asked the Minister for Finance if he will outline the major factors responsible for the failure of the Third Programme of Economic Expansion to reach its projected targets; and why this programme was not aborted when its failure became apparent.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Economic Expansion Programme.
14.
To suggest that the Third Programme has failed is to misunderstand the process and purpose of planning. A programme is a statement of the best combination of community preference, effort and discipline as well as of Government policy for the purposes of maximising welfare and employment over a period. The prospect for this combined effort is always constrained by the abiding uncertainty about the future, including the force of external factors over which we have no control.
However, in so far as the divergence from the targets is a symptom of failure in community response, in effort and in income restraint, the solution lies in achieving a greater awareness of the direct relationship between these factors and increased welfare and employment.
What is required, therefore, is not a change of programme but rather an improved community attitude. I am continuously reviewing Government policy and am making every effort, by budgetary means and otherwise, to ensure that policy is fully geared to the needs of maximising welfare and employment, but these measures must be matched by a community response, if their success is to be sustained.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary not admit now that the Third Programme is a failure in so far as he stated that the Government policy must be improved? I should have thought that a programme would aim to reach certain targets and would state how they could be achieved. If the targets were not reached, it would indicate to me that the measures employed were not the right ones and that something should be done. It has been said that the Third Programme has had to be abandoned, that it has not been a success.
I tried to explain to the Deputy that the outrun did not match the targets in many cases. Nevertheless, some substantial progress was made. Non-agricultural employment increased by 35,000 since 1968; investment increased by 27 per cent in real terms in the same period; public expenditure on social services increased by more than 21 per cent since 1968. In addition, growth in the gross domestic product since 1968 at over 9 per cent is above that of the United Kingdom for the same period.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary state how far it fell short of the projections in the Third Programme and when this failure became known to the Government?
I do not like the word "failure"; I am not accepting that word.
It was announced by the Taoiseach.
Planning is a combination of many things——
Will the Parliamentary Secretary state how far it fell short of the projections?
The reason for what the Deputy calls "failure"—what might be called "divergences"—was the decreased competitiveness of the home and foreign markets due to the rapid rise in unit wage costs, the effect on tourism having regard to the situation in the North of Ireland, the low growth in industrial exports because of the depressed market and the effects of strikes, particularly the cement strike in 1970.
The Parliamentary Secretary has carefully selected a list of causes, none of which the Government, of course, could be held totally responsible for. Would the Parliamentary Secretary like to comment on the failure of the Government to reach any of the targets set in regard to expenditure in the social sphere? Some were overspent and some underspent, and there was a lack of any relationship between the targets and performance. How does the Parliamentary Secretary blame that on the community, other than that the community elected Fianna Fáil in 1969?
Can the Parliamentary Secretary state why there are 77,000 unemployed people if the Third Programme was not a failure?
I think the next question deals with unemployment.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary answer my question about the divergence of public expenditure from targets?
If the Deputy puts down a question he will get an answer.
Deputy Corish——
I want to know what were the major factors responsible for this failure?
I have given them. I have given the main reasons for the targets not being achieved.
The Parliamentary Secretary has not given any reason relevant to the failure of the Government to reach their targets—they have overspent in some cases and have underspent in others.
That does not arise on this question. I have not that information here with me.
The targets I refer to are set out in the Third Programme in detail. For each area of Government expenditure—housing, health, social welfare——
This is not a matter that can be discussed at Question Time. I would suggest that this matter could best be discussed on the Financial Resolutions.
It could be discussed much more intelligently if questions were answered.
If the Deputy wishes I can read out the Third Programme regarding progress from 1969 to 1971 but I am sure he has read it himself.
The Parliamentary Secretary has said——
I have suggested that Deputies could pursue this matter on the Financial Resolutions as the question is too wide to be discussed at Question Time.
On a point of order——
It is not a point of order.
While Deputy FitzGerald continued to speak the Chair called me but now I am being told I cannot ask a question. The Parliamentary Secretary said that there was an increase of 35,000 in industrial employment from 1968 to the present time. Will the Parliamentary Secretary state if there was an increase in total employment between 1969 and 1971?
That is a separate question.
For total employment, an increase of 6,000 is expected as against a target of 16,000.