In parliamentary regimes, what is a “Minister Without Portfolio”?

[syncrolecyne]

You would think the Canadian government could afford a 3 ring binder and some manila folders, even with the devaluations. Actually it seems most nations have at least one, and often two or three Ministers without Portfolio.
Seriously, what is a “Minister Without Portfolio”. I entered all sorts of search terms, but didn’t get a real answer. I can only assume it is either:

1.A cabinet minister who is on ‘standby’ in the event that a need for an extra minister should arise.

2. A jack of all trades minister who handles the odds and ends of government that are not covered by any major department.

3. A sort of ‘welfare’ position for loyal but inept politicians who would screw up even the tourism ministry or the postal service.

4. The equivalent of the American president’s “chief of staff”.

[BobT]

Those particular ministers have to carry all their papers in their hands.

They tend to drop many of them.

[Otto]

From the Irish Ministers and Secretaries (Amended) Act of 1939, section 4:

(2) A member of the Government who is not a Minister having charge of a Department of State shall be known as a Minister without portfolio.

I imagine the term means something similar in other governments which use it.

[rsa]

Portfolio

By the early part of the nineteenth century, it was beginning to be applied to a container that had within it the official papers of a government department. By an obvious extension it was soon applied to the job of the minister in charge of a department, as in “ministers were appointed to the portfolios of foreign affairs, war, commerce, justice and finance”.

Rather later, it proved necessary to appoint people to the British Cabinet without departmental responsibilities, who instead had a roving or variable assignment, or brought useful skills or experience to bear. They were dubbed ministers without portfolio, which has led to a perennial parliamentary joke about such persons being spotted carrying a portfolio (one recent minister without portfolio is even said to have had “minister without portfolio” written on his portfolio).

[ianzin]

Here in the UK it simply means a minister who is officially a member of the cabinet, but does not have responsibility for one deparmtent or group of deparmtents. More significantly, it means he doesn’t control a departmental budget, so he doesn’t get involved in the in-fighting over funds.

Why have someone in the cabinet ‘without portfolio’? It’s largely a case of the Prime Minister feeling that s/he wants that person’s input, advice, experience and that they might be more useful not confined to one specific department.

[Motog]

The situation is similar in Australia to what Ianzin and rsa said. We don’t tend to have them very often.

Sometimes the position is the result of internal party politics - there’s someone within the party who is too powerful for the Prime Minister to ignore (eg defeated leadership opponent or a not very competent leader of an important faction) but that the PM doesn’t want to give a full Ministerial role so they make them a Minister Without Portfolio.

Other times it’s the PM’s odd-job man/woman. However, these days that role is more likely to be called Special Minister of State and is in the Outer Cabinet. Usually this role is given to either an up-and-comer or a headkicker.