Gavan Reilly: So ends the last recess of the 33rd Dáil, and so begins the official warm-up to the general election

So ends the last recess of the 33rd Dáil, and so begins the official warm-up to the general election. The simple reason everyone expects an election this autumn, despite claims to the contrary by all three coalition leaders, is simply because the government is more likely to do well in the short aftermath of the Budget. But more, no doubt, on that in the weeks to come.

Lest there any doubt, however, the government is in full election mode. Little proves the point then Simon Harris simultaneously saying (as Taoiseach) the government must remain in office to oversee the publication of new housing targets this autumn, while (as Fine Gael leader) announcing what those targets should be. Another exhibit is the assurance by Paschal Donohoe that the next FG manifesto will include a commitment to create a new Department of Infrastructure.

The Constitution limits the overall number of senior ministers to 15, and your columnist is old enough to remember when the FG press office would pillory political opponents for propose new government departments without identifying another one that could make way. Mind you, you don’t need to be very old to remember it: it was July 2019 when FG was haranguing Micheal Martin for wanting a new Department of Higher Education. FG’s cough was softened when Simon Harris ended up running it, with no other department needing to be cut, and ministers simply doubling up on portfolios. Funny how the party has no qualms now.

One wonders the apparent advantage of creating another new department, however. When Leo Varadkar returned to power in December 2022, he renamed the department Donohoe runs: the Department of Public Expenditure also became the ‘Department for National Development Plan Delivery’. Donohoe literally wants a new Department to fulfil a task his own already has.

What would a new separate Department bring to the table? Presumably the argument is that delivering important new public assets is made more efficient under a standalone state vehicle.

The failing in this argument is that it’s hard to see how all important infrastructure could be hived off into a single new department. Can you imagine the Department of Health, or the HSE, handing over responsibility for the delivery of new hospitals or primary care centres? Would the Department of Transport still have any say in where new roads are built? Does the Department of Education have a role in the placement of new schools?

Of course they all would: no silo of the State would give up such a core part of its job, and indeed of its budget. Nor is the Department of Public Expenditure likely to simply hand over responsibility for most of the state’s capital budget. Creating a new department for infrastructure won’t get around bureaucracy – it’s likely instead to compound it.

But if you want one reason why this Department will never happen, it’s this: any coalition is a tug-of-war on claiming credit for big ticket items. Why would any party give its partners the solitary control over what gets built, and where?