Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. Senator Hanafin has drawn our attention to some of the successes during the past five years. I accept his example in respect of insurance in terms of the Government's battle against insurance costs. However, I will be opposing the Bill. I do so not with any inherent opposition to what Government has done in the past but for a specific reason. In the 14 years that it has been my privilege and honour to serve in this House I have often had the opportunity to criticise legislation that was being rushed through the Oireachtas without sufficient time being provided for us to scrutinise it properly. I have stated again and again that speedy legislation almost always results in bad legislation. Time tends to reveal flaws that could have been noticed had the legislation been debated in a more leisurely manner. We should not rush measures such as this through both Houses of the Oireachtas.

What we are dealing with today is bad legislation of a different kind, an altogether worse kind. Most emergency legislation arises out of a real need and the intention behind it is at least worthy. We have all accepted on occasion the need to pass legislation urgently. No such defence can be offered for this Bill. It has been introduced for the most questionable of reasons. It is gravely flawed on its very face. It is one thing to pass a measure while believing its flaws may show up after a time. It is another to pass a measure that bears its flaws for all of us to see as it passes through the Houses.

I now have family in France and I find myself taking an interest in what happens there. When Nicolas Sarkozy was elected President of France, he started his term of office with a striking symbolic gesture. He announced a Government with far fewer members than has been the norm recently in that country. That gesture not only brought about better and more effective government, it also cost the French taxpayer less. It also made sense as a response to the widely felt public opinion that in recent years government had tended to grow like Topsy without any apparent restraint and without any clear benefit to the people who paid for it. What a bold gesture that was by the French Government and President. It was one that we would have done well to emulate in this much smaller country. Instead, our new Government tarnished its image in its first days by producing a shoddy Bill, the effect of which will be to bloat the benches of Government further and will produce worse administration at higher cost.

When he announced his intention to increase the number of Ministers of State from the already bloated figure, the Taoiseach waved a fig leaf of justification in our direction but he did so limply and with no conviction. No growing or pressing workload will be addressed by making these appointments. The Minister of State and Senator Hanafin both mentioned the increased population and the challenges that brings. That does not create a need for extra Ministers of State.

The new Government faces many more major challenges than in the past ten years. The biggest of all is the crumbling national competitiveness which becomes worse every month because of inflation at double the European average. This battle against inflation should be very high on our agenda. One of the reasons for our inflation, as the figures we saw yesterday show, is the huge increase in the cost of Government. Despite this, one of the first acts of the Government has been to increase that cost again. I did not hear the Minister of State explaining why this is a worthy increase in cost. If the battle against inflation has such a high level of importance, the Government should reduce the cost of Government by reducing the number of Ministers of State from 17 to the original 15 of 12 years ago. This Bill will not address the challenge of national competitiveness, the battle against inflation or any of the other serious challenges that lie ahead.

The motivation behind this Bill, which even the Government has hardly bothered to mask, is purely political. This is a very expensive Bill which is being rushed through as emergency legislation purely to fulfil the narrow political needs of the incoming Government. Winning office as a Minister of State is a wonderful occasion for any politician. It is the first rung on the ladder of Government. It is a pity those who rise to this office on this occasion do so by means of a tawdry political gesture which, inevitably, detracts from their very achievement.

It gives me no pleasure to voice my opposition to the Bill, not just because of its content but because of the speed at which it is being introduced. I express this disappointment, although it is highly unlikely we will be able to stop the Bill going through. I would have preferred to have seen the new Government in its first days in office state it was introducing a Bill to appoint only 15 Ministers of State rather than 17, although it probably would not have had to do so. It would have set an example that one of the challenges it faces and that one of its priorities is to reduce the cost of Government in this State. Therefore, it would have set an example to all those other areas in which inflation is increasing, thus reducing our national competitiveness. I urge us to rethink this Bill.