Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 14 Dec 1972

Vol. 264 No. 8

Adjournment Debate: Fourth Programme for Economic and Social Development.

Deputy Bruton gave notice that he would raise the subject matter of Question No. 49 of the 12th December.

We have had three programmes for economic expansion in the office of the present Government. They have followed each other in immediate succession. They have, despite their many faults, provided a framework upon which one could understand the working of Government policy. They have provided a reference for bodies such as the Employer-Labour Conference or the National Prices Commission operating in a particular sector of the economy and wishing to see how their work could fit into the overall context of Government policy. The concept of programming has been lauded by the Government as a useful discipline in economic policy. We on these benches would agree that this is the case. We would think indeed that the programmes should contain much more specific and quantified targets and therefore be a more effective discipline and provide a more effective yardstick of the extent to which the Government are succeeding in reaching the targets they are setting for themselves.

It is important that, coming into the year in which we will be a member of the EEC for the first time, we should have a programme of economic expansion against which to judge the performance of the Government during 1973, that most crucial year in our economic and social development. I asked the Minister for Finance the day before yesterday, in view of the fact that the Third Programme expires on the 31st of this month, when would the Fourth Programme be coming into effect and when it would be published. I was told that it had been envisaged that it would be published at the end of the year, that it would follow directly upon the Third Programme which expires, but that due to some circumstances it was now foreseen that it would be some months before the document would be published and I was not told, though I asked, what date it would come into force. I was told that it would be some months before it would be published but I was not told when it would come into force. The obvious implication is that it will be six or eight months before this programme comes into effect; in other words, there will be six or eight of the most crucial months in the economic and social development of this country during which we are for the first time full members of the EEC which will be covered by no programme of Government policy. There will be no programme for expansion, for social development during these months.

The reasons the Minister gave are most difficult to understand. He said it was due to the lack of availability of up-to-date information of a statistical kind upon which the programme could be based. I asked what statistics but he gave me no answer. He said something about a number of varying factors, including the situation in the North of Ireland. There have been a number of varying factors operating at all times in the history of this State which have affected its economy but these have not prevented the production of statistical information. I have not noticed that because we have trouble in the North of Ireland, the Central Statistics Office has been coming out any later with their publications in relation to other aspects of the economy. I cannot understand why the peculiar statistics effective in relation to the framing of the Fourth Programme should for some unspecified reason in relation to the North of Ireland, not be coming out while other statistics are available and are being published daily and received by Deputies from the Central Statistics Office. This reason does not stand up at all.

The Minister should spell out quite clearly what precise statistics are not available, precisely why they are not available and precisely when he expects the Fourth Programme to come into effect.

The reason suggested to me for this is that the civil servants in question did produce a programme to the Minister but that they were carpeted by him because the programme was not optimistic enough and did not provide a sufficiently attractive schedule of promises upon which the Government could hope to go to the people, and he told them to go back and produce something more optimistic, which would provide a better election platform for Fianna Fáil. If this is the sort of operation that is taking place, it is a travesty of economic programming. Maybe that is not the case. Naturally one does not know what is going on in the Civil Service but the fact that the Government have failed to produce a programme to follow on the Third Programme gives rise to very grave suspicions about their seriousness in regard to the economic management of the country and their seriousness in setting out at all on the idea of economic programming or planning. I hope the Minister will give a serious answer to this problem and not try to laugh it off with vague generalities as he did in replying to the original question.

I strongly support Deputy Bruton on this matter and I deplore the total absence now of any consultative procedures in the framing of a Fourth Programme. It is not unfair to say that while there may have been some element of politics in the First, Second, and Third Programmes in the context of the development of indicative planning in the country it is now a purely cynical political exercise. The Fourth Programme has deteriorated into that kind of political wonderland largely because the Minister has effectively destroyed the consultative process in the preparation of the drafts of such programmes and it certainly must be demoralising to the vast majority of civil servants in the various Departments making their contributions towards such a programme to know that their programme is being regarded now as a purely political general election platform by the Government for the next general election. This is the only purpose it is now deemed to serve by the Minister and this is becoming quite obvious from what one can define from Dáil replies and statements made from time to time by the Minister.

Therefore I strongly support Deputy Bruton and I completely reject the alleged absence of factual information on which to base a report. There is a wealth of data available from the CSO and the economic staff and the economic development division of the Department of Finance, run down though it has been over the past few years. The economic staff of the Department of Finance, which would readily have available to them the economic expertise of the Central Bank and the ESRI, or any of the other institutions which would readily co-operate with the Department in making data available, are more than capable of producing very up-to-date data and projecting into the mid-seventies a great deal of sensible economic projections available to the State which should have been available in the mid-1972 period but which now, regrettably, will not be available except around February or March when the Government will launch them in conjunction with the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis. This seems to be the kind of political coinciding which smacks of political opportunism. It is not in the best interests of the management of the economy of the State and most certainly does not lead me to the belief which I did have that perhaps we had in the early 1960s and in the late 1960s a breakthrough in economic planning. even if it was in the indicative sense. It came, but the politicians have scuttled it and the Fianna Fáil Party now, for purely political purposes, look like burying it and I think we are right in raising it this year and protesting strongly to the Minister about it.

I was absent when this matter was raised, though I came in when it was under discussion. I would have perhaps contributed in supplementaries had I been here at that moment. I, as the Minister knows, have always supported these economic programmes. I am aware that at the time they are published they have a certain propaganda value for the Government in power, regardless of whether there is any political content in them, even the most objective programme. More than most of my party, I admit, that to a large degree most of the programmes have been objective, but the most objective programme necessarily favours the Government in power when it is published, but when the targets set are not achieved, and especially when this is visibly attributable to the mismanagement of the economy by the Government, to short-term cyclical slowing down of growth, the Government get a bit embarrassed. This happened to a notable degree in the case of a Second Programme—not so much in the First. There was a dip in the economy in 1972 but it did not so much affect the result and the targets set at that time were so modest that they were easily exceeded.

The debate is confined to the publication and date of coming into operation.

I am coming to this point. The Second Programme was terminated abruptly about one-third way through its life, on the obvious ground that the targets would not be met and another programme introduced, but let us consider the dates. The First Programme was published in November, 1958, for a period covering 1959 to 1963 and there was no difficulty in publishing it in good time. The Second was to cover the period from 1964 to 1969 inclusive but, in fact, that first section was published in August, 1963, and then details followed in July, 1964. It was possible to publish an advance account of it but the main targets in it were in August, 1963. It was possible to publish an advance account of it with the main targets in August, 1963. That programme was arbitrarily and prematurely terminated and a new programme was introduced which was published early in 1969 at the outset of the four-year period to which it was to apply.

It is disturbing that we are going backwards and that now apparently there is no fixed date for publication of a fourth programme. I am puzzled this should be attributed to statistical problems. Every programme produced so far has suffered from the disability that hard firm data in respect of certain key indicators is not available possibly for two years, especially in relation to such matters as the census of industrial production. However, this has not prevented programmes being produced and that we should have to abandon the process of producing programmes and publishing them in good time is barely credible.

One must ask what new statistical problems have arisen. If the Minister did, in fact, make a reference to Northern Ireland I am bemused. I follow Irish statistics very carefully and I have arrangements made to get them as soon as they are produced. The statistics office are extremely efficient in publishing advance data in stencil form before they are printed, but I am not aware of any slowing down in the publishing of our statistics because of Northern Ireland. I am aware of the slowing down in the economy which is in part attributable to that, but that is a different question. If the Minister is suggesting the situation in Northern Ireland is contributing to the slowing down of the preparation of statistics he will have to explain that to the House. On this side of the House we are not aware of this phenomenon.

It is unfortunate that the Fourth Programme should get this bad start and I hope the Minister can give a rational and full explanation of the matter. Deputy Desmond has pointed out that confidence in this programme will be somewhat weakened because there is no longer in existence a national economic council such as the NIEC and the fact that the programme is now being produced by administrative civil servants under the direction of a political Minister. Civil servants are the agents of that Minister and they are required to do what he says. They are not professional civil servants as in the Central Statistics Office. We know that what comes from the Central Statistics Office is impartial and that any Minister or Taoiseach who would endeavour to dictate to them about statistics would get a short answer, culminating in the rapid resignation of the director as a professional civil servant. The same is not true of the civil servants who prepare the programme: they are administrative civil servants in the Department of Finance and in other Departments and they work under the direct control of their Ministers. The Minister in each case is a political Minister and he may or may not seek to influence the programme in a political way.

In the last two programmes we had the NIEC as the guardian of the public interest, a body comprising civil servants and representatives of management and industry and the trade unions who were able to give their view of the programme and who could tell the public that the programme was reasonable and impartial and was not politically orientated. That was the clear implication of what they said and this increased confidence in a programme that, in view of its necessary political origins, was liable to be suspect.

It has not been easy for the Opposition to accept these programmes because of the obvious immediate bonus to the Government, but the Opposition have been very responsible in their attitude. The three programmes have been accepted: we have not tried to make them political issues, although we have criticised parts of them. It was much easier for us to do this in the case of the Second and Third Programme because we had the guarantee of the validity of the programmes and their largely apolitical character in the form of the NIEC reports. We have not got that on this occasion and when the Minister gives excuses for the delay in producing the programme that arouses suspicion.

I was not involved in this matter. It was Deputy Bruton's decision to raise the issue in the circumstances. The Minister has a duty to ensure confidence in the programmes. It has been a great help to this country when we have had programmes produced which, having the stamp of approval of the NIEC on the last two occasions, have been able to command support of a consensus in this House. It would be a tragedy if the Fourth Programme became a matter of political controversy in a way the other programmes did not, and the Minister has a duty to ensure this is not the case now. He can do that by explaining to us fully and frankly what difficulties have arisen and why the programme has been postponed. He can tell us when it will be published and he can give us an assurance that the programme will be as apolitical as the previous programmes. I do not say there was not a political element in them but, by and large, a convention has been established that the targets set are not interfered with for political reasons. We would like an assurance that what comes out of this programme will be the considered view of the experts regarding the kind of growth rate our economy can achieve and how it will be distributed between different sectors.

I would ask the Minister to ensure that there is some kind of regional basis for the programme, that the targets in respect of investment will be expressed in regional terms. We have a firm basis for this because we have county income figures for three separate years, for 1960, 1965 and 1969. We need a regional basis for these figures and the programme will command much more public support if each part of the country is able to see what is involved for it. I proposed this during the Second Programme; I did not suggest it should be done in the Third Programme but I suggested it should be done in the Fourth Programme.

The targets in this programme should be sufficiently detailed. The most unfortunate step backwards in the Third Programme—dropping targets for agricultural products, for example—should be retrieved and we should have an adequately detailed programme that will command interest and support throughout the community.

We have had quite a number of misstatements in this short debate—so many I wonder if they are due to ignorance or malice. It is difficult to make up one's mind. Deputy Bruton stated that on previous occasions one programme had followed another without a gap. Deputy FitzGerald tried hard but ineffectively to get him off the hook——

Where was the gap?

Deputy FitzGerald was not interrupted. The Deputies had their go and they should now take their medicine——

What medicine?

I am coming to Deputy Desmond. Let him take it.

The Minister should not threaten me. Talk about arrogance——

The Deputy is a great man to give us an example of arrogance when he speaks. However, when he is about to get his answer he does not like it. Now he has a choice—he can take it or leave it. The First Programme and Part I of the Second Programme were published before the programmes came into force. Part 2 of the Second Programme and the Third Programme were not published until July, 1964, and March, 1969, after the programmes had come into force in January, 1964, and January, 1969. That relates to the first misstatement of fact we had in the debate. The reasons for the delay in publishing the Third Programme were basically that consultations with organisations in the private sector had to continue but were delayed; and there were difficulties in finalisation of the base year statistics—I am referring to 1968.

There were more misstatements with regard to consultation. It was implied and specifically alleged that the absence of the National Economic Council means we cannot have the consultations that would be necessary. This is quite untrue. The fact is that in the past consultations took place with various sectors, with the Confederation of Irish Industry, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, with agricultural interests and so on. It is true the Third Programme was shown to the NIEC in its final form but the consultations took place not with the NIEC or through the NIEC. At the moment consultations are going on in connection with the Fourth Programme. I do not know why Deputies try to pretend, in order to make a political point, that the absence of the NIEC means no consultation with the various sectors of the economy——

It means no endorsement of the programme.

That is not true. Deputies either know it is not true or they are grossly negligent in the statements they are making. The fact is that, as I said, these consultations are going on at present.

I thought the Minister said they were not going on.

Consultations have taken place with the Confederation of Irish Industry. In fact, consultation was delayed for some months as a result of the air crash at Heathrow. A preliminary negotiation had taken place with the late Mr. Gray and some months elapsed before the confederation was in a position to engage again in consultation. Arrangements have been made for consultation with the Congress of Trade Unions. These are going on at the moment.

Are they taking place?

In regard to the statistics I mentioned in my reply to the Parliamentary question tabled by Deputy Bruton, the fact is that firm statistical information on the base year, 1972, is not yet available; that is the base year for the programme. Specifically, data on employment from the census of population of 1971, which is a vital factor in the 1972 employment estimate, will not be available until the end of February, 1973.

We did make some attempts to avoid this delay by carrying out a sample survey but this did not prove to be successful. Furthermore, the preliminary Central Statistics Office estimates of national accounts aggregates for 1972—for example, GNP, imports, exports et cetera—are not yet available. It is true that Department of Finance estimates would be available at the end of 1972 but significant revisions might well be required on the receipt of the Central Statistics Office estimates.

I mentioned the other day that uncertainty in regard to likely developments in the situation in Northern Ireland is a major constraint in preparing economic projections for 1973-75, which must, of course, underline policy changes that are to be made in this programme. Clearly, the two most obvious areas affected are tourism and investment in industry.

Deputy Bruton and Deputy FitzGerald are both mystified in this regard. I cannot understand this. I think a child out in the street would understand what I said. Let me spell it out. The explanation is that neither really understands that what we are talking about in the programme are projections and we are trying to get the projections as accurately as possible. Clearly, a situation which is affected by political and other developments in a part of our country, developments which are taking place at quite an accelerated rate, are factors one has to evaluate, or try to, in the light of the effect they are having on the basis of the latest statistics we can get. The statistics, for instance, for last year as compared with the situation this year will give some guide to this, rough and ready, admittedly, but some guide. The idea of taking the statistics for last year, which is what Deputy Bruton wants us to do, and project from them up to 1975 without any regard to what has been happening since is so ludicrous that I am mystified as to why he made this point.

He did not make that point.

The Minister has only ten minutes. The Deputies had 20 minutes.

Deputy Bruton appears to think that one can project without any regard to the effect of the North of Ireland. I regard this as the most arrant nonsense and I can only say that, whatever explanation there is for Deputy Bruton making this point— one can form one's own opinion; I suppose different people will have different opinions as to why he made the point but, nevertheless, he made it—there is no basis whatever for it. I will just have to leave it at that because I am at a loss for words to describe my mystification at Deputy Bruton's ignorance of the effect of what is going on in this country. While I am on the subject——

(Interruptions.)

Order. The Minister.

How could Deputy FitzGerald tell us in a serious debate that he and Deputy Bruton think that what is happening in the North of Ireland has no effect on our economy?

The Minister knows very well that is not what we said.

Deputy Bruton's words are on the record and he did not at any stage refer to projections. Not once. He thought we were relating only to statistics for last year or, possibly, to whatever was available for this year. The ignorance of the situation is such that it is a bit hard to find oneself lectured by people so far out of touch with what is going on in this country. I want to tell Deputy Bruton and Deputy FitzGerald and their friend, Deputy Desmond, that when they get up here and talk about unemployment, and so on, it is noticeable that they go on as though we are in a cocoon and that what is happening in the North of Ireland is not affecting us. I want to make it clear to everyone in this House, and outside it, that our economy is, in fact, under very great strain directly as a result of what is happening in the North of Ireland and the fact that we are managing as well as we are managing is a tribute to the manner in which this Government are handling the economy of this country.

(Interruptions.)

Order. The Minister.

Now Deputy Bruton is trying to get off the hook by changing step. Deputy FitzGerald talked about the failure to reach targets in the past. He knows, as well as I do, what has been happening in the world in recent years in regard to inflation, fluctuations in trade, and so on, and I am virtually certain that he also knows, as I do, that there is not another programme in any part of the world in recent years to which he can point to prove that targets were achieved, and for exactly the same reasons.

President Nixon can do better than the Minister.

I know Deputy Desmond does not like this. He was, as usual, totally wrong. In his short contribution there were so many mistakes——

(Interruptions.)

Would Deputies allow the Minister to speak?

I want to say for the record that there is no truth in the allegation made by Deputy Bruton. The fact is that, for the reasons I have given, we have not got a Fourth Programme. We could not have a Fourth Programme so how on earth could it be true, as Deputy Bruton alleges, that there was a Fourth Programme produced and that I rejected it? There is no foundation whatever for that statement. Neither is there any foundation for the allegations made by Deputy Desmond. Maybe he will explain some time to the public why it is, if this programme is such a political platform— I think he said it was to be an election platform—he is so concerned at its nonappearance. Perhaps he will explain that. It is, of course, in keeping with the rest of his addled thinking delivered in his usual arrogant fashion. He has companions over there. Form your Coalition, leave the rest of the Fine Gael Party to one side, and you will all be happy for Christmas.

The Dáil adjourned at 5.20 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 7th February, 1973.

Top
Share