Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 1: To ask the Taoiseach the responsibilities of the Ministers of State within his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14622/08]

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 2: To ask the Taoiseach the responsibilities of the Ministers of State appointed by him; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17123/08]

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 3: To ask the Taoiseach the responsibilities of the Ministers of State appointed by him; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25593/08]

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.

The Government appointed Deputy Pat Carey as Government Chief Whip and Minister of State at my Department and the Department of Defence. Deputy Dick Roche was appointed Minister of State at my Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs with special responsibility for European affairs.

As Chief Whip, the Minister of State, Deputy Carey, is primarily responsible for the organisation of Government business in the Dáil and the Government's programme of Dáil reform. He also oversees preparation of the Government's legislative programme. In addition, my statutory functions with regard to the Central Statistics Office have been delegated to him. I have also assigned responsibility for the active citizenship initiative in my Department to him. His role will be to drive the initiative forward, oversee implementation of the recommendations of the task force on active citizenship and, critically, promote the concept of active citizenship in all spheres of Irish life. I also expect him to monitor and identify additional measures which would strengthen our social interaction and broaden the manner in which we view our responsibilities as citizens in the modern Ireland. He will be supported in this work by a steering group chaired by Ms Mary Davis and the active citizenship office in my Department.

In a co-ordinating role in my Department, the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, chairs an interdepartmental co-ordinating committee on European Union affairs. The committee keeps under review and works to ensure coherence on the full range of issues on the European Union's agenda. It has a particular focus on the correct and timely transposition of EU legislation. In addition to these duties, the Minister of State has a heavy workload within the Department of Foreign Affairs, representing the Government at a wide range of EU and international meetings. In this context, he plays a central role in consolidating and further developing Ireland's positive bilateral EU relations, particularly with the new member states. He was extensively involved in the public debate on the reform treaty in the lead-up to the referendum. Similarly, he has responsibility for the Government's Communicating Europe initiative which aims to foster a broad public understanding of and identification with the issues on the EU agenda.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

During the recent referendum on the Lisbon treaty one of the questions asked in response to the argument that the reduction in the number of Commissioners from 27 to 18 was in the interests of efficiency of administration and governance was how we could argue it was necessary to reduce to 18 the number of Commissioners for a population of 500 million when, for a population of 4 million, we had 15 Cabinet Ministers and 20 Ministers of State. Does the Taoiseach believe we have too many Ministers of State? At the time he appointed his Government did he give any consideration to whether the number should be reduced?

Will the Taoiseach clarify the position regarding the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh? In announcing the formation of the Government he indicated Deputy Mansergh would be Minister of State at the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism with responsibility for the arts. Last week the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy Cullen, published the delegated powers order to be given to the Minister of State. The only reference to the arts I can find in the text is that the Minister of State will have the powers and duties conferred on the Minister under the Heritage Fund Act 2001. This makes the Minister of State responsible for little more than stately homes. By what means is the Minister of State to be given responsibility for the arts? What is the position on the Taoiseach's original proposal, given that it does not appear to have been reflected in the delegation order?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The number of Ministers of State I have appointed is appropriate in terms of the responsibilities they have been given. Some of these responsibilities are cross-departmental, an aspect that needs to be further developed. Following the OECD report on the reform of the public service, I am mindful of how we can better organise government with a view to ensuring we assign to Ministers of State responsibility for tasks which can be pursued in a coherent fashion.

On the Deputy's question regarding the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, I have made the point that Deputy Mansergh is Minister of State with responsibility for the Office of Public Works and has additional responsibilities in the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism. These responsibilities are shared with the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy Cullen, whom the Minister of State will assist in the discharge of his duties, in the same way as other Ministers of State assist senior Ministers.

Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He will hang the pictures.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Taoiseach believe Ministers of State are an abused category of office holder in the House? Ministers now rarely turn up for Adjournment debates and even when private notice questions are tabled, we sometimes find the Minister with direct responsibility does not appear and a Minister of State is asked to appear in his or her stead. For example, last week when the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government was asked to come into the House to deal with the serious concerns of residents of Cobh and Ringaskiddy regarding pollution levels at the old Irish Steel site in Haulbowline, he was nowhere to be found and the Minister of State at his Department, Deputy Hoctor, had to come into the House at short notice. While it was not the fault of the Minister of State, the House did not receive the direct responses it needed. Ministers repeatedly hide behind their Ministers of State when questions are put to them, whether in the form of Adjournment debates or private notice questions.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not agree with the Deputy's contention. There is a set procedure for the Adjournment debate, under which notice of matters to be raised is given by Members and replies are provided by the various Departments. It is open to Members on the Government side or those in opposition to give notice of matters they wish to raise on any given day and the Ceann Comhairle will deem which ones are appropriate to that day's debate. Business of this nature has always been dealt with in that way since I entered the House.

Every Minister should seek, as a matter of courtesy, to be present in the House when a matter relevant to his or her Department is being taken. However, there are occasions on which it is not possible for Ministers to be here because they have other duties they are obliged to discharge. Ministers of State are well capable of addressing matters relating to departmental business in the absence of their senior counterparts.

Replies sometimes cannot be made available within the allotted timeframe because investigations into particular matters might be ongoing. The idea that comprehensive answers to private notice questions can be provided within the timeframe to which I refer is unrealistic, particularly when one considers the complexity of some of the issues involved. Obviously, however, there is a duty on Ministers, in whatever capacity, to provide information that is as comprehensive as possible for the House at any given time. That duty is always discharged in a conscientious way by Ministers.

I do not accept the Deputy's contention that an effort is being made by Ministers to avoid their responsibility to be present in the House whenever possible. There are occasions when it is not possible for them to be here and, in such circumstances, their colleagues will reply to matters in their stead. This is not meant as a discourtesy to anyone in the House.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach has been a Member of the House long enough to know that this has become a farce. There was one occasion on which a senior Minister was in a licensed premises near the Dáil when the case of a man who had been murdered was discussed in the House. The Minister in question should have been present for that debate. The Taoiseach may recall that famous incident which was raised by Deputy Allen at the time.

The Taoiseach and I know that serious reforms are required in order to make the House more responsible and accountable and its workings more transparent. One area in respect of which reform is required is that to which Deputy Gilmore refers, namely, the Adjournment debate. The Minister of State, Deputy Carey, has responsibility for this matter but we have not yet seen the colour of his eyes in respect of it. There are a dozen reports in his office — from Government and Opposition parties — in respect of some of which there is a large measure of agreement on how we could make the Dáil more interesting and relevant. It is his responsibility to ensure action is taken on the recommendations made in them. I hope he will take on board the urgings of the Taoiseach and ensure such action is taken.

Under the current system, if Deputy D'Arcy wishes to raise a matter on the Adjournment tomorrow and the Ceann Comhairle allows him to do so, someone in the relevant Department will prepare a script which might not necessarily deal with the issues in respect of which the Deputy is seeking information. There is a solution in this regard, which is contained in one of the reports sitting in the Minister of State's office. The Labour Party and Fine Gael are in agreement on that solution and I am sure a large number of Fianna Fáil Members would concur with it. Under the proposal to which I refer, a second or third question could be put by the Deputy raising the original matter. When are we likely to obtain a comprehensive package from the Minister of State who has responsibility for this matter? He could make a name for himself by reforming the Dáil and making it exciting and interesting in order that Members would want to come into the Chamber to raise matters and receive replies in respect of them.

The Government should treat this as a matter of priority. I accept that it has various economic issues with which it must deal and challenges it will be obliged to face. However, the House has in many ways become irrelevant to the Government which chooses to make all major announcements relating to legislation and other matters outside it. In many instances and from a Government point of view, the Dáil is treated as a place where one should not be. The Taoiseach has been involved in politics for some time and is aware of this. Will information on this matter be forthcoming before the end of next week or will we be obliged to wait until October for the Minister of State to outline his proposals? I accept that, in the context of Dáil reform, the said proposals may receive a large measure of support from Members.

What is the remit of the Office of the Minister for Children? I am concerned about the comments made by the DPP last weekend in regard to his inability to take prosecutions in the absence of a referendum on children. It seems that the changes of personnel on the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children in respect of the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Smith, have brought about a serious change of attitude, and not for the good, towards the progress it was making previously. More than two years ago, my party pointed out that a hole existed in the Constitution and that a referendum was required to plug it, but the matter appears to have stalled.

Has the Taoiseach instructed the Minister of State with responsibility for children that his primary responsibility is to ensure this House deals with the issue of a referendum for children so that young boys and girls do not become the victims of sexual predators? When somebody of the eminence of the Director of Public Prosecutions is unable to proceed because of a requirement for a referendum, surely it should be the responsibility of this House to progress the matter.

From my party's point of view, we submitted our proposals by the date requested but matters seem to have stalled and I ask the Taoiseach to have a word with the new Minister of State with responsibility for children. Can he confirm that it remains his intention to hold a referendum on children's rights, either on strict liability or the broader issue, and, if so, when will it take place?

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is straying beyond the question.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That certainly is beyond the remit of this question but I will answer the first part of the Deputy's question and respond to the second as best I can.

In regard to the first part of his question, promoting Dáil reform is a shared responsibility of all Members and parties in this House. We will seek to play a constructive role in that effort. I have commented in the past that too often Dáil reform has been characterised by questions of where the balance of advantage lies rather than the merits of the reforms themselves. If everyone kept to the idea that we are trying to improve the working of the House and protect its good name and reputation as we proceed with our business, we probably could make better progress in this area than we have traditionally done. Too often, ideas have floated around or been implemented but the original intention then started to stray, things became specific and questions were asked for which no notice was given but on which people were expected to have answers beyond what was originally intended. In other words, the practice of the House often strays from the original objectives of the reform, which is not sensible either.

The Government and the Chief Whip will play a constructive role in exploring how we can improve procedures for the benefit of imparting knowledge and information to the wider public, as well as improving the interplay between Members as we try to discharge our responsibilities. Unfortunately, rather than having that effect, the reforms often provide further opportunities for a descent into theatrics from the substantive discussions and dialogue which would benefit the public in terms of listening to the various ideas people have and the convictions they hold. Let us hope we will continue to try to improve the situation. Too often, progress is not made because that, unfortunately, turns out to be the outcome rather than the aspirations which were the genesis of the discussions on improving the workings of the House.

In regard to the referendum, I have not studied the statement made by the DPP last Friday, although I will consider it in the context of the continuing debate on this complex question. My understanding is that he did not say he could not do his job but spoke instead about difficulties and the prosecutorial role. The prosecution of offences is an issue that arises in terms of how the crime can be fitted to the various warrants and how it can proceed in the courts. I have not studied the statement but I understand that is what he was talking about.

The statement will have to be studied and I do not want to say any more until consideration has been given to the DPP's remarks. However, the statement makes a contribution to the debate. The debate by the all-party committee is proceeding. People are finding out just how complex these issues are in the course of these discussions.

On the problem of sexual predators, as referred to by the Deputy, the question of strict liability applying can have an effect way beyond that particular category of crime. For example, to what extent should young people engaged in sexual activity be brought within the ambit of the proposals in a way not contemplated in the first instance? When one examines all these issues, one finds one has to carefully circumscribe what it is one is trying to achieve while ensuring it does not have an effect and consequence way beyond the particular legitimate issue to be examined and sorted. It is hoped this will be done by way of constitutional amendment based on consensus between the parties. However, it remains to be seen whether the parties can reach a consensus on this issue.

It is true to say that varying views on the matter are emerging within the committee and among its members, regardless of party affiliation. It is a matter for the committee to find a solution to which everyone can subscribe. That may or may not occur. Much depends on where the debate takes us. There are reasons that matters have not been concluded. It is precisely because, as I have just outlined, a proposal which, on the face of it, might solve the initial problem could create other problems further down the line.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Taoiseach for his response. On Dáil reform, I have given my view across a range of areas. I believe half a digital platform should be allocated for coverage of Dáil, Seanad and Committee proceedings. The Ceann Comhairle should be in a position to operate a lottery during Question Time to allow Deputies present in the House to be called to ask a question. This would make business much more relevant for Members rather than the set piece which involves a Minister or Minister of State coming to the House to reply to, for example, eight or ten questions which have already been made known to him or her and, as a result of which, Deputies, aside from those who tabled the questions, have no interest in coming into the Chamber.

Will the Taoiseach confirm if the Government intends to hold a referendum on the children's issue?

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are dealing with the responsibilities of Ministers of State. Deputy Kenny is straying way beyond that issue.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not sure if the Taoiseach has asked the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children with responsibility for children, Deputy Barry Andrews, to work towards completion of a referendum either on strict liability or on the broader issue. Perhaps he will clarify that matter.

The Taoiseach stated that the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Roche, who is not in the House, is responsible for the co-ordination of a coherent approach to the European issue, with which I agree. Unfortunately, that is not what happened over the past couple of months. Except for the occasional cursory contact I had with the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, at the forum in Dublin Castle, there was not the type of co-ordination one would expect in respect of such an issue.

Regarding the decision by the people on the Lisbon treaty, it has been brought to my attention that many sectors encounter difficulties as a consequence of the implementation of the transposition of the directives into Irish law.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Kenny, we are dealing with the responsibilities of Ministers of State.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach stated that the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, has responsibility for the transposition of EU legislation review. I am asking the Taoiseach a question about that responsibility. Will the Minister of State carry out a review of how legislation has been transposed so that where flexibility is possible, it will be shown? This would demonstrate that the Government had at least listened to the particular problems of sectors of Irish life, ranging from turf-cutting to red tape in small business. The transposition of directives into Irish law is his responsibility. This is a fundamental part of the reason people felt so much frustration about the Lisbon treaty referendum. I ask the Taoiseach to ask the Minister of State, as part of his remit, to carry out a review of what has been transposed in order that we can deal with such issues. I raised with the Taoiseach's predecessor the issue of water charges.

Is the Taoiseach happy that the assistance given to the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny which is also the responsibility of the Minister of State is sufficient? I understand there is a river of material coming towards the committee and that it will need assistance, legal and otherwise, in order that Deputies and Senators who serve on it can be properly and fully acquainted with the range of material coming from Brussels. As the Taoiseach knows, under the Lisbon treaty, they were to have only an eight-week period in which to make their views and concerns known. Is he happy that the committee which has been brought to the level of a full committee is being given the necessary resources to do its job properly in the interests of both the Oireachtas and the public?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy's first question was about Dáil reform. We must ensure the provision of considered and accurate information for the House is not supplanted by topicality, as if we were here to provide a day-to-day commentary on newsworthy issues. The Parliament must do its business according to the priorities it sets itself, which must include policy formulation and dealing with issues that will develop over a certain timeframe. We must not accept the idea that we are only relevant if we discuss issues that happen to be topical or are mentioned on morning radio programmes. Parliament must find a balance between taking up issues of urgent public importance and maintaining its role as the main legislative and debating forum in the democratic life of the country. This may mean discussing issues that are not of immediate topicality in wider society but the discussion of which is necessary in order to formulate ideas and decide how we should respond to the major issues of the day as they affect us and our relations with other countries and international organisations. Sometimes I feel Dáil reform is only about facilitating discussion of subjects that will be printable the following day. That is one aspect of it but it is not the full role of Parliament. Sometimes this point is missed. This is an issue for consideration by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. All parties in the House will participate and the Chief Whip will play a constructive role, now that he has settled in to his job, over the course of the summer.

The Minister of State, Deputy Roche, chairs an interdepartmental co-ordinating committee on European Union affairs. His job in this respect is to make sure the Government responds to emerging issues highlighted by Departments based on the work they do. We hear a lot about the importance of the Commissioner in the role of the civil service, so to speak, of the Union. We also have 90 people in Brussels on a full-time basis defending our interests through the Permanent Representation, where much detailed work is done on how to adapt and formulate policies at European level which are subsequently transposed into Irish law to ensure they meet our requirements. We do not hear one word about this during the course of the debate. It is as though the one person appointed as Commissioner, no matter who it is, is the embodiment of how we defend all our concerns. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the Commissioner, on taking up his or her position, must primarily focus on European interests. In the recent debate on the Lisbon treaty, this was an aberration in terms of the role of Commissioner and those who are defending our interests in the Union. I was asked whether the principle of proportionality is being respected with regard to the transposition of European legislation. As the Deputy correctly said, if we had passed the Lisbon treaty we would have a far better structure in terms of the role of national parliaments and national parliamentarians would have an enhanced role in terms of policy formulation in European legislation. This is now not available to us. The principles of proportionality and subsidiarity would have been prominent in the future workings of the Union, had it proceeded along the lines of the Lisbon treaty model. In any event, we are where we are.

During the referendum campaign it was suggested — I heard it in my part of the country and Members probable heard it in the west — that people will no longer be allowed to cut turf from their bogs. The ten year exemption, which is soon to expire, under the habitats directive relates to saving blanket bogs in special areas of conservation but opponents of the treaty presented it as though it denied people this freedom in every respect. Nothing could be further from the truth but who seeks accuracy when trying to win an argument? It depends on what side of the argument one is on. This is another example of people portraying the Union in an unfair way, in this case by suggesting it has the power to impose such a ban, which it has not. It is simply implementing a directive agreed by member states. We must decide either that we should have a habitats directive with special areas of conservation and national heritage areas or that we should not. The people who argue that the European Union is being too intrusive will next week oppose developments in certain areas because they want to maintain our heritage and protect the environment. I suppose it depends on what argument suits them on the day and nobody need seek consistency.

This is another example of an open misrepresentation of the position. Canvass teams told me that opposing canvass teams were talking this nonsense and reducing voters' consideration of a matter of national interest on the basis that they would never be able to cut turf again.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was going to say keep the home fires burning.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It beggars belief but these things happen.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I could tell the Taoiseach worse.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy raised this question because he has heard about this, as have I. What was being misrepresented was that the ten year exemption is up and that the blanket bog and special areas of conservation issue comes into play. This does not mean people will not be able to pursue their turbary rights which are not affected by special areas of conservation. Perhaps opponents of the treaty feel people should forget about all of these directives and do as they wish.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Government still intend to have a referendum on the children's rights issue?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The matter was referred to the all-party committee to see if all-party consensus can be achieved. Consensus has not yet been reached due to a difference of opinion and we will have to see how we proceed. We must take on board what the Director of Public Prosecutions is saying in contributing to the debate.

Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Fair play to those canvass teams for reporting back to the Taoiseach as I did not see many of them around my area.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We had more than the Deputy's side, actually.

Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Taoiseach recall appointing 20 Ministers of State six or seven weeks ago? Does he recall that about a week or two later he swanned around the country telling people to vote "Yes" to a treaty because it would reduce the number of Commissioners for a population of 496 million from 27 to 18? Can the Taoiseach explain how a total of 27 Commissioners for a population of 496 million is deemed excessive while 35 Ministers and Ministers of State for a population of approximately 4.2 million is deemed 100% necessary? Can he tell us if he sees any contradiction in the arguments he is presenting? Does he think there is any irony there at all? Can he sniff any hypocrisy in that position? Has he changed his position in light of the rumblings which have been coming from Europe since the people of this State voted "No"? Is it the case that certain EU officials have decided they can live with 27 Commissioners, after all?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not the case that Ireland's "No" vote will lead to the EU having 27 Commissioners — that is precisely the point.

Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Of course it is the case.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Nice treaty provided that when the EU reached 27 member states, the number of Commissioners would be reduced, although a unanimous vote is required to that end.

Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That was retained in the Lisbon treaty.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No. The Lisbon treaty was actually different. We will not go over it again.

Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach is as well not to, because he lost.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We lost the referendum. I am aware of that. I will restate the position in the interests of accuracy. I would hate the Deputy to be under a continuing misapprehension about what is in the treaty. The Lisbon treaty provided that all 27 member states could continue to have a Commissioner until 2014.

Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, and then the Commissioners will go.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, the Deputy is wrong again. The treaty provided that, if agreed, the number of Commissioners could be reduced to 18, subject to the principle of equal rotation. It also provided that the number of Commissioners could stay at 27, if unanimous agreement could be reached on that. That is what it said. It was not in the Sinn Féin literature, but that is what the treaty said. As the Deputy would say, Sinn Féin got out its scéal and away it went. The Deputy suggested that we should decide how many members of Government we should have, and how many Ministers of State should support the work of those Ministers, on the basis of the number of Commissioners the European Union has. I do not agree. I regard any decision on the number of Ministers this country should have as a sovereign matter for the Irish Government.

Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am delighted to hear the Taoiseach talking about sovereign decisions. If we had supported the Lisbon treaty, we would have lost a considerable amount of sovereignty in making decisions. Perhaps the Taoiseach is right to argue we should let that go. Is the Taoiseach satisfied there is an absolute need for 20 Ministers of State? Is he satisfied that all those positions are warranted? At a time when he is telling the rest of us to tighten our belts, is he satisfied it is absolutely necessary to have 20 Ministers of State? During these difficult times, we are facing pay freezes — the devil and all. Is he totally satisfied that all the Ministers of State are giving us value for money?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am absolutely satisfied that, in order to discharge political accountability, two or three democratically elected politicians — a Minister and one or two Ministers of State — should be asked to run a Department which may have many hundreds of thousands of people working for it. I do not see what could be more respectful of our democratic institutions than to give political responsibility for running Departments to politicians. We do not live in a technocracy — we live in a democracy. People elect us to this House. This House elects Governments. We have a broad range of domestic and international responsibilities in terms of how we serve the people and the country. I assure the Deputy that those who hold positions in this Administration have extensive and responsible jobs to do. Each of them is held to account by the other Members of this House on a daily basis. I do not think it is in the interests of politics for those who exercise the profession to denigrate their fellow members of the profession.