also been referenced. It appears that the cost of one of these posts is approximately €500,000 per year, and requires €1.5 million in additional funding for a year and €7.5 million over the term of the Dáil. Another question that arises, which was raised by Deputy Murphy, is the bulldozing of all sections of the Bill through the House this evening and the use of the guillotine. That is wholly undemocratic and I am opposed to the Bill.

Michael Collins (Cork South-West, Independent Ireland Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will beg the indulgence of the Ceann Comhairle to welcome Ryan McKeowan and Zoe Bell to the Gallery.

In 2025, super junior Ministers in Ireland receive a total annual salary package of approximately €200,000. Junior Ministers have an additional ministerial salary of €45,846. There is a super junior allowance of €16,000 and an additional travel allowance worth up to €32,535. The public need to get value for their money with these Ministers. The public is increasingly concerned about the wasteful spending occurring in the Dáil.

Recent examples include a bike shed with an estimated cost of €335,000, a security hut costing nearly €1.4 million and a wall at the Workplace Relations Commission headquarters costing nearly €500,000. While it is beneficial to have Ministers, it would be greatly appreciated if these Ministers realised they were Ministers for the State and not Ministers for their own constituencies. When they come to constituencies, they fail to inform all of the local TDs they are arriving. They obviously put on the jersey here as being Ministers for the State, but when they get into a constituency they become Ministers for Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael depending on the party they are representing.

While I believe it is important for our Ministers, Taoiseach and Tánaiste to engage with the American president to strengthen our relations, it is crucial to minimise unnecessary expenses. We cannot afford to waste money, especially when many homes in Ireland struggle to keep the lights and heat on. It is not justifiable to spend on unnecessarily luxuries. In 2020, when I requested a stand-alone Minister for fisheries, I was informed by the Taoiseach that no new ministerial positions could be created. However, Pippa Hackett was later appointed to such a position. This deal means that more Ministers will be appointed. It is amazing how that can happen.

We should have had a Minister for fisheries, marine and the islands. This time there is a Minister for fisheries and the marine, which I welcome. I will not discredit that. It is good to have it. I am pleased have a Minister for fisheries, after many years of waiting for that. I am disappointed that the position was not given to somebody from a fishing constituency. Nonetheless, I look forward to working with the new Minister for fisheries. I hope he will address some of the damage done, in particular since Brexit when 25% of the fishermen's quotas were given away. All we received in return was a dirty decommissioning deal. In my constituency, Castletownbere is one of our largest fishing ports. It beggars belief to drive to the pier and see boats offloading, not one of which is Irish.

I also remind the Minister of the statutory instrument assigned to bring in penalty points for our fishermen. I hope with the new Minister for fisheries that things will change. I will work with our new Minister for fisheries and I can to make sure to help the forgotten industry. I hope this is not a case of jobs for the boys. While I wish Ministers are very best, they have to show that they provide value for money to the country. It seems we are overshadowed completely by Ministers.

Ken O'Flynn (Cork North-Central, Independent Ireland Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Ryan McKeowan and his partner here. I have no doubt they will sit here one day. They are welcome to Leinster House.

I turned on the TV recently in my house and purely by chance saw a rerun of "Oprah". I immediately saw what happened in the programme for Government. Instead of it being "You get a car, you get a car", it was "You get a ministry, you get a ministry, you get a ministry and you get a ministry". What a fantastic day to give out Ministries.

Our Taoiseach told us that the Government needs to appoint more Ministers because we have a growing population, but we have a population of 5.1 million. There are 174 TDs in the House. Some 21% of the Dáil will be made up of Ministers. The population of Germany is 84 million, and there are 16 senior ministers and six junior ministers in the Reichstag. That is 3.1% of the Parliament. In France, there are 28 ministers and seven junior ministers servicing a population of 65 million. In Italy, there are 20 ministers and 30 junior ministers, servicing a population of 59 million. In Spain, there are 23 ministers and seven junior ministers, servicing a population of 47 million. I do not know where the population growth is and why we have to have so many ministers. The European Commission, which should be our guide, has 27 Commissioners, yet we seem to be number one at appointing and making up new roles for people.

I read about what is being delivered here in the newspapers. We are talking about trips. I meet fellows that I never saw before in my life and never heard speak in the House before I was a Member. They all have their bucket and spade ready to go out for the Minister. They all have their expense forms underneath their arms well filled out. I find it absolutely ridiculous that we are being misled in this House.

We have been told there is a population problem. The United States, with a population of 344 million people, has only 15 secretaries of state and has a functioning government. It has not fallen apart. It is laughable, yet we have people on trolleys. We have money for these Ministers, but we do not have money to build houses or the Cork-Mallow road, children remain on waiting lists for CAMHS day in and day out, there are people on the breadline and others are waiting for stair lifts and tenant in situ applications to come through.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They say to start as you mean to continue. By God, this Government has done that. The first thing the Government did after the election was to spend weeks and weeks talking to itself about the creation of a government. When it came back, then decide to vote to give itself two weeks' holidays. When it came back from that, it decided to create an enormous number of extremely high paid jobs for a record number of Ministers across the country.

To underpin the direction of travel for this Government, it has now decided to delete the scrutiny that would normally happen for a Bill such as this. Let us call a spade a spade. This is a Government on the make. This is a bloated Government steeped in a culture of having its snout in a trough. The idea that 40% of the TDs opposite all now have a highly paid position is incredible. All the Bill does is solidify the new arrangements between Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Independents by creating as many goodies as possible for those TDs.

The fact is that a junior Minister will now get the salary of a TD of €113,000, with a top of €45,000 and another potential top up of €32,000 in travel expenses. A junior minister will now get approximately €200,000. A super junior Minister will get approximately €204,000. It will cost the State approximately €5 million in total.

Is there any wonder we have a culture among some elements of the administration of this country that seeks to build a bike shed for €350,000, a security hut for €1 million, a WRC wall for €500,000 or a great wall of Tara for 11 years? Is it any wonder that we have that culture in some elements of our administration, when it is being led by a Government that is steeped in exactly the same culture of waste and largesse? The culture is rotten from the top. The leadership is giving the example that taxpayers' money is there to be burned and enjoyed. That is one of the reasons the children's hospital has taken decades to build at a cost of €2.5 billion. The Government is showing the wrong example to the rest of the State. It is ripping off the taxpayer and incinerating taxpayers' money. It has to come to an end.

Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have one minute and 30 seconds to speak. I actually supported curtailing this debate because it was all done and dusted when the Government was announced. There is a simple sentence that describes this ministerial appointment splurge. It is "The Late Late Show", with one for everyone in the audience. That is what it seems like. I can take on board that we have additional tasks and we have to deal with a strange new regime in the USA and a very dangerous world. We do need more people to look at more things but that was already done five years ago. This is now a case of handing out the goodies. Rather than Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael saying they will have to do without a couple of Ministers because they have done a deal with the Regional Independent Group, they have added more Ministers. It is like going out to the shop, buying an extra pack of sweets and handing them out like you are everyone's best friend while having a whole packet to yourself. It does not work and people see through it.

Comparisons with other countries do not work in relation to Ireland because the stark fact is that this is one of the most centralised countries in the world. If we do not have Ministers, we do not have a properly functioning local government. Councillors have no power. As Deputy Murphy said, let us have a referendum on whether we need to increase the number of Ministers or need to give good, devolved government to the regions and have a smaller number of Ministers in Government focused on the issues.

Jack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for their contributions and reiterate our intention to ensure the work of the new Ministers of State achieves the whole-of-government approach we are trying to implement and which is reflected in the programme for Government. This will be achieved by many of the Ministers of State presiding over cross-departmental structures and teams, as in the case of the fisheries and marine portfolios which are assigned to various Departments, for example, the Departments of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Environment, Climate and Communications. Having different Ministers of State involved in several Departments will ensure they pull the respective policy structures together in these areas. Some Ministers of State will focus on one particular or key area, as in the case, for example, of migration. With this complement of Ministers of State, the Government will be able to respond to many of the areas in focus and ensure the administration of Government and response to all policy needs are met in the context of ever evolving and complex areas of policy.

In my initial contribution, I set out the specific references in the Bill in the context of what the legislation is intended to do. I commend the Bill to the House.