asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if the Government has made any decision in regard to the conclusion of the Buchanan Report that the pursuit of existing industrial policies would reduce the population of this country seventeen years hence by 140,000 below the level that could be attained by a policy of developing growth centres throughout the country, and that 121,100 of this avoidable loss of population would occur in the western half of the country; and, if so, on what expert advice it has made such a decision; and if he is prepared to elaborate on the statements already made by him in regard to the report.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Buchanan Report.
80.
The Government, on 19th May, 1969, indicated that the Buchanan consultants' growth centres recommendations should further be studied in the light of regional development generally. This study is still proceeding.
Does the Minister reject the suggestion in the Buchanan Report that the adoption of its policies would increase the population by 140,000 over the level that would otherwise be attained and that 121,000 of this would be in the west of Ireland? If he accepts this contention, why is he in any doubt about accepting the report, in view of the obvious desirability of accelerating the growth of the population in the western part of the country?
As I have already indicated, on some occasions publicly, not only is the study to which I have referred going on but it is my personal belief that some of the bases on which the recommendations of the report were made do not now apply or that the effect of the growth pattern envisaged by the consultants is not, in fact, what is taking place in the country at present.
Of course it is. It was part of the consultants' report that it was proposed to develop growth centres to accelerate growth. Is the Minister suggesting that what is happening now is different from what they said would happen if their recommendations were accepted? Is he saying that that is a reason for not accepting the recommendations? It sounds completely nonsensical.
What I am suggesting is that recommendations were made in the belief that the growth pattern in the future would be of a certain kind. They did not envisage what, in fact, is happening in the country today. If they had done so, they might — I am not saying they would — have arrived at a different conclusion.
Is the Minister saying that what has happened in a matter of months since the report was completed — less than a year — is of such a character as to invalidate their assessment of what would happen over the next 17 years — because that would be highly improbable?
Both the recommendations involved and the altered pattern that has now emerged are both of vital concern to the future of this country. To dismiss the change in the pattern as being of no account or as being of minor account would be to make a very grave mistake both on an economic and a social basis. Consequently, the study the Government are continuing to have carried out is necessary and will be carried out.
The Minister indicates that altered patterns have now emerged since the publication of this report. May I ask the Minister to be somewhat more specific in indicating what precise changes of a growth pattern have occurred in the country which would warrant the shelving of this report?
Hear, hear.
Certainly, apart from a development down in Cork, one in Waterford and perhaps one or two others which are generally known, I do not think they should inhibit the Government or the Minister in arriving at conclusions in relation to this report.
I have referred to this change in pattern before. The Deputy is mistaken if he thinks that what I have said means, to quote his words, that the Government are "shelving this report." I have not said any such thing.
You are shelving it.
What I have said is that the Government have said that it is necessary to study this recommendation further in the light of regional development generally and that this study would, in fact, continue. I have also said that my personal view is that a changing pattern in development is such as to make one look more closely at the projections on which the consultants based their recommendations.
Would the Minister consider——
Question No. 81.
May I ask just one more supplementary question, please?
Question No. 81. I have already allowed five supplementaries on this question. Other Deputies would not have their questions answered this afternoon if I were to allow further supplementaries on one question. Therefore, next question please.
81.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he has as yet conveyed his views to the Industrial Development Authority on the implementation or otherwise of the propositions contained in the Buchanan Report.
As indicated in the statement issued by the Government on 19th May, 1969, it was decided that the recommendations about growth centres in the Buchanan Report should be further considered in the context of proposals for regional development generally. This consideration is proceeding and according as it is necessary I will convey my views to the Industrial Development Authority.
In view of the fact that the Industrial Development Authority must surely be aware of any changes in the recent characteristics of growth patterns in the country and in view of the fact that the Minister has indicated that such changes have occurred, surely it should now be possible for the Minister to give a firm indication of his personal attitude to this particular report as he seems to be at variance with the Government in that regard?
It seems to me that the Deputy may be under a misapprehension. I presume he has read the Government statement in regard to the Buchanan Report. If he has done so, he will have noted that it set out the regions into which the country is being divided for the purpose of industrial development. It also set out the fact that the IDA was setting up units in each of these regions and specifying the kind of work that would be done in them. I want to assure the House that, of course, the decision of the Government is at present being implemented by the IDA. The consideration of the recommendation of the Buchanan Report about the major national growth centres in no way interferes with that.
Can the Minister tell us whether he is, in fact, reviewing the position in the light of developments since the report was prepared? Can he tell us whether he will consult with the Buchanan team themselves in regard to these changes? It is highly desirable that any fresh assessment, based on fresh information, should have the benefit of their expert advice. There should be no doubts in anybody's mind as to the motivation for any change in policy. It would carry great weight, I think the Minister would agree, if, in fact, any modification in policy announced by him were known to have the support of the consultants themselves.
The Deputy may rest assured that in the further study to which I have referred the Government will have regard to all relevant information and consideration. I would repeat something which I have had occasion to say here before: the Deputy will be aware of it because he referred to it while he was in the other House. It is that, whatever recommendations we may get from Buchanan or elsewhere the ultimate decision in these matters, particularly in such an important matter as this, will be the Government's and the responsibility will be the Government's. The question as to whether the decision made conforms to the recommendation of the report of Buchanan or of anybody else is, in my view, only one minor matter. The ultimate decision is that of the Government and the responsibility is on the Government.
Surely we will not have to wait five years?
Surely the Minister will agree that if the Government's decision in its modified form had the support of the consultants, if they accepted it — if it was known that the consultants accepted it — if it was known that in fact, the assumption on which they had worked had been modified and that this justified the Government in changing the decision — that fact would make the Government's decision that much more acceptable to everybody and would carry that much more weight?
Acceptable to whom?
The general public.
Everybody.
Everybody.