Brendan Ryan (Labour)

All of my amendments are of a similar tone. It is simply not true to suggest the Minister for Finance has a constitutional position which requires that the Taoiseach receives his or her permission. It could not be the case. I checked the Constitution. I accept that the office of the Minister for Finance is a constitutional position but the fundamental constitutional principle is that the Taoiseach appoints the Minister for Finance and can dismiss that Minister without reason or explanation, just because he or she wants to. That is the way the Constitution was written and it is the way every Government operates.

The Minister for Finance is not somebody who can withhold a decision from the Taoiseach. If the Constitution intended that, there would be a procedure for dismissal. The Taoiseach can decide to dismiss the Minister for Finance today. If the Minister refuses, the Taoiseach can tell the Minister he or she has to go. No qualification is attached to that. How could it be logically and constitutionally consistent to suggest that a subordinate would have a veto over the decision of his or her superior? It is meaningless.

This is part of what I have believed for many years to be a necessary campaign to get rid of the Stalinism in our public sector and public services, which has the result that the Department of Finance believes it knows best for everybody and that it can micromanage everybody. I know ex-Ministers — I am not referring to present company — who have suffered from the determination of junior officials in the Department of Finance to tell Ministers what they can and cannot do in the name of the authority of the Department of Finance.

This country has collective Cabinet responsibility. The idea that one member of the Cabinet would have authority over another member of the Cabinet contradicts collective responsibility because there cannot be collective responsibility if one person can tell another what to do. However, that is a separate issue.

On this issue, the Bill contains certain language. Section 18(6) states, "There shall be paid to the members of a body such remuneration (if any) and such allowances for expenses incurred by them as the Taoiseach, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, may from time to time determine". So, in order for the Taoiseach to decide how much should be paid, he would have to get Deputy Cowen's permission. Deputy Cowen is only Minister because the Taoiseach appointed him. How could it be constitutionally consistent to say the Taoiseach must get the Minister's permission?

Perhaps the most extraordinary part of the Bill is the section which concerns superannuation. Section 27(6) states, "If any dispute arises as to the claim of any person to, or the amount of, any superannuation benefit payable in pursuance of a scheme or schemes under this section, such dispute shall be submitted to the Taoiseach [which is fair, as he is responsible] who shall [not may] refer it to the Minister for Finance, whose decision shall be final". That utterly contradicts the constitutional structure of authority in this country and gives a totally disproportionate amount of power to the Department of Finance.

A convenient excuse is being used by the Minister of State, namely, that in order to be consistent with another Bill, the reference to the Taoiseach is being deleted. In truth a constitutionally unsustainable position, that the Taoiseach could ever require the sanction of the Minister for Finance whom he has appointed, is being deleted here. It is like suggesting the chief executive officer of a company requires the sanction of a subordinate that he has appointed. It may be sensible to use the words "consult with" and "seek the agreement of", but to suggest the Taoiseach could be vetoed on anything by a subordinate Minister is constitutional nonsense.