Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Nov 1977

Vol. 301 No. 4

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

Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.

Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 are consequential on Amendment No. 1. Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9 to 15 may be taken together.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 2, subsection (1), line 14, to insert "agus Soisialaí," after "Eacnamaíochta".

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure adequate and full recognition of social policy in relation to this new Department. When I spoke on Second Stage I expressed some major reservations about the commitment to social planning and development so far as that Department was concerned. I indicated then that I would consider putting down an amendment of this kind.

Since then I have had the benefit of listening to the new Minister for Economic Planning and Development and some of the Government backbenchers and I am more convinced now than I was then that this amendment should be made. I was disappointed with the new Minister's speech because he made no reference to the social aspect of his new position. In his defence it might be said that it was a short contribution and his maiden speech but there is an old saying that first impressions are the most lasting.

I listened very carefully to hear what answer he would give to the reservations I expressed about the social aspect of his new position, but I did not hear anything that would reduce my reservations. Government backbenchers spoke more or less in the same vein. A number of them gave the definite impression that this Bill was a repeat of the programmes for economic expansion, in other words, this was the fourth programme. They praised everything those programmes accomplished and were looking forward to a similar performance and results from this measure.

I am pressing this amendment for those reasons and hope it will be accepted. I note that throughout the Bill there is reference to economic and social planning and development. Nevertheless, the Department will be known as the Department of Economic Planning and Development, and the new Minister will be called the Minister for Economic Planning and Development. There has been a great deal of reference to the Minister and his Department in the media —radio, television and the Press— as the Minister for and Department of Economic Planning and Development. This is very bad particularly when so much is expected of this Department in the social field.

Social policy quite simply and clearly cannot be divorced from economic planning and policy. Social progress cannot be allowed to wait until some unspecified future stage of economic development. That seemed to be the answer the Minister for Finance gave in his reply, that is, that we cannot really think or do anything about social planning or development until we have first economic planning and development. Failure to recognise that social and economic planning and development must go hand in hand is a great disservice to the interests of the many disadvantaged groups in our society.

There was created also the false impression—this came through in many of the speeches from the Fianna Fáil backbenchers—that before one can do anything in the field of social planning and development, it is necessary first to have a lot of finance on hand. This is not necessarily so. There are many aspects of social planning and development that can be put through on foot of very little expenditure but I appreciate that the major part of social development necessitates increased resources. Unless all aspects of our national policy are designed to guarantee social as well as economic achievement at all stages the problems of the unemployed, of the poor, of the badly housed, and of the victims of discrimination, will not be solved. Rather, they will be added to as time goes on. This is the unfortunate lesson of history in all free enterprise economies.

Experience has shown that there is no guarantee that social progress follows automatically on economic progress. This is why we are pressing to have this very important word put into the title of the Department and into the Minister's title. I can point to many instances in this country in which, in the name of economic planning and development, certain lines of action were taken that resulted in disastrous social consequences. For example, I can cite the many job closures that occurred supposedly for purposes of economic planning and development, of rationalisation or modernisation and all of which had serious social consequences. In my own constituency the coal mines were closed for economic reasons. The closures had disastrous social consequences. Time has shown that these decisions should not have been taken, not only from a social but also from other points of view.

Therefore, I wish to emphasise that the idea that social development goes hand in hand with economic development is not accurate. Social planning must take into account the problems of inequality, not merely by catering for their immediate effects but by creating conditions for their eventual elimination. It is a useless exercise to continue to treat symptoms of social disadvantage without coming to grips with the underlying causes of these problems. The new Department and the new Minister should have a clear, definite and positive identification with social policy.

On the Second Reading, I made some of my case for this and I do not wish to repeat what I said. After I had spoken on that occasion many of the speakers supporting the Government referred to what they regarded as the success of the various programmes for economic expansion. It was a source of concern for me to realise the level of their social thinking in their approach to the new Department.

There were three Fianna Fáil programmes for economic expansion covering the period from 1959 to 1972. The first of these related to the period 1959 to 1963 and was completely and utterly devoid of any social content. The line taken in that document was based on the theory of baking a larger national cake and that when it would be baked we could decide how much of it should be devoted to improvements in social developments. Unfortunately that programme did not provide much in the way of social policy or development.

The second programme was intended to cover the period 1964 to 1970 but it collapsed and was abandoned in 1967. It went but a little further in relation to social matters vis-à-vis the first programme. It included some measure of discussion of the State's social services but the whole emphasis again was on economic rather than social policy. The main commentary that can be made in respect of those programmes relates to their emphasis on economic growth to the point of ignoring the views of those who were concerned deeply with the hardships and injustices in our society.

The third programme was merely an academic exercise. It sank shortly after its publication but at least it was entitled "A Programme for Economic and Social Development". At the time much play was made of the great advances that it heralded in social planning. Two whole chapters of the programme were devoted to social development. These chapters dealt with a range of important social issues. Special attention was given to education, to health, to housing and to social welfare but because the programme as a whole collapsed no real social planning resulted from it. Indeed, the history of this country in the area of planning for social development is pathetic in the extreme. Nobody would deny that many worth-while and far-reaching advances have been made down through the years but there has been absolutely no progress in relation to the co-ordination of development activities. We have failed to develop either the methods or the structures for the systematic planning of our social policy and there is nothing in the Bill to suggest that we can hope for any real improvement in the years ahead.

Unless the new Department have real responsibility for social planning, the necessary complement of skilled personnel and the backing of a genuine socially-minded political will at the level of Government, I cannot see any successful break-through on the planning front. For those reasons I propose the insertion of these amendments into the Bill. I hope that they will be accepted in the spirit in which they have been put forward because unless we can involve everyone in the planning and development and in the discussions leading up to plans and developments and unless we concern our plans with people, people will not be concerned with our plans. To get people involved the social identification of this Department must be paramount.

The Minister for the Public Service in his reply on Second Stage debate said that inserting the words "and Social", would create an unnecessarily long title. With respect, I do not think that this is a good argument. The amount of goodwill and attraction for people to involve themselves in this planning and development that would follow from the social impact of this measure would far outweigh the small disadvantages of having a long title. We have seen the Minister for Industry and Commerce becoming the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy. This amendment which I propose, and which will undoubtedly lengthen the title of the Department and of the Minister, is of far greater importance and significance than the adding to the title of the Minister for Industry and Commerce the word "Energy".

We have had other examples of decisions arising from economic plans which again had serious social consequences. I refer to previous Fianna Fáil Governments in relation to housing where they decided for economic reasons to go for low-cost housing— I will not identify any area—in order to solve the social problem of housing people. That type of economic policy in relation to housing brought about disastrous social consequences for the people who have now to live in those low-cost houses with the developments that arose from strictly economic considerations. Any economic consideration must be guided by social principles. If the policy of previous Fianna Fáil Governments in relation to the provision of housing, and if those decisions had been guided and influenced by social considerations, we would not have the very obvious disastrous social consequences which that type of economics produced.

There are many other examples but I hope I have said enough to convince the Minister that he should accept this amendment. The Minister for the Public Service, and everyone else in this House, is anxious to see the new Minister successful in the job for which the Department was established. The Minister will not succeed to the extent that we would like him to succeed unless he has this clear identification with social policy, and he can have that only by having the word "Social" included in the Minister's title and in the Department's title. I hope earnestly that this amendment will be accepted.

I could, but I will not, follow Deputy Pattison down the road of what was said on this side of the House on Second Stage debate, but I will place on record the fact that I disagree with and refute Deputy Pattison's interpretation of what was said on this side of the House. We are discussing here an amendment, with which are associated nine other amendments, the purpose of which is to add the words "and Social" to "Economic" in the title of the Department and of the Minister wherever they appear in the Bill. It is significant that in the rather lengthy contribution we had from Deputy Pattison in only one sentence did he make any reference—a passing reference—to the fact that the substance of the Bill dealing with the functions of the Department does what he is talking about. It is a little unreal to ignore the functions of the Department as set out in section 2 (2) where it says:

It shall be the function of the Department of Economic Planning and Development—

and then there are five sub-paragraphs in which different functions are set out. The first refers to economic and social planning, the second and third to economic and social development, and the fourth and fifth to economic and social plans. That is where the functions of the Department and of the Minister are set out. What Deputy Pattison is talking about is not the function of the Department or of the Minister, but simply the title. I say that in order to get this matter into perspective, because nobody can argue that the functions of the Department as set out in the Bill ignore the social aspect by concentrating on the economic aspect. This is demonstrable from what I have just quoted, so what Deputy Pattison is saying is that we must add the word "Social" to the title of the Department and the title of the Minister. It is not unreasonable to assume that he is saying that we must do this if we are (a) to show that we are sincere about social development and (b) to ensure that there is social planning and development. I do not think, with all due deference to Deputy Pattison, that that argument stands up. It is not logical and it does not make very much sense. If one is concerned about what this Department will do, one has to be concerned about its functions. If one is concerned about the title one wants to ensure that it is reasonably indicative of what that Department is concerned with. That is all. The title is not by any means indicative of what any Department is involved with.

Deputy Pattison referred to the recent change in the title of the former Department of Industry and Commerce which is now the Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy. The reason for that change is that the functions in relation to energy were transferred from another Department. The Department is being given new functions. There is not any question here of new functions. The functions are set out in section 2 (2) of the Bill as I have quoted so it is not necessary to demonstrate that there is any change of function for this Department. If we talk about the title, we are not talking about the substance of social planning or development. We are simply talking about the title of the Minister and the title of the Department, as I indicated on Second Stage.

We will not achieve anything additional in regard to social planning and development if we add the word "social" to the title of the Department. We will, by the addition of this word, create the longest and most cumbersome title of all the Departments of State. We certainly will not get any improvement in performance as regards social or economic planning.

I sympathise to some extent with the point of view Deputy Pattison is expressing but I suggest to him that in so far as there need be any concern in this regard it is met in the definition of the functions of the Department and that nothing is gained by putting the word "social" into the title. We are making life more difficult by adding to the title and gaining nothing. In the circumstances I can see no possible advantage in accepting this amendment, incorporating a further word or in some cases two words into the title of the Minister and the Department with no gain because the substance is contained in the functions of the Department as set out in section 2 (2).

The Minister has made a case for the amendment because I said, and he has repeated, that the Bill contains many references to economic and social planning and economic and social development. I recognised that fact when I moved the amendment. I cannot see why it should be ignored in the title. It is the title which creates the image because it is the title that is used on radio, television and newspapers. It is the Minister for Economic Planning and Development; it is the Department for Economic Planning and Development which we find in references to the Minister and the Department in the media. The media will not publish the Bill every time the Minister's name is mentioned. They will not publish section 2 (2) to give the Minister his full title and functions. They would adequately cover it if the word "social" were inserted. All the paragraphs in section 2 (2) have a social context. As the Minister said everywhere in the Bill the functions of the Department are referred to as social as well as economic planning. Why have we not got this in the Title because that is the part of the Bill everybody will know the Department and the Minister by? It is inconsistent to have the word "social" mentioned so many times in the Bill and yet not have it in the Title.

The Minister referred to the Department of Industry and Commerce which I previously referred to. Energy was part and parcel of that Department up to some years ago. Many people still thought it was part and parcel of that Department. It was not until the Government made the change that some people realised that energy was with the Department of Transport and Power for some years.

They cannot have been terribly concerned with the problem.

The Minister made the point about a new function which it was not. If we wanted to economise on words people would just as easily understand that industry and commerce contained energy even without its identification with the Department. The Minister said that it was mentioned in the Bill a number of times. It is as much part and parcel of the Department as the economic side. I fail to see why we cannot have it in the title of the Minister and the Department.

I do not think it matters a lot what the Department is called. The important thing is what the Department does. Perhaps it would be a good thing if Departments were not named and that when Deputy O'Donoghue becomes Minister he is known as Minister No. 17 in charge of Department No. 17. Possibly the ideological implication of the numerically designated Ministers might not suit some of us. I think the Minister might reasonably accept the amendment because it is not a very important matter. I see certain merit in what Deputy Pattison is saying that when the Minister or his Department are referred to in the newspapers or in the media in any way it will be brought home continuously to people what the Minister's functions are. The people will realise that the functions of the Department are not just economic planning and development but are also social planning and development. I agree with Deputy Pattison that it would be a continual reminder to people that Deputy O'Donoghue will have other functions besides economic planning and development. He will also, as the Bill sets out, be responsible for social planning and social development. That is the way it is worded in the subsection.

As regards Transport and Power the word "power" created great difficulty in Europe when I was Minister in charge of that Department. I do not know how the Department came to be the Department of Transport and Power or the Department of Transport and Energy in the early sixties when it was founded but in Europe the use of the word "power" without the word "energy" created a lot of difficulty. After a few years there I set the wheels in motion to change the name to the Department of Transport and Energy. The Department of Industry and Commerce then had certain relations to energy. I was anxious that either those functions would be tranferred to the Department of Transport and Energy as I wanted the Department called or as the Government have now done transferred the energy section to the Department of Industry and Commerce.

There was quite a definite split. It came at the shoreline. Outside the shoreline the Department of Industry and Commerce were responsible, and inside the Department of Transport and Power were responsible. That was just by the way.

I do not think what any Department are called is important. As against that, I accept what Deputy Pattison said. If we are to name Departments we might as well name them for all their functions. Obviously there are far more functions in the Department of Industry and Commerce than just energy and we could not name them all. In this case, with a new Department, the emphasis should be put on the fact that social planning is involved as well as economic planning. The name might help people to remember that in the years and months ahead.

Deputy Barry put his finger on the situation when he said it really does not matter a damn what a Department are called. What is important is what they do. That is my attitude too. If I thought the addition of the words "and Social" to the title of the Department or the Minister would make one iota of difference to anybody, I would have no hesitation in accepting this and the associated amendments. Quite honestly, I do not think it would make the slightest difference.

We are not concerned with the image of the Department. That is not what is at stake. Whatever image the Department will have in due course will depend on the manner in which the Department and the Minister deal with the functions set out in substance in subsection (2). If we are talking about images that is what the image will come from and not from the title. I do not think it would make the slightest difference. If I did, I would have no hesitation in accepting the amendement. It would have certain admittedly minor disadvantages by including it but, since there is no counterbalancing advantage, I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment.

On the point of what the Department may do or accomplish, from experience far too many people associate economic planning with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Unfortunately, that is an historic fact. For the proper functioning of the Department and in order to get better results it is important to create a definite and clear image from the outset that the Department definitely and without doubt are involved in and concerned with social problems and social policy and not involved in the narrow meaning of the word "economic". The narrow interpretation of that word is the creation of a climate wherein a small minority can get richer, where the speculator can get back to the atmosphere of the sixties, and where a few people can make a lot of money. That interpretation of "economics" should be discouraged and every effort should be made to ensure that this Department are not associated with that type of image.

I have subsequent amendments down about the involvement of the social partners in plans, and deliberations on those plans, because I envisage discussion and dialogue with what have become known as the social partners. For that reason, the slight encumbrance the addition of these words to the title would be to the Bill would be far outweighed by the impact the Minister and the Department would make if they were known as the Minister for and Department of Economic and Social Planning and Development.

I urge the Minister to reconsider his position on this amendment. I put it down in the belief that more people would be involved in tackling the enormous problem of employment in particular. It would identify the Department more clearly with the unemployment problem which is an economic problem to some, and a social problem to others, while to me it is an economic and a social problem. To create employment for the unemployed and for those who will be coming on the employment market in the years ahead, and to get the full involvement of all the social partners and all their constituent members, the more wide-embracing the title is the better. The Department would work better and get better results, and that is what this is all about. Both sides of the House want to ensure that the Department will get the best results possible. Adding these words to the title would help to get those results and would help in the formulation of policy and plans and, more important, in the implementation of whatever plans are put forward.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 2, subsection (2), to delete lines 19 to 37, and substitute:

(a) to prepare and publish general estimates of public expenditure, both capital and current, and to relate such estimates to the growth of national resources and to the estimated growth of Government revenue; to describe the policies by which the Government's economic and social objectives can be achieved, and to indicate the expected impact on the growth of national output and employment of Government economic and social policies over the next five years,

(b) to identify in consultation with other Departments of State the policies it considers necessary for the attainment of the Government's economic and social policies, to integrate these policies with a national and social plan to be submitted to the Government; and to review the implementation of any economic and social plan adopted by the Government and to lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas the results of this review; and

(c) to promote and co-ordinate economic and social planning for the development of the economy both generally and as respects different sectors thereof and different regions of the country.

Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are related to amendment No. 4. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are consequential on amendment No. 5. Therefore, amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 may be taken together.

On a point of clarification, I do not agree that amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are consequential. They go somewhat further than amendment No. 4.

I think the Leas-Cheann Comhairle said amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are consequential on amendment No. 5.

Not on amendment No. 4.

I am sorry. Does amendment No. 4 stand on its own?

They may all be taken together and if we want separate decisions we can have them.

First, I would like to say what my attitude will be to legislation coming here either from the Minister for the Public Service, Deputy Colley, or the Minister for Economic Planning and Development, Deputy O'Donoghue. On Second Stage we will establish the principle of the Bill that has been moved by the Government and, as will happen inevitably, it will be accepted by the House because of the Government's majority here. I would hope that on Committee and subsequent Stages we could concentrate as elected representatives of the people on improving those Bills, accepting that the House in general has agreed to them as proposed legislation.

I am not singling out any particular party in this connection because probably we have been as guilty as anybody else in Government, but we lose sight of the fact that we were elected here as 148 Deputies to produce legislation to improve the running of this country. The wisdom in doing this is not confined to any one section of the House or to those coming down those gangways on the left and on the right. I know it is against the tradition of this Government—and, indeed, they were somewhat shocked when some of the backbenchers of the previous Government did not follow their tradition— to speak here against aspects of legislation being proposed by the Government, although still vote for the Government when it came to a division.

I do not see anything wrong with that. From the country's point of view it would be quite untenable that any group of backbenchers in a political party could so blackmail the leaders of the party or parties in Government to bring them consistently down, maybe once a month or once every six months. I think the Whip system is necessary. What might be a better way out of it, but it is a matter for another debate on Dáil reform, would be that the Dáil could not fall during the period for which it was elected. I genuinely want to try to improve any legislation introduced. This will apply more particularly perhaps to the Finance Bill when it comes in in the New Year. On Committee Stage I will seek —I am only human and maybe I will fall—not to put forward political points but to make a genuine efforts to contribute to the legislation passed in this House. The Minister may not agree with the points I make; I will accept that, but I will try not to make political points on Committee and other Stages. There may be Bills where this will not be possible. The Bill itself may be political and the sections of the Bill therefore will also be political. I may be on the road to hell but for as long as I am spokesman for my party on Finance, Economic Planning and Development and the Public Service, that is the attitude I will try to adopt on legislation.

I say that in introducing the amendment in my name because we have gradually over the years lost the sense of the importance of this House. We have done this nearly unconsciously and unknowingly. Ignoring section 2 (2) (a) but taking (b), (c), (d) and (e) as drafted I quote:

(b) to identify the policies it considers necessary for general economic and social development and to report thereon to the Government,

(c) to review and appraise the plans and activities of Departments of State giving effect to the policies for general economic and social development adopted by the Government,

(d) to make proposals to the Government ....

(e) to review the implementation of such national economic and social plans as may be approved of by the Government from time to time and to report thereon to the Government.

There is no word about coming back to the Dáil, the Members of which will pass this legislation, who are setting up this new Department, to whom the Minister is ultimately responsible. He is a member of the Government, but his responsibility is to the people and to their elected representatives in this House. There is no provision in this Bill which says he must come back here and account for his stewardship. The amendment in my name seeks to do that among other things, seeks to make him lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas the plans he has and show the effectiveness of those plans after a period of time. Perhaps the most important part of his job—and he probably recognises this in articles he has written—will be looking at public expenditure, which now accounts for a very large proportion of our GNP. It has grown over the years under different Governments and perhaps more proportionately under our last four years than in the previous periods of the Fianna Fáil Government. It is something that must worry everybody and it must be the first point of attention as far as the new Minister is concerned, as the amendment says, "to prepare and publish general estimates of public expenditure, both capital and current, and to relate such estimates to the growth of national resources and to the estimated growth of Government revenue...."

It is necessary that any such plan or preparation of policies in this regard should be debated in this House. As I said, in anything the new Minister has written over the last five or ten years he has been constantly aware of the amount of the national resources that were being absorbed by public expenditure. These are matters to which he must devote his attention in this House. Under the Bill which is now before us the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, need never come to this House except at Question Time. Under all the paragraphs of subsection (2) with the exception of paragraph (a)— which I have also incorporated in my amendment because it appears to be a paragraph of subsection (2) that might be effective, and I have made that (c) in mine—he need never come into this House to tell us what he is doing, what plans he has or how successful he has been. It is in an effort, as much as maybe hoping to get at him, to preserve this House as the important body it is in this country that I have drafted the amendment. I hope quite genuinely that the Minister will accept that from the point of view of the democracy and the importance of Dáil Éireann the provisions I propose in subsection (2), would be more effective in that regard and would give more public accountability than subsection (2) of the Bill as drafted which only makes the Minister responsible to the Government; he need only report to and discuss these matters with the Government, never in this House.

The purpose of amendment No. 5 in my name is to ensure that an outline plan for a period of at least four years ahead is published annually, and to see to it that the new Department are not confined merely to reporting, monitoring and reviewing plans on behalf of the Government. This amendment would make it mandatory—and I believe rightly so—for the new Department to present an outline plan, or a Green Paper it could be called, for at least four years ahead. It could be five or six years but four is the figure I have chosen as a suitable period in which the targets of the medium-term policies in the new plan might have the fullest impact.

In proposing the presentation of an outline plan I am, of course, looking upon planning as a continuous process with policies, targets, strategies and so on being under continuous review and subject to amendment in relation to the external environment, such as improvements in sterling, growth rates, volume of trade and so on, and the performance in a given year of the economy itself. This will be a plan subject to review every year, with additions to and amendments in policies and the ways of implementing them.

Now to achieve that, there is need for the full involvement of all sections in the community and that is why it is so very necessary to have an outline plan or a Green Paper published annually since, if such information were not published annually, it would be very difficult to get the full involvement required from all sections of the community in order to achieve the objectives laid down in the plan. People can only feel involved and make their full contribution if they are brought into the process before final decisions are taken. They must be given the opportunity of voicing their opinions on the policies proposed and they cannot do that unless the policies are published in an outline plan. I do not want to hark back but we must learn from experience. Unfortunately the lesson from the past has been that the three programmes for economic expansion under the previous Fianna Fáil Governments were published as White Papers. The Government had already taken vital decisions. The general public and even the Members of the Oireachtas were not involved in the formulation of these programmes and that approach led to an inflexible programme and a resultant failure.

The main goal in any plan for the immediate future must be full employment. There is no hope of any success in this enormous national task if people are not wholeheartedly behind the Government and such support can only be built on a full understanding of all that is involved in the plan. In order to get a full understanding of all that is involved publication is absolutely essential. Secondly, the Department should produce the outline plan setting the broad aims and goals of the plan, the main policy options and the projected budgetary expenditures as well as the projected tax revenue. The Minister might argue this would be a diminution of the Government's role. It would not, in fact, be any diminution of the Government's role. On the contrary, it would maximise public involvement and education in these matters. Another criticism might relate to the time factor. Consultation takes time but a strict timetable for such consultation could be laid down and adhered to. Following the publication of the outline plan comes the involvement of the Oireachtas. After that it would be the Government and the new Department which would eventually assume responsibility for the plan and the ultimate decisions in regard to policy and revenue allocation.

What the amendment seeks is a fairly detailed presentation in the outline plan of public expenditure estimates and revenue receipts for four years ahead. These figures could be adjusted from time to time should the need arise. This is something that has never been done here. The United Kingdom is more advanced in this method of management than we are but there is no reason why we should not adopt a similar system particularly in the light of the new Department stimulating planning in other Departments. Expenditure estimates would have to throw light on policies and policy choices. They would also assist the Dáil, the social partners and the general public. They would focus attention on key policy decisions and help to create a climate of discipline and understanding in regard to economic and social problems generally and the policies to be adopted in relation to them.

The publication of this outline plan should take place in the December-January period just before the annual budget. That would be the most appropriate time. The National Economic and Social Council commented on the National Coalition's Green Paper at page 25 of report No. 33 as follows:

The description of a policy objective, without a spelling out of the beneficial consequences that will follow if it is achieved, is not enough. Objectives which are otherwise feasible can be achieved only to the extent that the Government and the community are committed to them— that there is a willingness to accord priority to the national interest over sectional interests. Specific policies and measures will not be sufficient by themselves—they will be effective only if they evoke the responses needed to achieve the desired results.

That exhortation should be noted because we have to focus and encourage public attention on a continuing basis on the work of the new Department. That can only be done by accepting this amendment No. 5.

I shall deal now with amendment No. 6 designed to ensure that the Dáil and Seanad are involved in debating outline plans. This is most important because the elected representatives of the people have a particular right to contribute to the evolution of both policies and plans. This amendment is for the purpose of facilitating debate in the Oireachtas. It should be noted that the Oireachtas had not been previously consulted in relation to economic programmes. There is another reference in the National Economic Social Council Report 21 about the lack of Oireachtas consultation. That is why there should be embodied in this Bill a section making it mandatory for such involvement to take place. The NESC Report 21 on public expenditure at page 48, paragraph 6.2, says:

First, a strategy for economic and social development is required. No such statergy has existed since the mid-1960s. There were, of course, the Second Programme for Economic Expansion and the Third Programme for Economic and Social Development. But the extent to which the Government was committed to them was at best always ambiguous. Neither of these Programmes was debated in Dáil Éireann. Neither of them seemed to be widely accepted in the public service as a framework for thought and action. Indeed, very little was heard of the Third Programme after it was published.

Again, it is essential to have both Dáil and Seanad fully involved in the evolution of policy and plans. In other planning systems in other countries there is provision for the formal involvement of Parliament. When I said some time ago that the Oireachtas were not involved in plans and policies, that might be answered by the Minister saying: "We have the annual Estimates debated here and supplementary Estimates and that gives an opportunity to put forward plans and policies." I submit that the Estimates debates are not suitable as an occasion for the full scale debate required. Proper parliamentary involvement demands the presentation of a formal public document if the Government consider that suitable priority is to be attached to this very important work concerning regions and the nation as a whole and its various sections. If the new Department is to have the importance we all want it to have, it is essential to have the presentation and discussion here of a formal public document. It is no answer to say that we have the annual Estimates debates. The Department should get the status we think it should have. Planning is not just an exercise in administration; it is not appropriate to the secretive processes of the civil service. Nor can it succeed through Government decisions, the Government dictating to the people. It must be seen to be part of the democratic process of national development and that cannot be so without the involvement of the Oireachtas being clearly stated in this Bill.

The fact that planning was never really part of the democratic process might well have been the major contributing factor to its failure but with this Bill it should be made clear that from now on it will be a full part of the democratic process. The outline plan or Green Paper to which I have referred could be put before the Oireachtas and debated on a motion noting its contents as has been done in other cases. This would enable Members to comment and make constructive proposals on the plan before it is finally adopted by the Government. If the Minister has any fears about the timetable involved in such an exercise I, for one, would fully support him on a strict time schedule for such discussion even in this House.

Going a little further, consideration should be given to the establishment of an Oireachtas committee charged with responsibility in regard to the long term review of plans. This might help to shorten the debate on the motion coming before the House. Involvement of the Oireachtas, as this amendment proposes, would assist significantly in the acceptance of the plan proposed and to the creation of the national aim and purpose contained in that policy or plan.

I want to say a few words about amendment No. 7, the purpose of which is to ensure the involvement of the social partners whether under the aegis of the NESC or otherwise. That would add to the general acceptability in the community at large of the Government's planning decisions. It would also bring the professional expertise of the organised major interest groups in society directly into the planning process. The mandatory involvement of the social partners in some way is essential. The Minister might say that we can assume that that is contained somewhere in the Bill in the process of co-ordinating the work. I hope that that intention is in the Bill but hoping that the intention is there is one thing and making sure it is there is another.

This amendment would improve the Bill in that it would make consultation mandatory on the social partners particularly those involved in the NESC. The NESC is a widely representative body comprised of five representatives from the Confederation of Irish Industry, three members from the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society, ten members from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, three members from the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association, five members from the Irish Employers Confederation, four members from the Irish Farmers Association, plus 14 other members nominated by the Government and an independent chairman. As can be seen, this is a very responsible and representative body and a very suitable forum for consultation. The purpose of this amendment is to make consultation with the main economic and social groups mandatory rather than voluntary. I have no doubt that the Minister in accordance with section 2 (2) of the Bill will be searching far and wide for ideas, suggestions and for a feed-back on whatever plans and proposals he might have in mind, and he will be approaching many groups and societies apart from the interests represented in the NESC. It would be of assistance to the new Department and to the Government to have the obligation of formal consultation with the major interested groups, contained in the Bill because it would provide a basis of understanding although not necessarily agreement for the Government's formal policy decisions. It would also be of assistance to these groups who will be encouraged to contribute to public policy formulation if they are given this kind of facility within the legal framework of the Bill. It would mean that these people would contribute to policy formulation on an organised basis in an objective manner. They would have a formal opportunity of putting their decisions as interested groups to the Minister and to the Government.

The consultation mechanism of the NESC is already there and that can be expanded upon or changed to facilitate other interested groups that are not currently represented in the NESC. How the consultation would take place is a matter of detail. If we can get this included in the Bill I am sure co-operation will be willingly forthcoming to arrange the necessary mechanism by which that can be achieved. Consultation is a very convenient way of dealing with this aspect of the planning process. The previous Government consulted with the NESC on many occasions and in the Green Paper of October, 1976, they were asked to deal with various aspects of that. The National Economic and Social Council Comments on Economic Development No. 33 makes reference to this fact on page 36, paragraph 63. It states that:

In the preparation of any plan for economic and social development, there should be the fullest possible consultations with those expected to contribute towards achieving its objectives. These consultations should include all productive sectors —agriculturalists, as well as trade unions and industrial managers and employers.

Basically my amendment is intended to achieve that kind of involvement. Coming now to amendment No. 8——

Sorry, Deputy that is a different amendment. Amendment No. 4 is before the House. Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 being related are being discussed with it. We can have separate decisions on two of them.

I trust that I have impressed the Minister with the necessity of giving this mandatory and statutory facility within the framework of the Bill to accomplish these very important matters—the publishing of the plan so that we can get full public involvement, the involvement of the Oireachtas so that the democratic process cannot just operate but can be seen to be operating in its fullest manner and the involvement of outside interested groups who have already shown in various ways their concern, co-operation and willingness to provide the kind of assistance which the Minister will require if he is to get a successful plan underway.

Perhaps the Minister is accepting these amendments. I do not know but I hope his answer will not be that he is refusing, that there is already—in a vague kind of way—facility for this kind of process I am seeking in the Bill. If there is, let us bring it in, identify it and make it mandatory within the framework of the Bill in a very definite, clear and positive way. I do not believe for one moment that it is the intention of the Government to exclude the people I have made a case for. I do not think it is; I think they want to involve everybody. The way to do it properly is to accept these amendments, to have them part and parcel of the Bill setting up this Department.

I do not know whether I shall be following Deputy P. Barry on the road to hell but I want to assure him, that, so far as I am concerned, it is my intention also—in regard to Committee Stages of Bills where amendments or suggestions are put forward from the Opposition that seem to me to make sense or to improve the Bill—to accept them. I can say without any doubt whatever I am totally convinced that, in the last few years, there were some extremely good amendments and suggestions put forward from the Opposition benches. Unfortunately, most of them were not accepted. I can say also that, when I was in government before, the record will show that, on many occasions, I accepted suggestions or amendments from the Opposition. I have always disapproved of an attitude on the part of a Minister—and such attitude has been demonstrated from both sides; I freely confess that—of a determination to stick simply to the Bill as brought in and not to accept proposals for amendment which make sense. Of course, that is where the difference of opinion can arise, as to whether or not it does make sense.

I have the feeling the Minister is going to be a St. Augustine.

No, I am in the fortunate position that I can show from the record that, before I went into Opposition, I acted in this way. There was very much more reason for my predecessor to have acted in this way where Deputy P. Barry is but I assure the House that I intend to continue the practice I followed before.

However, it is not quite as easy as it seems in so far as I said it is necessary to be convinced of the merits of the suggestion even where a particular amendment may not, of itself, be technically correct. If the idea is correct the Minister concerned should accept it. I am prefacing my remarks in that way because of the manner in which Deputy Barry prefaced his. I am trying to indicate a willingness on my part to meet the approach he has outlined, hopefully for himself.

Coming to this and associated amendments the first point I want to clarify is—and this was referred to by Deputy Barry and Deputy Pattison but particularly by Deputy Barry— concerns the provision in the Bill whereby proposals for a plan would be brought to the Government by the Minister for Economic Planning and Development, as Deputy Barry said, as distinct from the Oireachtas. If Deputies will cast their minds back a short time to the Second Stage discussion on this Bill they will remember that there were, roughly speaking, two schools of thought in the speeches from the Opposition benches, not divided on a party basis as between the Opposition parties but rather two basic schools of thought. One was that the Department of Economic Planning and Development would be able to do nothing at all because it would be controlled totally, overshadowed or whatever by the Department of Finance. The other school of thought was that it would be a super Department which would work out a plan, then implement it and make sure that every other Department did what the Department of Economic Planning and Development said it should do. The only doubts expressed there were: were there quite enough teeth in the Bill to ensure that it could do this?

Of course, neither of these views is correct at all. As my colleague, the Minister for Economic Planning and Development and, indeed, I pointed out on Second Stage, that is not the way government works. It is certainly not the way this Government work. What is envisaged in this Bill is based on the way I believe democratic governments should work, that is, that the Minister who is charged with the responsibility of producing the proposals for a national plan, who is equipped with the necessary powers to so do—having got the input from various other Departments, including the Department of Finance—brings those proposals to the Government. But, until the Government make a decision to accept such a plan, or perhaps to accept it with amendments, there is no plan. The status of such proposals is merely such—proposals. But, when the Government make the decision to accept and adopt such a plan, then one has a different situation. It is then binding on all Ministers, all Departments, and the whole of the public service. It is necessary to spell that out once again because of the apparent concern of Deputy P. Barry that the Bill provides that the Minister for Economic Planning and Development would report to the Government. That is the reason he reports to the Government; he cannot be in a position to dictate what is going to happen; neither can the Minister for Finance. It is a Government decision, a collective decision, a team decision; that is the only way it can work.

Taking it from there, as to what should happen—and the amendments make certain proposals in this regard which display a concern to ensure that when that decision is taken the matter will come to the Oireachtas— it is not quite clear to me whether one of the amendments is not, indeed, proposing that it should come to the Oireachtas before the decision is taken. In any event, in so far as the involvement of the Oireachtas is concerned, I fully appreciate the desirability, if only from the point of view of making a plan effective, of publicising it, of trying to involve as many sectors of the community as possible in it. Of course, in that regard, the role of the Oireachtas is vitally important.

There are quite a number of devices whereby a national plan would come before the Oireachtas. Indeed, a national plan for economic and social development would, in most cases, be brought before the Houses of the Oireachtas automatically by the Government of the day in order to ensure, if nothing else, that, by debating its contents, its implications were fully understood or were as widely understood as possible.

Even if we suppose for a moment that the Government of the day do not wish to do this, there are a number of devices whereby the Opposition can ensure that there is a debate on the matter. The most likely one would be where the Opposition would look for government time to debate such a plan. We are talking now not about something the Government of the day are trying to keep secret but rather about something that they want to be as widely known and understood as possible. If the Opposition were to request Government time for a discussion of such a plan, the circumstances in which the Government would refuse time for such a debate would be very unusual. Even if that were to happen, and I suggest it could only happen where there was some frightful flaw in the plan which the Government were trying to conceal and forget about the plan, it is open under the rules of the House to the Opposition to put down a motion for Private Members' time and to give it precedence. They choose the order and they could have that amount of discussion.

I confess quite freely that that amount of discussion would not be at all adequate for a debate of a national plan. All I am saying is that in the very unlikely event that the Opposition of the day were reduced to that point they are not completely powerless to ensure that the matter comes before this House and is publicly debated here. In my view that would be a very remote possibility and a most unlikely situation where an Opposition had to resort to that kind of device to ensure discussion of a national plan produced by a Government. I would expect in the normal way that any Government producing such a plan, as part of their programme for implementation, would make full arrangements to ensure that the details of the plan were widely known, debated and understood, thereby hopefully bringing along the various sectors of the community in order to ensure that the plan would operate effectively.

When we are considering these amendments it is necessary to consider what is the purpose of the Bill, and particularly what is the purpose of setting out the functions which the amendments are designed to change. In the Long Title of the Bill the purpose is stated to be:

... to provide for the establishment of a Department of Economic Planning and Development and for that purpose to amend the Ministers and Secretaries Acts, 1924 to 1973.

The purpose of the Ministers and Secretaries Acts, as given in the Long Title to the 1924 Act, is:

... for constituting and defining the Ministers and Departments of State.

The purpose of this Bill is to set up a Department of Economic Planning and Development and to ensure that their powers and functions are generally adequate and appropriate. If we look at the Ministers and Secretaries Acts as a whole, and in particular at section 2 of the 1924 Act which first established the Departments of State and set out their powers, duties and functions, it is quite clear that such powers and functions are set out in the widest possible terms. There are two purposes in mind. First, to define the area of responsibility of each Department and, secondly, to ensure that the Department and the Minister concerned have adequate powers to act in the area so set out. I suggest that the functions for the new Department, as provided for in this Bill amply meet these criteria.

I shall deal first with amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7. They accept the functions laid down in the section but they would add to them by requiring the Department to publish annually an outline economic and social plan for not less than four years, to lay this plan before each House of the Oireachtas and to consult with certain interest groups to whom Deputy Pattison has referred. This would be a perfectly respectable method of planning but I do not think we can say with any degree of confidence that it is the only way and that it should be made mandatory on the Department of Economic Planning and Development to the exclusion of all other possible approaches to the plan.

I do not wish to be too provocative to Deputies opposite when I quote from a speech made by my predecessor. I am quoting from it for a purpose and in the process they will see that I am indirectly drawing attention to what did not happen during the term of office of the previous Government. In his budget statement in 1974 my predecessor, as Minister for Finance, said the following in this House:

It would not be possible to publish a meaningful programme pending a re-assessment of medium-term planning in the light of the current unsettled world economic situation.

While I do not subscribe to the view that planning is impossible at certain times, I think that the kind of plan and the methods of planning that would be required may vary from time to time to meet the needs of a particular situation. For instance, it is quite possible that there may be times of extreme uncertainty when, perhaps, a four-year perspective might be too long. It is almost certain that when the new Department are fully operational and when they have developed the techniques of economic and social planning the shape of the plan envisaged in these amendments might be unduly restrictive compared with what the Department would want to produce. The methods suggested in the amendments might be at variance with more refined techniques that the Department may well evolve. Until the new Department have developed the future shape of the planning process it would be extremely unwise for us to require them to lay an annual plan before the Oireachtas.

Basically I have two objections to what is suggested in the amendments. First, the purpose of the Bill is simply to set out the functions of the Department, not to lay down the techniques to be used by the Department. The other is that even if one were to accept that what is suggested in these amendments, the form of planning and the techniques, is the ideal—even if one were to accept that proposition which is doubtful—one could not say that it would continue to be the ideal proposition. Therefore you must lay down a statutory mandatory form in the founding Bill for this Department. Unlike other Departments, you must not alone set out their functions but you must state precisely how they will work so that they cannot change that without going through the whole process of bringing in a new Bill. As the House knows a Bill changing the functions of a Department should not be lightly introduced. The real purpose of this Bill should be to set out the functions of the Department and ensure that the Minister is given adequate power to carry out those functions, not so to restrict the operation of the Department and the Minister that many useful things that could be done would be prohibited by law.

There is another implication in this and that is, if you are too specific in the way this should be done, by implication you are suggesting, and sometimes there is a legal presumption to this effect, that any other approach would be ultra vires and unlawful for the Minister and the Department to contemplate. In other words, you would be putting the Department into a straitjacket. The Bill as it stands gives the Department and the Minister a greater opportunity to do the kind of job we want them to do than pushing them into a straitjacket which compels them to operate on a particular basis and precludes any other possible line of approach.

With regard to the proposal in amendment No. 7, that the new Department should consult "with the interest groups represented on the National Economic and Social Council at the time of the passing of this Act", as Deputy Pattison anticipated and as I said in my opening statement on Second Stage, the new Department will consult with the social partners and other interest groups. If one is to hope to get anywhere with the planning process one must engage in this kind of consultation.

There is a big problem about the kind of proposals made in amendment No. 7. If you make it mandatory to consult with particular bodies which are so specified that they are "represented on the National Economic and Social Council at the time of the passing of the Act", then you are again introducing a rigidity which should not be there. Then you are saying that those people must be consulted. It is not inconceivable that there could be changes in those bodies. Over relatively recent years there have been changes on the trade union side—I am trying to remember the predecessor of ICTU—and in some of the employer groups representation. There was a proposal for a major change some years ago which did not come to anything.

If any such changes were to take place in the future, and if you had this amendment incorporated in the Bill, you could run into very great difficulty trying to decide who was the lawful successor of the body known as whatever it was. By accepting this amendment, we would be taking on unnecessary restrictions and difficulties. In practice, there must be consultation with all the interest groups. If there is not, you can be sure that the Minister for Economic Planning and Development, whoever he may be at any time in the future, is going to be very unsuccessful at his job if he does not engage in that kind of consultation.

With regard to amendment No. 4, paragraph (c) is identical with subsection (2) (a) in the Bill as drafted. Paragraphs (a) and (b) would substitute for the general list of functions set out in the Bill, again a very rigid framework for planning which could determine in advance the method of planning to be employed by the new Department before they had the opportunity to review the whole situation and develop their own techniques and strategies. What I said before in regard to the other amendments applies equally to this.

Suppose the new Department have evolved their own methodology, techniques and strategies. Who is to say that having done so, they are to be the end of the road and that that is not to be changed in future? I would be very disturbed to think that having reached a particular methodology which was satisfactory we would say: "That is the way it will be in future and we will never change it". It would be quite wrong to do that. I suggest it is even more wrong, before the Department have had the opportunity to develop their techniques in that way, to lay down a rigid framework as is proposed in amendment No. 4 and to impose that on the Department.

What is the purpose of this Bill? What should it be doing? I suggest it should be spelling out the functions of the Department and ensuring that the necessary powers are being given to carry out those functions, and that it is a misconceived approach to try to put the Department into a straitjacket as regards the method they will employ both because those methods may not be appropriate, because there should be provision for them to evolve, and also because of the risk that when you specify too clearly a particular method, by implication you are excluding other methods which might be available.

When Deputies think about this I hope they will agree that this would be the wrong approach and we would not be helping the Department or the Minister. We would be hindering them and putting them in a straitjacket. For these reasons I could not accept the amendments.

I could not discern from anything the Minister said why he could not accept amendment No. 4. He spoke of putting the Department into a straitjacket and not allowing them to grow. He described the functions of the Department without inflicting on them any further too tight or too rigid form of action to be taken later. In this regard my amendment does not vary greatly in language from section 2 in the Bill as drafted. The Bill says "to identify the policies" and my amendment says "to prepare and publish". The Bill says "to review policies" and my amendment says "to describe the policies by which the Government's economic and social objectives can be achieved, and to indicate the expected impact on the growth of national output". I think that is a reasonable extension of what they should be doing.

Paragraph (b) of my amendment says:

to identify in consultation with other Departments of State the policies it considers necessary for the attainment of the Government's economic and social policies, to integrate these policies with a national and social plan to be submitted to the Government; and to review the implementation of any economic and social plan adopted by the Government and to lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas the results of this review.

I do not see that that is a straitjacket to be putting the new Department in. The Minister should remember, both he and the new Minister referred to this on some occasions during the Second Stage debate, that there were no grounds for the fears expressed by some people to the effect that there might be a conflict between the two Departments. He has told us that his relationship with the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, has been very good always, that for a long number of years they had no problem in relation to interpreting each others mind and that each of them was always able to maintain his own stand. But that is not the point. We are not legislating here for Martin O'Donoghue and for George Colley.

I said that.

I said it, too.

I am sorry. Perhaps I did not hear the Ministers.

I regret that I must leave the House shortly but I shall put a point to the Deputy first by way of question. During his Second Stage speech Deputy Barry expressed concern that I would have no part to play and he used that delightful phrase, a toothless chatterbox, to describe me. I should like him to clarify that concern and to tell me how his amendment would either strengthen my powers or give me a greater insurance against the danger he fears?

What I said was that the Minister would be in danger of becoming a toothless chatterbox. I accept the point made by the Minister for the Public Service about not putting the other Minister in a straitjacket but I am trying to ensure that the new Minister would be entitled to go to the various Departments and consult with them, that he would be entitled to go to the Government also and that he would be responsible for drawing up plans and for publishing figures annually or at whatever period was considered suitable: also, that he would be responsible either for the curtailment or for the growth of public expenditure as the case might be and for coming back to this House to talk about these matters.

In regard to my going to the other Departments, I thought that aspect was catered for adequately in the Bill as drafted because subsection (3) provides for a review and appraisal of the plans or activities of Departments. Although the other Departments are not named specifically in paragraphs (b) and (d), there is reference to identifying policy and to making proposals to the Government of the plans and activities referred to in paragraph (c). These are plans and activities of Departments. I do not see how, after a Government had given to a Minister the authority to do those things any Department would try to imply that the Minister did not have the power to consult with the Department concerned.

The wording in the paragraph is "to review and appraise" but paragraph (b) of my amendment, No. 4, refers to "identifying in consultation". As drafted, the provision in the Bill is for consultation and review after the plans have been drawn up but I am seeking to give the Minister a say in what Departments are about to do.

I do not think we can have a discussion across the floor about this.

I am sorry. It was my fault.

The difficulty is that the Minister must go to the other House.

The point I am getting at is that at present the Bill provides for review and appraisal of plans after they have been drafted. My aim is to ensure in the legislation that the Minister can consult with the other Departments in relation to the drawing up of plans in order to ensure that those plans fit into an overall Government plan.

Is that point not catered for adequately in paragraphs (b) and (d)?

That may be so but if Departments are going ahead and doing their own thing without consultation with the Minister for Economic Planning and Development in the first place, it may transpire that the brick they make will not fit into the Minister's house.

It would not be my wish to end up with a situation in which Departments could only do whatever had been sanctioned or authorised by way of a plan approved by the Government.

That would be going too far to the other extreme. What I am saying is that the Minister should be with the Departments, for instance, the Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy, in relation to their drawing up of plans in order to ensure that such plans do not transgress the over-all Government plans. While the Minister would be identifying policies considered necessary for general economic and social development some Departments could be going ahead and drawing up plans that would be found to be different from the policies identified by the Minister.

The Department would have to go through the Government and I would be a member of the Government.

The Minister might not even know about the plans.

As I must withdraw now that is something I shall leave to my colleague to answer.

In this Bill we are amending an Act of 1924. Hopefully this legislation will be on the Statute Book 50 years from now. We must cater for the probabilities of that time hence. We must frame legislation that protects this House and the people from all sorts of a wide range of improbabilities or, possibly, probabilities in regard to the democratic process. The Minister for the Public Service referred to a Government giving time to discuss what would be the future of the economy. By and large I expect that the Government of the day would do that.

But they might not have taken the initiative.

In this context we can rule out Private Members' Time because I would not consider that a suitable vehicle for such discussions. It involves only three hours of discussion in a week, of which the Opposition would be allotted one hour and 15 minutes while the Government would have the rest of the time.

I was trying to suggest that if that vehicle were being used it could be used probably for the purpose of the Opposition drawing public attention to the Government's failure to allow the question.

That is possible. I failed to take a note of the third method mentioned by the Minister.

The first referred to the possibility of the Government bringing forward the discussion. The second referred to the Opposition seeking Government time while the third was the use of a Private Members' motion.

The Adjournment Debate is another possibility.

The Opposition could use Private Members' time to draw attention to an unwillingness on the part of the Government to allow time for such a discussion. They could seek Government time or could resort to either of the other two methods mentioned by the Minister. However, from time to time every Department find it necessary to put forward either new or amending legislation. This provides the opportunity for discussing relevant aspects of the Department concerned. Unfortunately estimates are not discussed in the House as frequently as used be the case. I should like more time to be given to their discussion because they provide the only broad platform for discussion of the activities of Departments.

I cannot think of any legislation that this new Department would be bringing forward that would give us an opportunity of discussing their activities. Unless the Minister is given more powers from the House I cannot visualise our getting any opportunity to discuss his Department. The only circumstances in which I could visualise the Minister coming before us on an occasion that would provide us with such opportunity would be by the Government deciding, for instance, that he should have power to instruct Departments to limit their budget for the year in question to whatever figure was decided to be appropriate.

It is unlikely that there would be an Estimate discussion in respect of his Department. I expect that the Estimate would comprise merely two or three subheads covering salaries, wages, travelling expenses and, perhaps, the cost involved in the extra messenger service that would be required to bring all these plans to the Government. Consequently, the only time the Minister would be here in relation to his Department would be at Question Time. At least, I cannot foresee him being back here again unless there is written into the Bill some provision compelling him to lay before the House for discussion copies of his reports.

I am disappointed at the Minister's approach to these amendments. In essence what he has said was that the setting up of this Department will be no different from the kind of framework that sets up any Department. The setting up of this Department I would regard as the most significant and important measure taken for a long time because of the work for which it has to be set up. It is very necessary that that work should meet with success.

I am not inflexible about the terminology of the amendments that I propose. Basically what I want in amendment No. 5 is to publish an outline plan annually. The Minister for the Public Service said that that would place a kind of straitjacket on the Department. Deputy Barry said that it is unlikely that any legislation will be put forward by this Department, so therefore their main if not their sole concern will be the production and publication of this plan. I would like to think that such a plan would be forthcoming soon. I am not talking about a plan that has to be produced by the end of the year for EEC purposes. This is a Department that must get the goodwill of all sections of the community and in that way it must be different from other Departments. The legislation which sets it up must have a new approach and there must be a certain amount of experimentation in this setting up. Whereas the Minister for the Public Service has accused my amendments of putting the Department into a straitjacket, I think that in setting up the Department, in the same way as any other Department the Minister is himself placing this Department in a disadvantaged situation, having regard to the type of work the Department have to do.

At the risk of being called to order by the Chair for repeating myself, let me emphasise again that this is a Department which must involve all sections of the community in the formulation of the plans. The Minister referred to the bringing before the Oireachtas of a plan that the Government would already have decided on. I do not see much purpose of debate in this House on a plan upon which the Government would have made decisions. The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that the democratic process would be brought into full play before the plan would be announced; in other words, what would be published would be an outline plan or a Green Paper and then we would have a full-scale Oireachtas debate on that outline plan when the views put forward and the considerations expressed by Members on both sides of the House would be considered and ultimately the Government would decide. They would have the responsibility, but they would exercise it after the discussions and consultations had taken place and after the Oireachtas had been fully involved in the lead up to it. That is what I wish to achieve by my amendment No. 6. This was not done in the previous programmes for economic expansion. If I interpret the Minister correctly, he said that it is the intention to deal with this plan in the same way as the first, second and third programmes for economic expansion were dealt with, that is they were not given the opportunity of being debated in this House. That would be wrong.

On amendment No. 7 again the Minister spoke about a Government decision on the plan and his words were: "to bring along the various sectors with the plan". In my amendment I wanted to bring in those sectors before the plan was decided upon. I understood the Minister to mean that the Government would decide on the plan and then would go about getting everybody else to fall in with it and accept it. There is not much interest in or attraction towards involving oneself in discussion or debate on a plan that might be very difficult to change, a plan one knows that the public and the various interested organisations were not involved in. Public involvement and public consultation prior to decision-making are essential for the success of this Department. Decisions that one is involved in making are far more easily accepted and implemented than ones that are handed down. Therefore, the Minister should reconsider his attitude on this point.

"... the National Economic and Social Council at the time of the passing of this Act" is the phraseology used in my amendment. That amendment was not intended to exclude any other interested groups and I have put on the record of the House the various groupings represented and the strength of their representation. It will be obvious that outside of this House the NESC is the most representative body that the Minister could consult.

I hope that between now and the next Stage the Minister will have some further consideration of the intentions behind these amendments and he might think of other ways of implementing these intentions besides the ways I have put down in the amendments. It would be of some help if he could indicate that because the overall general purpose of my amendments is to facilitate the development of a comprehensive and democratic system for economic and social planning and to encourage, involve and focus attention on a continuing basis, not just initially, on the work of the new Department. I believe that can be much better accomplished if those amendments relating to the publication of the plan, the involvement of the Oireachtas and the involvement of the NESC and similar bodies are accepted. I cannot stress sufficiently the necessity to have the goodwill of all sections of the community for the success of this Department. The work of the Department is very urgent. The goodwill and co-operation of all those groups is needed. I put forward those amendments to get everybody involved. The task of this Department is different. We should approach it in a different way and see what is the best way of enabling it to do the work which it has to do in a very short time.

I want to deal with a number of the points raised by Deputy Barry and Deputy Pattison. Deputy Barry said that apart from Question Time he could not see how a Minister for Economic Planning and Development would ever come before the House. He was trying to think of some legislation the Minister might be concerned with and could not think of any. I agree with him as I cannot think of any offhand in that sense. It has been announced that apart from other matters the Minister for Economic Planning and Development will be dealing with bodies like the ESRI, the NESC and the new body being set up on science and technology. It is conceivable, particularly in regard to the latter body, that he might well be involved in bringing legislation of the kind envisaged by Deputy Barry before the House.

Let us suppose the Minister were to come before the House with legislation in connection with more funds for science and technology. As the Deputy well knows, even with the most liberal occupant of the Chair, that would not enable him to discuss to any great extent the kind of thing we are talking about here in regard to a national plan for economic planning and social development. Similarly, in the case of the Minister for Finance, if he brings forward legislation in connection with the Industrial Credit Company the debate in regard to that is relatively restricted. It certainly does not cover his general activities or inactivities in regard to the management of the economy. There is nothing new in this regard.

I do not want to interrupt the Minister but the point I was making was that if the Minister for Finance brings forward a Bill on the Industrial Credit Corporation we can discuss that aspect of his responsibility. Over a period we discuss virtually all aspects of the Minister's Department.

But not the major function of the Department in regard to the management of the economy and the control of expenditure.

The Minister has the budget.

Except in the budget.

We can discuss science and technology, the ESRI and the NESC but we cannot discuss the major part of this Department.

That is true of quite a number of Departments as far as the major part of their work is concerned. The fact that the legislation under which other Departments are set up does not automatically bring before the House every year or every few years the major functions of those Departments, does not mean that the House does not in fact have an opportunity of discussing them. The problem here is that Deputies on the other side are putting the cart before the horse. Deputy Pattison seems to think I am suggesting that the Minister for Economic Planning and Development would produce a plan and I was then saying at that stage the Government of the day would be trying to bring along the various sectors of the community behind them. That was not what I said. I said that it would be essential for any Government engaged in the preparation of a national plan for economic and social development to consult with the various interested groups before the plan was produced. I then said that when the plan was produced—the Deputy acknowledged this—ultimately the Government of the day are the people who have to make the decision. There will be conflicting views when that decision is made. The Government of the day will be trying to bring various sectors with them in support of the plan and will be engaging in various activities to publicise the plan. One of the most obvious is to bring a motion before the House that the House takes note of it.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Top
Share