Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill, 1977: Second Stage.

Minister for the Public Service (Mr. Colley)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This Bill is required to give effect to the announcement made by the Taoiseach in the Dáil on 5th July last that a new Department of Economic Planning and Development would be established. I am also preparing, and will shortly introduce, further legislation to provide for the appointment of Ministers who will not be members of the Government. These two major developments in relation to our institutions of Government will provide a solid basis for carrying out the programme of national development which the Government are now embarked on.

In considering this Bill, it is important to see, in perspective, what is being proposed, to recall the background to our current economic state and to try to foresee our environment in the coming years. The Ministers and Secretaries Act on which our present structures of Government are based was enacted in the twenties. It has evolved since then mainly in relation to the creation of new Departments and the re-allocation of the functions of Government as the need arose. This present Bill should be seen against the fact that since the twenties the role of the State in economic and social affairs has developed greatly—both internationally and here at home. There have been a number of attempts over the years to cope with this situation.

In the late twenties and thirties the concept of State-sponsored bodies was introduced to our public service and has developed since then. They made possible much of the economic and social development which has taken place by providing the framework whereby policies are implemented and various programmes delivered to the community. In the late fifties and early sixties also various innovations took place. The Government programme for economic development in 1958 and the emphasis within our public service on regional development are cases in point. The late sixties saw an emphasis on public service reform— which is now being given renewed momentum by the Government. With these developments during the past 50 years, as I have said, the role of the State in economic and social development has grown. Hand in hand with this, of course, has been the resulting growth in economic responsibilities of certain Ministers—but most pronounced in the case of the Minister for Finance. One need not dwell unduly on the very serious economic difficulties which this country has experienced over the last four years to appreciate the need for Government to reorganise itself in order to strengthen its capacity to lead and fashion the course of economic and social development. What is now required is that government has an institutional capacity, strategically placed, to develop and co-ordinate its response to the challenge of economic and social development. This strategic capacity must be effected at the highest level; in our view by a Government who are specifically equipped, at ministerial and Department levels to spearhead economic planning and development.

Ever since the Public Services Organisation Review Group reported in 1969 a debate has, I will not say raged, but at least ebbed and flowed, on the desirability of reforming the machinery of government. In the past few months we have seen the Public Service Advisory Council in their report for the year ended 31st October, 1976, recommend that "... urgent attention be given to the provision of appropriate planning institutions in the public service"; indeed the council went on to say that the plans of individual Government Departments should not only be consistent with, but form an integral part of, a national plan.

We on this side of the House have for a long time been convinced of the necessity for and the practicability of separate institutions for planning. On assuming office, the Government decided that the prospects for overall national planning would be greatly strengthened if a separate Department were established with a specific planning remit. In deciding on this the Government were aware fully that planning is a difficult activity whose achievements, however substantial they may be, are often less considered by the public than its inevitable failures no matter how unimportant relatively. The 10 per cent of failures may attract more attention than the 90 per cent of successes. The planner will sometimes be discouraged and, if he has the opportunity to direct his efforts to an activity susceptible to more readily-achievable targets like financial control, he may well succumb to the temtation to abandon planning. In sum, planning is an activity which needs to be structured in an organisation in such a way that the planner does not divert his energies unduly either to the performance of day-to-day executive activities or into other areas. This is best secured by the creation of a specialised area of organisation which has primary and overall responsibility for planning.

Lest anyone should object that this will leave the planner in an ivory tower, I would emphasise that the very real consideration which will prevent planning and development from being removed from reality is the fact that the Minister in charge of the Department will be in regular contact with his colleagues at Government meetings. Furthermore, it is our firm resolve that the Minister for Economic Planning and Development will have a very close working relationship with the Minister for Finance so that, although the function of economic and social planning will be organisationally separate from the budgetary work of the Department of Finance, both functions will mesh into the systems for co-ordinating the whole business of government.

Although most people intuitively regard planning as a good thing, there is, regrettably, little consensus, even amoung the theorists, as to what the concept involves precisely. At one end of the spectrum the term has connotations of rigid compulsion: at the other, it is a loose arrangement for undisciplined forecasting. The Government's view of planning places it between the two extremes. While the influence of Government in economic affairs is not all-pervasive, few will deny that an attempt to outline the direction of the economy rationally and in a comprehensive manner is anything other than sensible. It is thus partly to extend the time horizon of economic policy and partly to give it a higher status that central responsibility for co-ordinating economic and social planning is being assigned to a new Department.

While the finer details of the whole planning process have yet to be worked out, our general design is clear. The new Department will be the focal point for a widespread planning system throughout the whole public service. Other Government Departments will have responsibility for developing the economy from particular viewpoints and for developing and implementing policy in particular areas; the new Department, with limited executive responsibilities, will be largely concerned with the development of the overall view of the goals of the economy and with the co-ordination and development of sectoral and regional plans against national criteria. In relation to regional development, I believe that the new Department should have a major role to play. I am strengthened in this belief by the proposals of the National Economic and Social Council in its report on "Institutional Arrangements for Regional Economic Development" when it says that:—

The primary objective of regional development is to remove, or at least reduce, regional inequalities in living standards and opportunities, within the overall national objective of full employment at rising living standards. The achievement of this objective requires the creation of employment opportunities and amenities in particular places and regions. This objective cannot be achieved by any single body or agency but requires co-ordinated effort by the relevant Government Departments, State Agencies and Local Authorities both at the policy-making and day-to-day executive levels. This co-ordination is required both at national and regional levels. There is no single body or agency at national level with overall responsibility for all aspects of regional revelopment (the Regional Development Committee which was charged with this task has not met since early 1972), while at regional level the performance of the Regional Development Organisations has been uneven. Any proposals for institutional arrangements for regional development must try to remedy these defects.

In making proposals for change in the institutional arrangements for regional development it must be borne in mind that radical institutional changes may be impossible or self-defeating, and that changes must be gradual, building on existing arrangements to work towards a more satisfactory system. Equally, the creation of an extra layer or layers of Government should be avoided because it would in all probability exacerbate the existing problems.

Given the importance of regional development it is essential that there should be, and should be seen to be, a real commitment to regional development at the very highest level. It is our view that, without political involvement it will be difficult to achieve progress towards the development and effective implementation of regional plans and policies. We recommend, therefore, that a Minister should be assigned responsibility for regional policy.

Before I speak of the practicalities of the model proposed, however, I would like to make some more general comments. While an apology for planning might, for ideological reasons, have been necessary in the early 1960s, it is now scarcely necessary for me to say that the Government do not subscribe to an imposed concept of planning. There is no doubt, however, that in all Western democracies, the State is being called upon to play a greater role in the fostering of economic and social progress. For this it must have at its disposal the most up-to-date skills and techniques backed up by political commitment. Such techniques and skills for the planning process are essential but they are in the end only the tools and the scaffolding; the real heart of the business of Government is policy. It is in the area of providing a service to all Departments to promote developmental but co-ordinated policy-making that the new Department may, indeed, make its most important contribution. Novel solutions and imaginative ideas will have to emerge if the economic and social problems which we face are to be overcome. All the analysis, diagnosis and identification of problems and difficulties will not in the end solve anything unless the final step of translating the process into action is followed through. Resolute government will also be required. With the best will in the world on all sides, from Government, trade unions and employers, it may be that a consensus will not be forthcoming. I cannot but agree with the National Economic and Social Council in its Report No. 32 on its work in the period 1974-76 when it says:

To the extent that such discussion (between the various interest groups) succeed in getting to grips with the basic issues, differences and divisions are exposed, articulated and possibly reinforced rather than reconciled. While the exposure and articulation of unreasonable viewpoints may not change them it could detract from their support. However, in the last resort such differences may be resolved, or the action that is appropriate to the circumstances taken despite them, only by a political process or procedure. This is a responsibility which in a democracy must properly be borne by the Government alone.

Implementation of the policies necessary for economic well-being requires more than the whole-hearted commitment of the Government; it demands that the institutions through which the Government discharges its responsibility be adequate for the task in hand. The mission of economic reconstruction with which this Government has been entrusted poses a considerable challenge to those institutions, particularly the civil service.

As far back as 1961 the then Taoiseach, the late Seán Lemass, was asking how far the civil service as organised then could contribute effectively to a dynamic policy of economic development. He referred to the help given by the Department of Finance in particular in generating new ideas. We all from time to time worry about the flexibility of old institutions and their office-holders to adapt to changing circumstances. It was to help this process of change along the road that in the late 1950s and early 1960s the Economic Development Branch and later the Development Division of the Department of Finance were established and from the beginning they made a weighty contribution to economic policy in the 1960s and, in particular, to the change towards freer trade. What happened then shows that the civil service can, if directed properly, be as imaginative as any other group. This Government will not fail to provide such direction. One result of the transfer to my colleague, the Minister for Economic Planning and Development, of some of my burdens for economic policy is that I will, as Minister for the Public Service, be able to devote a greater amount of time towards the task of public service reform.

I therefore see the establishment of this new Department as part of the evolutionary process first begun when the Economic Development Branch was established within the Department of Finance. It may well be asked why we did not, if we considered a separate planning institution so important, establish some form of independent commission to look after such affairs. In my view Government Departments are more suited because they are at the very heart of our constitutional system of Government and the Minister for Economic Planning and Development will be answerable to this House for policy matters concerning economic and social planning and development. I can therefore think of no more suitable organisational form for such a unit of administration than a Government Department. In seeking statutory authority for the creation of this Department, Ireland will be pursuing an organisational course which has been followed successfully by many countries, like, for instance, Belgium, the Netherlands, West Germany and Sweden.

Having made these general observations I would like to speak of the functions and, in so far as they can be foreseen, of the operations of the new Department of Economic Planning and Development. First of all, their general remit will be to promote and co-ordinate economic and social planning for the development of the economy including the co-ordination of plans for the different sectors and regions. The effective exercise of this function will require a more professional planning and policy analysis capacity in most Departments of State to ensure that the central operations of the new Department have a reliable base in the main executive areas of Government.

As regards the particular steps necessary to discharge their general functions, the first essential for the new Department is, having regard to the current position and the trends affecting the economy, to identify the policies necessary for successful economic and social development. The Minister for Economic Planning and Development will report to the Government who will decide on national aims and policies and who may from time to time publish draft plans as discussion and consultation documents. Meanwhile it will be the responsibility of the Department to review and appraise the plans and activities of individual Departments in the light of overall national requirements. In undertaking this activity the Minister and the new Department will bear a heavy load in relation to consulting with and hearing the views of the various interests in relation to our economy. For instance, they will engage in consultation with the social partners and other appropriate groups, as may be desired, on matters of economic and social development and they will co-ordinate the dialogue on such matters. They will also participate in the relevant activities of international institutions relating to economic and social development, particularly the institutions of the EEC and OECD. Apart from the merits of this work in relation to effective policy formulation it will also ease the burden on certain Ministers who until recently had to deal with these matters in addition to an already very heavy work load. The end product of this activity will be a set of proposals to the Government for the co-ordination of the plans of Departments, having regard to all the inevitable constraints, and their integration with national social and economic plans. From this process, the Government will decide on their future economic and social policies.

Finally, it is intended that the Department of Economic Planning and Development will review the implementation of such national economic and social plans as may be approved of by the Government from time to time and will report thereon to the Government. We are therefore providing in this Bill for a system facilitating a continuing process of planning consisting of the identification of the measures necessary for the more effective operation of the economy, the recognition of constraints and the fixing of realistic targets in national plans, the review of implementation and the taking of corrective measures as planning cycle follows cycle. In this task all units of Government and, indeed, all interests in the community will have their contribution to make; the prime role of the new Minister and his Department will be as central co-ordinators and facilitators of the process with a crucial role in bringing these matters before Government and reviewing their implementation after Government decisions have been taken.

We are, in this Bill, laying down the structures for planning and intend, of course, to have them underpinned with statutory authority so that the new Department will have the legal authority to get their work done effectively; we are not laying down any rigid forms for planning itself, but we are leaving it open to the Department to devise for the consideration of the Government the actual strategies to be adopted. It is therefore not appropriate for me to deal here with any of the technical issues associated with planning and policy formation. Instead, I am proposing to the House the necessary measures to provide a framework within the administration through which all these things will be attended to. The creation of this new Department is seen by the Government as an important component in their overall strategy for dealing with the many economic and social questions confronting our society at present.

Mr. P. Barry

When this Bill was introduced last week and I read its contents. I had some doubts as to the effectiveness of the new Department. Having listened to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Colley, here this morning I can say none of these doubts has been removed from my mind. It is quite obvious from the Bill itself and has been made more obvious by the Minister now that his attitude is: "What I have I will hold", that the proposed new Minister for Economic Planning and Development will be nothing more than a pleasant advisory but powerless political eunuch. I am extremely disappointed that this innovation, which was heralded as a major break from the old traditions, is nothing more than window-dressing.

Now that a degree of economic stability has been very patiently established by the Coalition Government, the beneficial effects of which were very little understood, more particularly perhaps by our own supporters, Fine Gael fully share the general public appreciation of the desirability of a national plan. In doing so, we in Fine Gael in no way subscribe to the view that a national plan alone, no matter how well constructed, is a medicine which will cure all our economic diseases.

It is no accident that the economic indicators are now all moving in the right direction. They are doing so because in an exposed economy such as Ireland the key economic factor which is under the people's control, the factor which makes us more competitive on the world's market, unit wage costs, dramatically improved during our term of office in that we got and maintained a popular consensus about the desirability of controlling it. A little recognised element in achieving this consensus was that the Coalition Government established a generally approved sense of justice about our taxation system and our system of welfare benefits. This may not have helped us electorally but it did facilitate the remarkable pace of the recovery from the depression which, if it does not necessarily cure unemployment, presents an opportunity of curing it, if the truth is told and the options of alternative policies are authoritatively spelt out.

While we will not be opposing this Bill because it appears to favour a five-year plan and the conditions are right for that, Fine Gael believe it is defective in its present form. The Minister who prepares the plan must be responsible for financing its cost. Even if the country achieves the desired growth in production, the present and, above all, the future increased growth in public expenditure promised during the election by Fianna Fáil, cannot continue and must be controlled. The planner's main function is to express the Government's intention concerning public expenditure and revenue over a five-year period, to determine the rate of growth in different Departments and to allocate the scarce resources within these Departments.

There may be different views as to who should be the planner. If it is not to be the Minister for Finance, he must be content to sink into the lesser role of a mere gatherer of taxes, the revenue from which is allocated by his colleague, the Minister for Economic Planning and Development. It is significant, and I would like to "congratulate" the Minister for Finance on the fact, that he is not accepting this role, and if it is left as it is in the Bill, the Minister appointed under the Bill will hold office as a sort of consultant or adviser and will be in danger of becoming a very much photographed, garrulous and toothless chatterbox who will gradually recede into the distance with a sadder and sadder countenance. I am sure the proposed new Minister will be glad to know that we will seek to give him, and his Department, the necessary teeth if only to prevent the Government's plan suffering the fate of previous Fianna Fáil exercises in planning notably the second and third economic programmes which came unstuck owing to the lack of departmental control of expenditure.

Third, it is a popular belief that the present projected increases in population and unemployment are unique or arising from the first time. This is untrue. For example, the second programme indicated an expansion of the labour force between 1960 and 1970 of 264,000, or an expansion in excess of the recent projection by Professor Walsh for 1976 and 1986. What is different is that Fianna Fáil, in that plan and the third programme, where the estimate related to 1966-72, planned to deal with the unemployment problem by encouraging people to emigrate. In their second proramme Fianna Fáil planned for an emigration of 70 per cent of the expansion and in their third programme for an emigration of 95 per cent. Of course, this is no longer tolerable. What is unique is the demand that our economy should be so managed that the increased work force get employment in Ireland. This will be achieved only by a widespread recognition that there are no soft options, that bread cannot be kept if it is eaten, that resources are always scarce in relation to demand for them and if the unpalatable truth is told to the people by a Government with a moral authority. This moral authority will not be substituted for by the battalions of Fianna Fáil Deputies temporarily passing through this House.

It is a sad fact for democracy that the means which Fianna Fáil used to win office in June may also prove a mortgage on their future credibility and already is an unhappy part of the background against which vital decisions affecting the future rate of growth of product and employment have to be made. There seems to be an implicit notion in the Bill that the publication of a national economic plan will act as a general panacea for all our economic ills. While I recognise the advantages of an economic plan, and more especially a plan for Government spending and revenue over a five year period, I am realistic enough to acknowledge that a plan alone will not solve the fundamental structural problems facing the economy. It was clear to the National Coalition Government on taking office that previous programmes had been prepared without first obtaining the necessary degree of public consensus about the nature of the problems facing the economy and the way in which they should be tackled.

The third programme was written as the Fianna Fáil manifesto for the 1969 General Election and quietly buried within a few months of electoral success.

A plan must deal with the problem of maximising the rate of growth of output and with the question of the distribution of that growth. It is possible for any given rate of growth either to devote the proceeds of growth to increasing employment for those unemployment and those entering the labour market or to raising the real incomes of those who have jobs. Some balance must be struck and a plan must reflect that balance. But to strike the necessary balance between real income growth and employment growth is not a mere technical exercise. It requires the consent of the main economic agents in the economy. Like it or not we live in a mixed economy where Government influence in the determination of wages and incomes is indirect. It cannot order a certain pattern of growth for incomes, or at least cannot ensure that such a pattern is achieved. Yet a plan that does not confront the central problem of planning in an open exposed economy like Ireland, the behaviour of real incomes, is no plan at all. So the essential task of Government is to seek the consent of the population for an orderly growth in incomes compatible with the desired growth in employment and the ability of the economy to grow.

It is no easy task especially when the existing pattern of distribution and structure of taxation gave rise to a great deal of unrest and disillusionment. We found on taking office that the ordinary worker, the ordinary wage or salary earner, was convinced that the well off, the very wealthy, were not paying their fair share of taxes. The income tax system was considered a scandal which had remained virtually unchanged since 1960 when PAYE was introduced. Death duties were paid by those who received quite small bequests while the owners of vast estates were able to avoid the tax. Speculators who made huge profits paid no tax while an extra hour of overtime faced a tax rate of 35 per cent. We realised that there was no hope of a workable plan unless the Government were able to obtain the consent of the population for the moderation of income growth in order to create more jobs. This meant that workers must feel that they got a fair deal from the tax system.

We realised that this would offend some of our own supporters; but in the long run the ability of the economy to grow depends on an equitable tax system. If we had not made the tax system fairer we would not have achieved the degree of moderation in wage costs which we did and in turn would not have made so dramatic a recovery from the world wide economic depression. There is no doubt that without the recession our efforts would have borne fruit earlier and more visibly. But it was inevitable that the struggle to deal with the consequences for Ireland of an enormous world wide slump in activity and rise in inflation would dissipate some of the energy that could be devoted to longer term planning. In addition there was considerable disagreement among economists, both inside and outside the country, about the causes of the recession, its likely time path, and the appropriate policies to adopt during it.

Indeed, one of my enduring memories is the fact that it was impossible in 1974 and early 1975 to get any two economists to agree about anything in relation to the future. Even if one got two economists to agree one could be certain that those two would disagree the following week because of the way things were changing and the sense of uncertainty that then prevailed in the world. To prepare a long-term plan while there was no unanimity about the duration of the world recession would have been a futile exercise. Instead we concentrated on minimising the damaging impact of the recession on the Irish economy and on ensuring that we were well placed to take advantage of any world recovery. And we succeeded in a way which few imagined possible.

When we took office we had one of the highest inflation rates in the OECD. Indeed, we held this position for several years and our rate of inflation exceeded that of the United Kingdom. Given the close links between the two economies and the formal parity link between our two currencies there is an underlying tendency for both countries to experience a similar rate of inflation. But in the four-and-a-half years before we took office the rate of inflation in Ireland was 9½ per cent above that in the United Kingdom or 2 per cent per year. In the four-and-a-half years we were in office the rate of inflation was 6.2 percentage points below that in the United Kingdom, or 1.3 per cent per year.

If any justification was needed for the policies we adopted while in office those figures give it. Under very fair weather and in calm seas a previous Fianna Fáil Administration allowed inflation here to so upset our cost balance between Ireland and the United Kingdom that we were running 9½ per cent ahead of the United Kingdom over a four-and-a-half year period. Yet we succeeded, in the middle of a world depression, in reversing this undesirable historical trend. The point is perhaps highlighted by the fact that in the quarter we took office the annual rate of inflation in Ireland was 2.8 per cent above that in Britain. In the quarter in which we left office it was 3 per cent below the inflation rate of the United Kingdom. This reduction in our relative rate of inflation was a reflection of a reduction in the growth of unit wage costs in Ireland vis-à-vis the United Kingdom.

Our growth prospects depend vitally on the extent to which we can produce goods at a cost below our major competitors. Yet in the four years before we took office our costs were rising far faster than the increase in costs in Britain. From the first quarter of 1969 to the first quarter of 1973 unit wage costs—that is, the cost in terms of wages and salaries of producing one unit of output—rose 6½ per cent more in Ireland than in the United Kingdom. On the other hand from the first quarter of 1973 until the end of 1976, the latest period for which figures are available, unit wage costs rose by 14.2 per cent less in Ireland than in the United Kingdom. And this was before the 1977 National Wage Agreement, which gave an annual increase in wages of well under 10 per cent for the period to Spring, 1978.

In short, our term of office saw a major improvement in the underlying trend relative to the United Kingdom of wage costs. We more than recaptured the ground lost in the four years to 1973. And what are the results? The fastest rate of growth of exports in Europe—indeed the growth in our manufactured exports since 1973 is well above the average of our fellow EEC partners. We have now returned to the pre-recession trend of industrial growth. That is, the level of output to-day is as high as if recession had never occurred and production growth had continued along its historical trend average. Only Italy and the United States, among OECD countries, can make a similar boast. Even the Scandinavian economies, held up to us as examples to follow, have not managed to recover so swiftly.

We experienced a smaller fall in output and a more rapid recovery than nearly all other OECD economies. In 1975 output in Ireland fell by ½ per cent. In OECD Europe it fell by 1.6 per cent—that is, at a rate more than three times greater—while in the EEC it fell by 1.9 per cent—that is at a rate almost four times greater. Among smaller European countries, a fairer comparison perhaps, output fell by 0.7 per cent in 1975. In 1976 output grew by 3 per cent in Ireland while the smaller European economies managed 2.9 per cent, OECD Europe 4.1 per cent and the EEC 4.6 per cent. But in 1977 our growth rate continued to accelerate to a projected 6 per cent while the growth for the OECD Europe is projected at 2¾ per cent, the EEC 3 per cent and the small European economies 2½ per cent—in the case of all comparisons twice or more than twice as much. So, although we were a bit slower than the big economies, except Britain in growing in 1976 our expansion has been sustained. Indeed the latest ESRI projections for 1978 suggest that the new Government are inheriting an economy in the midst of a boom.

The growth we achieved has not so far led to an appreciable drop in unemployment—although there are signs that the growth of industrial employment is now beginning to eat into the registered unemployment figures. And we are one of the few EEC countries where the 1977 level of unemployment is below the 1976 level. Much of the rise in unemployment can be attributed to the structural effects of the recession and our EEC entry. Although the then Government knew before entry that our labour intensive industries would face competition no action was taken to prevent this employment loss occurring. We might have been able to ride out the employment effects of entry if the world economy had not gone into a recession. But it did and so all countries were fighting for a share of a declining market. Employment suffered especially in labour intensive industries where competition from Third World countries, desperate to get revenue to pay for oil, became acute.

In addition, the Coalition Government took steps to improve the level of unemployment benefit, so long neglected under Fianna Fáil. Pay related benefits were introduced in 1974 and persons who became unemployed no longer had to subsist on a pittance. But, as a recent ESRI study has shown, the improvement in unemployment benefit increased the number registering as unemployed and reduced the level of emigration. Thus part of the recorded rise in unemployment is a reflection of the fact that for the most of the 1960s and early 1970s the registered level of unemployment was kept low by having poor benefit levels which forced the unemployed to emigrate.

If the rate of growth achieved in 1977 and projected for 1978 can be continued unemployment can be reduced. This will require a continuation of the favourable trend in wage costs seen over recent years. But such a trend is obtained only if the Government tell the people the truth, put the choices facing the community plainly before them, and give a lead in pointing out the direction to be taken.

I do not believe that we have heard the truth from this Government. They were unwilling to put any choices before the electorate in June; now they are beginning to hedge their bets. We said that there were no easy options, that Government alone could not solve unemployment. Our arguments were dismissed by present Ministers who contended that rising demand, stimulated by tax concessions and more public spending, would solve our problems.

By 1976 Deputy Colley was arguing that "a start must be made now on cutting back the deficit" and that "nobody with any sense of reality can expect the public sector, certainly in the short term, to provide any answer to the pressing problems of unemployment which we are facing".

How can we in this House or indeed employers and trade unionists have confidence in a five-year plan produced by a Government that has so dramatically about-faced in 12 months? How can we have confidence in a plan prepared by a Minister who does not have the authority to allocate expenditure or prevent unplanned increases in expenditure and no responsibility for the tax structure required to finance proposed plans?

What confidence can we have in a Fianna Fáil plan to reduce unemployment and meet the employment needs of the future? Their past plans give us little faith in their ability to tackle the long-term problem. It would be a mistake to pretend that the problems of population and employment growth facing the country now are unique in the recent history of the economy. The work undertaken for the second programme indicated that the labour force would expand by 264,000 between 1960 and 1970, that is by 26.4 thousand a year. This projection of jobs needed at that stage was greater than the projection by Professor Brendan Walsh recently. In spite of that projection the second programme planned for only 78,000 extra jobs, less than 30 per cent of the required amount. The balance were expected to emigrate, obviously.

In the event only 2,500 thousand jobs were created during that period. Emigration was also below target however because the marriage rate dropped and there was more participation in education partly due to free second level education introduced in the middle of the period.

These are the points I want to make to show that we will not accept a plan from the new Department or the new Minister that has as a basis for curing our economic ills the idea that a large proportion of the population must emigrate. In fact, under the last plan introduced for 1966-72 total employment fell by 16,000 and unemployment rose by almost 19,000. It it clear that Fianna Fáil's past efforts in planing will not satisfy us and we will not accept plans which envisage part of the solution to our problems in emigration. I want to congratulate Deputy O'Donoghue on his appointment as Minister. On the Committee Stage I shall be on his side. He may not appreciate that, and I am sure he will not vote that way, but I shall be on his side because I shall be seeking to give to him and to his Department some of the teeth which I am sure they will want.

Mr. Colley

Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.

Mr. P. Barry

I shall have to wait for the Minister for Education to return, the authority on Latin tags. I shall be putting down an amendment to make sure that whoever calls the tune is responsible for finding the money to pay the piper.

Mr. Pattison

I wish the new Minister and Department well. We are taking an important step here but, having said that, I want to express grave doubts about how successful this Department can be because of the powers—perhaps I should not use the word "powers"—the terms in the Bill before us setting it up.

Immediately after the general election, when the newly elected Taoiseach announced the setting up of this Department and the appointment of Deputy O'Donoghue as its Minister, the Leader of the Labour Party, in the debate on 5th July welcomed this move. It is only fair to say that, at that time, there was a generally favourable reception for the setting up of this Department and the appointment of the Minister. Since then there has been a definite and remarkable movement away from the commitment given which we thought would be contained in the legislation necessary to set up the Department. The contents of the Bill show a definite and remarkable movement away from that commitment. Therefore, we are disappointed. We must express doubts and we must be very critical of the various sections of the Bill because they do not go far enough. They do not give the new Department the necessary statutory powers.

I had hoped the Second Reading speech by the Minister for Finance would allay our fears and explain to us something we do not see in the Bill. I am afraid what we heard this morning confirms our worst fears about the weakness of the new Department. We are disappointed because we in the Labour Party have always advocated economic and social planning. We have always recognised the necessity for it. We are not recent converts to the idea. As the Leader of the Labour Party said on 5th July, we do not mind the Government stealing our clothes, but it appears they did not steal all our clothes in relation to our policy on economic and social planning.

I have been trying to resist the temptation to examine this Bill in a party political way, but it is very difficult to resist that temptation when we see the contents of the Bill and when we heard the Minister elaborating on its contents this morning. The background to the Bill needs to be examined because there was no mention of the setting up of this Department in the Fianna Fáil election manifesto. It was announced shortly after the winning of the election.

As I say, there is a temptation to look at this Bill against the background of the power structure within the Government. We must ask: how committed are the Government to economic and social planning? Is theirs a commitment to give to a newly elected Deputy who played such a major part in their election victory a portfolio which would appear to have some power within the Government? Is that the beginning and end of their commitment? For example, if Deputy O'Donoghue had not been elected to the Dáil, would we be here today discussing a proposal to set up a new Department? I seriously doubt that we would. I am not expressing these remarks in criticism of the new Minister or anybody personally but as showing a crack in the so-called commitment of Fianna Fáil to economic and social planning.

This had to be thought up after the election because of the power structure within the Government. In post-election discussions among Ministers they seem to have come up with a consensus rather that a hard and fast decision to do anything definite. The setting up of the Department seems to have been decided on by a consensus on what Departments were prepared to surrender rather that what the Taoiseach and the Government as a whole were prepared to direct should be put into the Department.

I question the commitment to economic and social planning of the Government also because of their record in the past. I do not want to spell out once again the inadequacies and failures of the first, second and third programmes for economic expansion. In the overall they had certain good results, but in the long term sphere of economic and social planning they were a complete failure. We still have the problem of unemployment and the problem of providing employment for those coming on to the labour market annually.

That problem has not been peculiar to the past three or four years. It has been with us always, unfortunately, despite what Fianna Fáil have been saying. It was there even in the favourable economic conditions of the sixties but the Government of the day failed to do anything about it. In those years of favourable economic conditions, new jobs were not created and, more important, the structures and the under-pinning were not laid down. During the three or four years of National Coalition Government work was done to try to keep people in employment during a recession period.

This Bill relates to the future and that is the main cause of my concern and disappointment at its contents. My party do not feel that the powers being given to the new Minister will be nearly adequate to do the job we have been told he is supposed to do. Indeed I am sure that if the Minister were free to express his personal feelings on it he would admit that he is disappointed with the inadequacy of the powers he is being given. Even if that is so, it will not be any excuse for him to say in the future that he had not the power or the statutory right to do this or that, to direct a Department or a departmental agency to do certain things.

The immediate as well as the long-term future are of equal importance. In regard to the immediate future, the electorate in this year's general election were led to believe that there was a ready-made plan to solve our economic and social problems if Fianna Fáil were elected. They were led to believe that the problems which have bedevilled the country for many years would be solved as soon as Fianna Fáil got back. The more I consider what the Minister for Finance said this morning the more I realise that the Government have not got any plan for the immediate future, not to talk about a long term plan. Of course they must produce something in December to meet EEC commitments but all the Minister spoke about today was the need for identification of the problems and co-ordination of effort. He spoke about monitoring and co-ordination and he used other nice words like these, and he said there may be a plan

This is not good enough for a Government who got elected precisely on the point that they had a good workable plan. All that has happened is the removal of the car tax and other small related things. That is the limit of their plan. They appear to be treating the solution of our economic and social problems in the same way a previous Fianna Fáil Governments did

A significant feature of the Bill is that, though there are references in the various sections to economic and social planning, the reference in the Title is to economic planning only. This is a grave mistake, demonstrating the Government's lack of concern and commitment to social planning which is as important as economic planning I intend to put down an amendment to the Title to rectify that omission. It is important that the word "social should be in the Department's and in the Minister's title because without we must again doubt the Government commitment to social planning. It has always been said that what should be done is to plan economically and that the social planning could be left until later. It is all right to talk about baking a big cake and not to talk about how that cake will be divided. When small cakes were baked in the past, the amount for social purposes was not adequate. There still has not been the necessary structural input into social planning. The Minister for Economic Planning and Development must have a clear commitment to and involvement in social planning. He can only have that in an indisputable way by having social planning in his title. I will deal further with that point on Committee Stage.

We are not discussing today an economic and social plan as such but we are discussing the vehicle by which such plans can be implemented. We are critical of the structures in the Bill because they do not go far enough nor do they give the Minister the necessary powers. I do not know if I would be in order in congratulating the Minister for Finance for being able to retain so much power and in allocating a relatively small function to the new Minister. I am not saying that the function of planning is small, but that the amount of power and the functions of the new Department are small. As a result the Department will be ineffective and will not get the very important results they should.

For too long we have been treating planning in a secondary way. People have always been suspicious of planning. Sometimes it has been misrepresented, often deliberately, as being too idealistic and that there is far too much State control, intervention and direction. From time to time, and for their own reasons, people have often misrepresented it. Because of that successive Governments were often slow to take a firm hand and issue firm directives in this regard.

The time for being hesitant about these things is gone. We are faced with an increasing population, an increasing and immediate need to provide more employment and an urgent need for social planning right across the board. I am not talking about social welfare only but the whole field of social planning. Some might argue that social planning should come before economic planning because without a proper social network, particularly of technical and higher education and accessibility to education, medical services and so on, it would be difficult to attain the goals of economic planning. Social planning should go hand in hand with economic planning. It is a failure if this Bill, particularly in regard to the title, that that will not happen.

We hope our amendments, to be moved on Committee Stage, will correct that and other deficiencies. I hope the new Minister will have a job to do and I, as shadow spokesman for Labour, also will have a job to do. If the Minister is not given these powers I will not have very much to do.

I have examined the Bill and its political background, its relationship to the power structure within the Governernment, its capabilities as a means of meeting the necessary job targets and its doubtful capabilities of being a major structural reform in public administration or in whatever social and economic plans that exist at the moment.

There is a very important necessity for involvement in agricultural development. This is one of our biggest, if not the biggest, potentials for economic and social development. I am not satisfied that the agricultural industry are providing all the employment they can. I am not satisfied that they are playing their part in the social development of our economy. Agricultural development has always been treated as a completely different and separate development but I am convinced that there is potential for job creation and further development in agriculture. There is, too, potential for involving more directly our agricultural development with social development.

The necessity for a complete reappraisal of the land structure and the necessity to bring out as soon as possible a land structure plan should be a major and integral part of the new Minister's responsibility. Agriculture, industry and social planning are too inter-connected and interdependent to be treated separately and there must be a more positive and definite approach to this matter.

The terms of this Bill give the new Minister a right to seek from the various Departments their ideas and policies, to talk about them, to bring them to Cabinet level and have further talks about them. Something more dynamic is needed in our situation and something far more dynamic is needed for the future economic and social development of our country.

Dr. Woods

I congratulate the Minister on his appointment and I support this Bill. I was amazed at the contributions of the Opposition who repeatedly refused to commit themselves to planning while in office. The former Minister for Finance repeatedly told the people that it was not feasible to plan a difficult period such as we have experienced in the last few years. Deputy Barry will now support this initiative but his former Government failed to realise the need for planning and to take decisive action.

When a country is faced with a great challenge or enormous difficulties the people look to the Government to provide the necessary leadership and commitment to meet the challenge. They expect public representatives to identify the long and short term problems and to act with urgency to provide the best remedies available. Such periods in our history became milestones in the development of our people. Eighteen years ago we accepted the challenge of the sixties. Dr. T.K. Whitaker presented the first programme for economic expansion under the leadership of the late Deputy Seán Lemass. The then Taoiseach, Deputy Seán Lemass, in the Irish Farmers Yearbook of 1960 said that the coming ten years would be a testing time for our people, that they would bring difficult problems but that they would bring opportunities as well. No one will deny that the sixties brought their problems. We had to adjust to the free trade area agreement with Britain and to the gradual removal of industrial tariff protection from the European free trade agreement countries.

These were traumatic changes for which we had to develop new skills and expertise especially in the fields of management, marketing and more sophisticated technology. Ireland prospered and grew in the sixties and contrary to what had been said by the Opposition emigration was reduced from 50,000 per annum to zero as we entered the seventies. We then faced what we considered to be a great challenge—our accession to the European Economic Community. Although this brought many difficulties it has led to a rapid expansion in agricultural incomes and a phenomenal increase in the growth of industrial exports. Few seem to fully realise that we are now full members of the EEC. The transitional period for almost all commodities is over. The motor assembly industry with its 12 year transitional arrangement is a notable exception. We now have free access to all EEC countries. Consequently, we face a challenge for the next decade such as we have never experienced before. We have never had so many unemployed while at the same time we have never had open to us such a vast marketing opportunity. Nor have we ever had such a wealth of resources at our disposal.

The principal resource which must be taken into consideration in preparing these plans is manpower. We have never before had such a supply of trained and educated young people. Our educational base has expanded from 7,966 finishing second level education annually in 1960 to 32,559 in 1975. The numbers finishing group certificate have increased from fewer than 6,000 in 1960 to 18,822 in 1975. Our universities and other third level institutions are bursting at the seams with personnel in training. Meanwhile, the number of technologists working in the country has grown from an estimated 10,000 in 1960 to 25,000 in 1975 to provide a strong technological base on which to plan further expansion and development. In 1971 the census showed that there were 21,886 scientists and technologists in the country. These highly trained personnel have increased in number from fewer than 10,000 in 1960 to an estimated 25,000 in 1975.

Brave new initiatives were taken by our predecessors in 1960 and we, too, must be prepared to make a contribution to development. If we look at the growth and spin-offs to agriculture, industry and the service sectors which resulted from the setting up of An Foras Talúntais and the expansion of the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards we can see how the Government of the day contributed to development. Add to these the expansion and response of the Irish Management Institute, the Institute of Public Administration, the universities and the colleges of technology and one realises the valuable manpower resources we have developed. AnCO, established in 1967, is one of the most recent examples of the growth which has been achieved in trained manpower. Total apprentices registered with AnCO in December, 1976, were 15,559. In 1976 alone AnCO trained 10,727 adults and apprentices. The foresight and planning of Seán Lemass and his Cabinet at that time ensured that Irish industry now has an excellent source of trained personnel.

It is now our task through trained personnel to identify and develop our physical resources. The potential for diversification in agriculture, forestry and fisheries and for new product development in industry must be fully exploited through well-planned strategies. Major decisions must be made regarding our mineral, gas, turf and oil deposits. The infrastructure in roads, rail, port and other services must be developed to support the planned developments. How much more of our increasing exports can the port of Dublin handle? Already, a considerable volume of drive on traffic is bypassing Dublin and going out through Larne.

If we are to realise the potential in our economy and meet the target of 25,000 new jobs per annum, we must set clear-cut development objectives and be prepared to invest in the plans to achieve these targets. This will not only involve macro-economic decisions but will call for the skilful use of management and marketing. The key to economic development lies in understanding the inevitability of change in a technologically developed society. No market or product is free from the effects of social, cultural or technological developments. Those who accept the challenge of change must seek to understand society and the factors influencing its direction and dynamism. We must respond to these needs providing the public service structures required to direct, support, initiate and harmonise these developments in the economy.

Traditionally, the Department of Finance has the enormous task of treasurer and financial controller on behalf of the Government. It provided a system of checks and balances which ensured that the finances of the State were not wasted on frivolous products or in unauthorised expenditures. If we are to give unfettered priority to planning and economic development that the present job targets require, we must give the planning function of Government the freedom and status to operate effectively. Nothing short of a full department of economic planning and development, directly responsible to the Government, would be an adequate response to this need. The separation of economic development from financial control is seen by some as being fraught with all sorts of dangers and imponderables.

It is as if neither the Minister concerned nor the public servants in his new Department could be expected to preserve and respect the public interest in the way in which the Department of Finance has acted traditionally. Of course, this is a nonsense view and one which has stifled initiative not only in Government Departments but in semi-State bodies also. It is an indication that some people believe that we, as a people, are neither confident nor mature enough to risk making mistakes as we tread new and unchartered paths in economic development and job creation. Such people prefer caution and mediocrity to courage and enterprise. All too frequently they look for precedent and guidance to British and other mentors when they should be turning to our own people for initiative and direction.

I hope the new Department will rely heavily on and give scope and assistance to Irish nationals who propose projects and investments here. Such people exist in abundance at present. Their commitment is to their country and they will neither give in easily when the economic going is tough nor merely use their operations here as service units or warehouses for their foreign-based headquarters.

The Department of Finance have the task of financial controller of our home and overseas activities. They must provide capital for investment, protect our currency in the international monetary environment, control the supply of and demand for our currency and keep inflation within reasonable limits in relation to Government policy. Financial control must go side by side with planning and economic development but must not be allowed inhibit it. Therefore, the functions of financial control and economic development should be separated. The Taoiseach, as Chairman and Chief Executive, and the Government, in cabinet, under the principle of co-responsibility, constitute the proper forum in which to decide the conflicting options proposed by the Department of Finance with their emphasis on financial control and the Department of Economic Planning and Development with their emphasis on development and job creation. Indeed the Cabinet must accept this responsibility which is timely since these will be the fundamental problems facing us in the next decade.

Something has been said about the failure of the British experiment in setting up an economic department. Apart from the fact that I disagree with the constant use of British precedents for Irish policy-making it is clear that the British failure was related to short-term difficulties. In contrast our EEC partners in Holland, Belgium, Germany and Denmark all have Ministers for Economic Development, and we all know how successful they have been in increasing their prosperity. We have now, in the Government, an excellent opportunity to establish a new Department in view of the political stability given by the clear mandate of the people. This mandate is given to tackle our problems resolutely and achieve results. Let us not be afraid to make the changes we deem necessary to make this our kind of country, one in which the Dáil and the Cabinet take on a new, more meaningful leadership through the public service.

I fully support this important Bill and wish the Minister and his staff every success in their task. The time is long overdue for our economic planners to identify more closely with the detailed sectoral plans of agriculture, industry and the services. Lack of such detailed planning and follow-through has cost us many jobs in recent years and prevented us from reaching our potential on the home and export markets. We live now in a highly competitive community. It is not our duty to bemoan the adverse external factors affecting our economy; rather it is our task to identify our competitive strength and resources and prepare plans which will create the jobs we need. That is why Fianna Fáil proposed this new Department of Economic Planning and Development which I wholly support.

I should like to congratulate Deputy O'Donoghue on his appointment and wish him every success in his new Ministry for which he is eminently suited.

Mr. O'Toole

I welcome the new Minister and congratulate him on his appointment as Minister for Economic Planning and Development. On his shoulders rests a responsibility about which I know very little and the statement of the Minister for Finance has not cleared the air in that regard. Indeed were I Deputy O'Donoghue I would be rather worried as to what responsibilities, if any, I might be given.

I agree with Deputy Woods that nothing short of the establishment of a Department of Economic Planning and Development would contribute an adequate response to the current problem. Everybody realises that. It is a question rather, when one gets down to the nitty-gritty, of what functions that Department and their Minister should have. It is then that one sees the problems and difficulties with which one is faced.

I believe that the general principle of planning is one accepted by everybody as being essential. If a Government are to succeed they must have a comprehensive plan at national level. Such plan should incorporate the activities of all Departments. However, one must remember that an overall plan is made up of many elements. First of all it must provide the machinery with which that plan can be formulated. I presume that is what this Bill is about.

Secondly, there is required the co-ordination of the activities of the different Departments and development agencies. This Bill attempts to do this. Thirdly, there must be balance in the plan in terms of the type of development and incorporating regional development. By that I mean that a development plan must take account of whether it is advisable to put large, industrial development into a rural, agricultural setting. For example, to what degree can development be provided for agricultural produce?

There arises a further point consequent on what I have outlined already, that is, the economic and social results of planning. Once one decides on an overall strategy and the implementation of a development plan one's decision will have consequences, such as movement in population and the provision of facilities and services for such movement. All of these cost money. Therefore, we revert to the major problem, that of defining exactly what functions a Minister for Economic Planning and Development might perform.

The Minister for Finance said that in summary, planning is an activity which needs to be structured in an organisation in such a way that the planner does not divert his energies unduly either to the performance of the day-to-day executive activities or into other areas. He added that that goal was best secured by the creation of a specialised area of organisation which is, in effect, the Ministry which, in turn, proceed immediately to divert their attentions to where the Minister has said they should not be directed. Because of the nature of his office, to carry out his duties he must do exactly what the Minister for Finance said he should not do. I do not see how the new Minister can co-ordinate the plans of all Departments, can know what is going on and know what other Ministers have in mind with regard to planning in their Departments, without doing exactly what the Minister for Finance said he should not do. I appreciate that the Minister for Finance probably meant he should not go overboard in doing that.

What happens if a Minister who is responsible for his own Department does not see eye to eye with the plans put forward in the overall package by the Minister for Economic Planning and Development? The question arises as to the status of the new Department and whether the format is workable at all within the confines as we know them at the moment.

The Minister has stated that the new Minister will have a very close working relationship with his Department although he points out he will be organisationally separate from the budgetary work of the Department of Finance. This is the kernel of the problem. By virtue of the functions of his Ministry the new Minister will have to work in close co-ordination and in close relationship with the Minister for Finance but in what manner can be influence the latter? If he in his wisdom and on the recommendations of his advisers draws up a plan, whether it be for a section of the community or on a regional or a national basis, will that plan not be restricted and constrained by the availability of finance which must be permitted by the Government and which must come through the Minister for Finance? The Minister for Finance has been very careful to point out quite definitely the budgetary separateness of the new Ministry from his own Department.

In his statement the Minister states that you cannot have rigid compulsion in planning. He said:

At the end of the spectrum the term has connotations of rigid compulsion: at the other, it is a loose arrangement for undisciplined forecasting.

There is a very accurate analogy which I shall quote as a teacher. When the new curriculum for national schools was introduced it was referred to as "organised chaos". I have a terrible feeling there is a great danger that the new Department may be tagged in the same way. I am not saying that the results in the case of the new curriculum for national schools were unsuccessful; I hope the new Minister's success will be able to measure up to the success of the new curriculum despite the tag of organised chaos.

There are many contradictions and much vegueness in the Bill with regard to the responsibilities of the new Minister. The Minister for Finance has said that the general design is clear, that the new Department will be a focal point for a widespread planning system throughout the public service but he also uses words such as "limited executive responsibility". The limitations will be those of the availability of finance to carry out the plan. While I appreciate that plans will be carried out by Ministers in their own Departments, the new Minister will be responsible for overall planning and strategy.

We are told that novel solutions are necessary if we are to overcome our problems, that a consensus is necessary, but what happens if neither of these factors is present? It has become evident from ministerial utterances in the past five or six weeks—much different from the utterances four months ago that the new Fianna Fáil Government would solve our problems, would cut down on unemployment and so on—that the onus is being shifted very rapidly to the community and to society. Now we are told that unless certain sections agree to certain things the Government will not be able to deliver the goods on their own. This is fine. This is an acceptable philosophy to me but I do not think it is a straight or honest approach having won the election by saying the opposite. I am referring to statements made in the past few weeks by various Ministers that if we are to reduce unemployment we must have a wage agreement consistent with the terms as outlined in the Fianna Fáil manifesto. The onus for reaching this agreement is being shifted to the unions and to other sectional interests in the community. Despite that, the Minister for Finance has quoted from Report No. 32 of the National Economic and Social Council as follows:

This is a responsibility which in a democracy must properly be borne by the Government alone regardless of who else might be involved.

It is fine to quote that but to come along and to say the very opposite in public is not good enough and it is not honest.

Everyone in this House wishes the Minister every success but if I were he I would be rather worried about the vagueness of his functions and I mean this genuinely. In the statement of the Minister for Finance there is complete vagueness on this point and I hope that this matter will be spelled out on Committee Stage. We want to know exactly what will be the functions of the new Minister and see how they can fit in with the overall strategy that will be expected of him in his office.

In his statement the Minister for Finance said:

One result of the transfer to my colleague, the Minister for Economic Planning and Development, of some of my burdens for economic policy is that, I will, as Minister for the Public Service, be able to devote a greater amount of time towards the task of public service reform.

Some of the burdens are being transferred. I hope we will be told what these burdens are and to what extent will the Minister for Economic Planning and Development be taking over some of the functions of the Minister for Finance. We have been treated since the debate started, to a dissertation on what a Department for Economic Planning and Development should be and what it should do. We were also told all the practical difficulties that are obstacles to carrying out those functions. It reminds me of Euclid proving a theorum and down at the end he has quod erat demonstrandum, having gone through all the logical steps to prove his point except with the difference that the Minister for Finance has not used all the logical proofs to show why the new Minister should not have the teeth he might have, as Deputy Barry stated.

The nub of our disappointment is with the description of the powers of the new Department. There does not appear to be any power over allocation of resources attached to this new Department. When one looks at the powers allotted to the new Department in the Bill one sees a complete lack of any real planning power. One does not have to talk about whether or not one agrees with the concept of imposed planning. The Minister for Finance says he does not agree with it. It is not possible in our mixed economy for the Government to impose their particular plan on industry. I believe, if the Government are serious about the central importance of planning in the Irish context that a duty devolves on them to make clear their plans for their sector of the economy.

The Government suggest that they are more in favour of planning than their predecessors. Then, in coming before the House with the outline powers of the new Department, one would have expected a sharp, clear description of the exact powers to be given to the new Department. We have here simply what seems to me to be the blueprint of the Cabinet think-tank. I congratulate the Minister but it seems to me that he is the head of the Government's think-tank. This new Department, without any offence to the facts, can be described as just another satellite of the Department of Finance. The heading of Department of Economic Planning and Development is only a fancy name for what is in effect the Cabinet thinking machine.

I believe the Government have a very good head of that unit in Deputy Martin O'Donoghue. He may be the only person in any Government in Western Europe to be given such a status. I congratulate him on achieving that eminence in his party. When I read here the powers of his new Department I read simply what any Minister could propose round the Cabinet table. It says here that he identifies policies that are considered necessary for general economic and social development. He promotes and co-ordinates economic and social planning. The Minister for Finance said that the status of the Department was proved by the fact that we had a Cabinet Minister who could report directly around the Cabinet table.

Everybody who has served in Government knows that any Minister is entitled to make any comments he likes on the memorandum of another Department. If a Cabinet are working properly and if a Minister is doing his work properly, which most Ministers do, he can make his comments around the Cabinet table. We have in section 2 of the Bill no more than the description of what any hard working or interested Minister in the economic area should be doing.

Debate adjourned.

Business suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 19 Oct 1977

Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill, 1977: Second Stage.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Oct 1977