Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats) | 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.

See this speech in context