Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)

I forgot to refer to amendment No. 70. The Minister accepted the phrase completely and it improves the section because it clarifies that when the Minister orders a person to do something, that person is responsible to the Minister. This issue of ministerial and Cabinet responsibility has been discussed way back by Mr. Walter Bagehot and various political philosophers in the 19th century. This issue has been discussed for 200 years and it goes back to British rule. These are unusual circumstances. The Minister is right to include this in the Bill. We have talked about this, and although we hope it will never happen, we fear it will because of a problem with supply, pricing or geopolitical events, hopefully not due to a major terrorist action. It is also right to say that in a crisis the Minister would take the decisions. However, would it not be best to say the Minister must bear responsibility if, for example, after the relevant committee investigated it, we were not happy with the outcome or we felt it could have been different? This might arise if a future Minister made a hames of an emergency. That is simple enough. One might say general Cabinet and Government accountability and responsibility would apply. Maybe collective responsibility would apply and the entire Government would resign. I have been examining this because it is an issue on which we have asked the Minister many questions. It should specify that the buck stops with the Minister. That is why I am tabling this amendment.

See this speech in context