Perhaps I might start by inquiring from Deputy Barry and Deputy Pattison whether they have had an opportunity of considering the suggested amendment I put forward this morning and can indicate their reaction?
Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill, 1977: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on 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 intergrate 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.".
—(Deputy P. Barry.)
The Minister's amendment relates to section 2 (2) (c). He proposes to delete the words from "to review" to "State giving" and substitute "to identify in consultation with Departments of State and to review and appraise the plans and activities of such Departments giving effect to the policies for general economic and social development adopted by the Government". Is that correct?
Yes.
Without being niggling about this, it partly contains what I suggested in paragraph (b) of my amendment, but it leaves out the kernel of the point we had been trying to make this morning, that is, the second part of paragraph (b):
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:
This in essence is what we were trying to establish this morning. Leaving aside personalities, if it is agreed on all sides that a Minister for Economic Planning and Development should be established, we are trying to make him answerable in this House at reasonably regular intervals.
When the new Minister was here this morning he referred to the straitjacket. There is nothing in the wording of this amendment that would suggest a straitjacket. All we are seeking to do is to have him establish a plan or a set of indicators, and the projections on which they are based, draw them up in the form of a document which will be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas and then debated.
The Minister's amendment is an improvement on section 2 as it stands, and for that reason I would support it. Although it does not meet all I want in the Bill, it goes a short way towards satisfying me. It gives this section the muscle it requires. If my amendments are accepted, I think they would improve the Bill still further.
Deputy Barry referred to my amendment No. 6 when he referred to laying the outline plan before the House of the Oireachtas. This would carry the Minister's amendment a little further and would satisfy Deputy Barry and go a little further towards satisfying me.
I am glad Deputy Pattison and Deputy Barry regard my amendment as an improvement. We can deal with that procedurally before we conclude the debate on these amendments. As regards going further, I am afraid I cannot do so. I have been over this ground at some length and the Minister for Economic Planning and Development also went over this ground at considerable length this morning. He made a very reasonable case for not accepting the suggestion which in one form or another is being put forward by both Deputies.
The practical political situation as outlined by the Minister suggests that it would not be any advantage to have this requirement included. As he pointed out, if the material involved to be laid before the House was worth while, you can be pretty sure that any Government would want to lay it before the House. If on the other hand it were not worth while and there was this statutory requirement, then something would be laid before the House and you would get what the Minister described as cottonwool. I do not think this is any advantage as far as the House is concerned.
It would not advance either the concept or practice of planning. As the Minister said, what really counts is how the Minister and the Department go about their work and whether they do it effectively. If they do it effectively there will be a worthwhile plan, or a review of the implementation of a plan will be available. One can take it that in the normal way, whatever Government were in power, they would ensure that it came before the House. If it is not worth while nothing is gained by this statutory requirement which of course would be complied with. As I said, a report which the Minister called cotton wool will not help the House or the implementation of the planning process.
Deputies opposite are exaggerating the situation in which they visualise the possibility that the Minister for Economic Planning and Development would be virtually a fugitive from this House, will have nothing to say, nothing to put before the House and would be endeavouring to keep out of the way of Deputies. As Deputy Barry said, we are not talking about particular personalities here but about the office of the Minister. Any office holder of a position in which he had to do that would not last very long and would be one of the weakest links in any Government. The practical politics of the situation suggest that nothing is gained by having this mandatory statutory requirement. On the other hand if the position transpired to be as the Deputies envisage—they admit that they are thinking of an extreme case—either the Minister concerned would be changed very quickly or the post would be abolished on the grounds that the effort at planning had not worked.
I would ask the Deputies to consider the position in that light when I think they would conclude that what I am saying is an accurate representation of the practical position. In those circumstances they should be able to find it possible to agree that the Bill as drafted will be adequate for the purpose assuming that the Minister and the Department are adequate for the purpose. I am not speaking of the present Minister but of whichever Minister would be in the office at any time. Consequently I consider the Bill as drafted to be far more suitable to the requirements we are trying to meet than the suggested amendment which would have the effect of imposing an obligation which would be carried out, regardless of whether the obligation is in the Bill. If the obligation is in the Bill and if there is nothing worth while to report we would have a load of cotton wool before the House as a result of which nobody would be any better off.
Perhaps at this stage we could get the order of the procedure. Is Deputy Barry withdrawing amendment No. 4?
No.
Therefore, the Minister's amendment is not before the House so that we must go ahead with No. 4 and the related amendments. In the event of Deputy Barry withdrawing No. 4, we could discuss the Minister's amendment.
I am leaving the amendment for the moment.
In the event of amendment No. 4 being lost, what happens to the Minister's amendment?
It will be a matter for the Minister to decide whether the amendment should be moved.
If it is of any help to the Deputies I can indicate now that it is my intention to move the amendment since both Deputies have indicated that it would be acceptable to them.
If the House wishes, we can discuss the Minister's amendment, No. 4 (a) with the amendment before us, No. 4, and the related amendments. The Minister's amendment can be moved later.
I would suggest that perhaps that is the most practical procedure.
Basically it is what we have been doing up to now.
As the Minister's amendment is in the process of being printed I shall read, for the benefit of the Deputies, the copy I have here. It is as follows:
In page 2, subsection (2), lines 26 and 27, to delete from and including "to review" in line 26 down to and including "State" in line 27 and to substitute "to identify in consultation with the Departments of State and to review and appraise the plans and activities of such Departments"
I am agreeable to discussing it with the amendment before us. But we are merely going over the same ground repeatedly. I am not sure whether there is much benefit in continuing because the two Ministers have set their minds against coming in here for the purpose of having the plans discussed. I do not mean that in any coat-trailing sense but they have decided that the Minister should not have to do this. However, the more I hear from them on this issue, the more convinced I am of the necessity for such provision. The Minister for the Public Service has just repeated an argument advanced by his colleague this morning who said that if the plan was good the Government would be anxious to have it debated but that in the event of a plan turning out to be bad there would be nothing but cottonwool to be placed before the House. That is the point. I am anxious that the cottonwool situation, too, would be subject to the scrutiny of the House thereby giving us the opportunity of exposing the plan for what it was.
Of course in the event of a plan being good there would be a rush of Ministers to the House to tell us the great boys they were and to point to whatever they had achieved. In the event of a plan not working out the Minister would not be a fugitive from this House in the sense that he would be avoiding it deliberately but if responsibility for the failure of a plan rested primarily with errors of judgment on the part of the Minister in drawing up the plan, both he and the Government should be obliged to come here and account for their stewardship.
I accept fully that the Minister should come into the House, that there should be discussion and debate on the various policies or plans that are formulated. As I made clear this morning, I favour as Deputy Barry favours, a greater flow of information and more informed debate both in this House and with the public generally on these matters but I am trying to distinguish between debate here and a commitment in legislation to publish documents known as plans or anything else. I do not believe that a legislative requirement to publish what is contained in documents, specified or otherwise, at time intervals adds anything either to the effectiveness of the Department or to the powers of this House.
I am in some disagreement with the Minister. If there is not this provision, the House—I am speaking here of the Government backbenchers and all the Opposition— would not know on what basis the Government were operating. How could they know what figures were involved unless the figures were published by the Government and laid before the House? The amendment refers to a review of the plans and activities of the Department but we shall want to know what these plans and activities are and to know what conclusions the Minister reaches in regard to them so that we will have an opportunity either of agreeing or disagreeing with them, as the case might be.
I consider the Minister to be doing himself a disservice by referring so frequently to the probability of nothing but cottonwool coming from the Department. I am glad that it was the Minister who used the phrase first because he is liable to become known as the "Minister for cottonwool". We would hope that there would not be periods during which the Minister would have nothing but cottonwool to offer. The Minister seems to be afraid that this will be the situation. That should not happen, and one way of ensuring that it will not happen is to provide that plans be brought before the Houses of the Oireachtas at least annually or at most at some interval which would not go far beyond 12 months.
One point that the Ministers are missing is that there is an Opposition here consisting of two parties who may be able to help the Minister and the Government out of their cottonwool position.
We were visualising a cottonwool situation for another future Government. We will attack them on a different basis.
It may not be any more necessary to have a debate in this House in a cottonwool situation than it would be in any other situation. I ask that the amendment contested on these lines be accepted so that we can have a debate. Without that the Ministers are inadvertently admitting that they have not full confidence in what they are about to do, that the task might defeat them, and they might not want to bring that out into the open. It would be a very good thing if that were brought out into the open because we would have to assume that when the Department would not have a plan or would not be up-to-date that would be a period of cottonwool, a period of silence.
With respect to Deputy Pattison, I must distinguish between the concern for myself and for the Minister for the Public Service. In our references to the draft legislation we have drawn rightly a distinction between any present office-holders and the laying down of a framework which will apply to all future office-holders. I am happy about my own position. I am not worried about being in the cottonwool position——
That is an interesting admission.
I am quite satisfied that I am not and that is why I made the point deliberately this morning. Since we cannot really envisage what will happen in the future, I said that, looking backwards over history— it does not matter whether it is relatively recent history or whether we are talking about this country or other countries—we all know there have been periods in the affairs of Government when for a variety of reasons they did not wish to have too much information or discussion about their then policies, plans and so forth. I was then making the point that I did not see how trying to write in some sort of general requirement to publish specified documents— to be called for simplicity plans— would add one iota to the effectiveness of this House. I have made it clear that I am interested in seeing this House become as effective as possible. We all know that Governments are just like other organisations. We know that business firms do it, that trade unions can do it, that the media themselves can do it, that any group is quite capable of putting out documents to meet any requirement of the day, whether the document is called an annual report, the report of a working party or a subcommittee, or anything else.
Or a manifesto.
That is the very point. That was not the cottonwool business.
It was steel wool.
It had an abrasive effect. I return to my point again. Looking at the question of how one brings about a more informed and effective consideration of Government policy-making and implementation of plans and so forth, I do not believe that the simple requirement to publish any bit of paper is going to add one iota to it. I agree entirely that there should be the fullest, most effective debate of these matters in the House. I said twice this morning that any proposals of that nature which were brought forward are worth valid consideration. I ventured as my opinion that they were part of the more general conduct of the affairs of the House and did not apply only to debates on bits of paper called plans.
We ought not to digress. If there are any views as to how Opposition parties can be given a more effective role in debating the activities of Government, let us look at them. If they can be made to apply specifically to the activities of my Department I would welcome them. I see as a problem in its own right how this House organises its business and conducts it in a manner which ensures that the Opposition have, firstly adequate access to information, and secondly adequate opportunities to debate the activities of Government in the light of that information. I have lots of views on that but they are not altogether appropriate to this afternoon's discussion. However I would like to see it looked at in that context, and hence I come back to my basic point that, if the affairs of the House are organised in such a way that Opposition parties have adequate opportunities, then we will be able to debate things effectively. If they are not so organised then the Government of the day, whoever they may be, will be able to indulge in the cottonwool business as before.
We have been over this ground for about two-and-a-half hours, and it is quite obvious that the Minister will not agree to bring any amendment of this nature into the Bill. I do not see much point in repeating the arguments made already.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 4 (a): In page 2, subsection (2), lines 26 and 27, to delete from and including "to review" in line 26 down to and including "State" in line 27 and to substitute "to identify in consultation with Departments of State and to review and appraise the plans and activities of such Departments".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5.
In page 2, subsection (2), between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following paragraph:
"(e) To publish annually an outline plan for economic and social development for a period of not less than four years from the date of publication outlining the objectives of the plan and the policies chosen to achieve these objectives, and including an estimate of expenditure of each Department of State for each year of the plan, and the expected Exchequer receipts for each year of the plan."
We have been over the case for this and I do not intend to repeat it. Even in the light of the amendment of the Minister for the Public Service, I consider this amendment sufficiently important to be put to the House.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 2, subsection (2), between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following new paragraph:
"(i) To publish annually a comprehensive series of economic and social indicators relevant to economic and social planning."
The effectiveness of this amendment is somewhat diminished by the defeat of amendment No.5 and amendment Nos. 6 and 7 not being moved. Nevertheless if this amendment is accepted it will help discussion on the overall situation and it will ensure that up-to-date statistical and other information relevant to planning would be available as far as possible in a form suitable for Members of this House, other commentators and the public at large. I think that public discussion and involvement in planning is ruled out by the rejection of the other amendments but nevertheless there is a need for this kind of information to be made available so that Members of this House and of the Seanad are up-to-date with all the information. All planning discussions require an element of agreed statistical data as a start. The statistical information is increasingly being made available but is still far from satisfactory. The kind of information which should be readily available and be compiled annually into some document is information under the headings of social economic trends, demographic trends, social indications and also comparative international data. Those type of statistics are vital in the discussions which will be held in relation to planning.
The Department of Finance publish an annual review which should be incorporated in a planning document. That annual review is more appropriate to the Department of Economic Planning and Development. The National Economic and Social Council in Report No. 17, "Statistics for Social Policy", on page 73, chapter 10, paragraph 10.4 (vi) states:
A report should be published at least annually, containing the main statistics concerned with social development. There are a number of models for this type of report in other countries. Such a report would inevitably be somewhat patchy, at least in the beginning. However, as more information becomes available the initial gaps could be filled. The ultimate aim should be the publication of a report which catalogues in as comprehensive a manner as possible the progress being made by social policies and their cost and which interprets the statistics in a way which is easily understood by non-competitors.
In Report No. 25 of the NESC, in page 5, paragraph 1.1 of Chapter I it states: This country has no comprehensive set of social statistics. There is no Government procedure for periodic stocktaking of the social state of the nation.
This is the kind of vacuum my amendment intends to fill. The various arguments which relate to the need for consultation and involvement are also applicable to the question of statistical information. Understanding and appreciation of the facts are crucial ingredients in any planning system.
It is essential that a special effort be made to tailor statistical data to the precise needs of the planning system. The question of public statistics, including the speed at which they are made available and their comparability to international data, should be looked at by the new Department. This is a very important area for that Department. There should be a more speedy publication of the statistics relating to the various trends and indications that I have mentioned. If that information is readily available and up-to-date it should be possible to have a greater appreciation and understanding of the decisions that will be made by the Department and the kind of influences that will motivate those decisions. I hope the Minister will accept my amendment. It does not materially change the other functions of the new Department. It adds a little bit of strength to the functions and also improves what has not been a very perfect state of affairs as far as vital statistical information is concerned.
The development of economic and social statistics and indicators will be promoted by the new Department as part of its general functions to promote and co-ordinate economic and social planning for the economy. However, the development of a comprehensive series of economic and social indicators is a very substantial task in which the new Department will have a promotional co-ordinating role so that it will not duplicate the activities proper to other Departments and public service institutions.
The Department of Finance and the Central Statistics Office already compile what has been described by the NESC as a reasonably comprehensive set of economic indicators widely acceptable as reliable. In the report already referred to by Deputy Pattison, towards a Social Report, Report No. 25, the council have done valuable preliminary work on the development of social indicators. It will be a task of the new Department to ensure that the statistical base for planning is adequate for the needs of the planning system.
However, I want to suggest to the Deputy that it would be quite unwise at this stage to lay it down in legislation that the Department should produce and must produce a comprehensive series of indicators. In the first place, since perfection cannot be obtained it would be difficult to produce any series which could not be challenged as not being fully comprehensive, and that is what the amendment is calling for.
Secondly, the production of some of the indicators and statistical series may prove to be more appropriately and effectively done by other agencies, the Department of Finance, the Central Statistics Office and some of the social Department. I do not think there is any doubt that the requirements of the planning process will cause the new Department to ensure that the statistical base for planning is equal to the needs of the situation, so far as that can be done.
It is quite clear, if from no other source—it is clear when one thinks about it—in this very valuable report from the NESC that the whole question of producing adequate social indicators is a very difficult exercise. It is relatively easy—and I stress relatively—to collect statistics concerning particular social services, but it is much less easy to measure their effectiveness over time. That is pointed out in the report.
The report went on to produce a collection of statistics and policy developments in a number of social areas, and promised further work towards the development of a social report. If one thing emerges clearly from the report, it is that the development of reliable social indicators is a task of very great complexity and, indeed, intellectual difficulty. There are all sorts of nuances which can be argued over for a long time in the production of reliable social indicators.
I would regard acceptance of this amendment as imposing an obligation on the new Department which probably could never be complied with in the sense of being fully comprehensive, and certainly could not be complied with in the immediate future, because the information is not available and could not be assembled by the new Department in the short term. It is not merely a question of getting hold of the statistics. There is much more to it than that, as I am sure the Deputy is aware.
The collection of some of these statistics is already a matter for other Departments and institutions. As I said, the new Department will have a role in co-ordinating the production of the statistics, but it is extremely doubtful that the actual work of collecting them would be more effectively done if taken out of the existing sources. There may be some cases where this should be done but, in general, it would be quite wrong to suggest they should all be transferred as a responsibility to the new Department.
For these various reasons it would be very unwise of the House to insert this amendment, the purpose of which I must say I sympathise with. I am in full agreement with the Deputy's aim in putting down the amendment but, for the reasons I have outlined, I do not think it is practicable and, even if it were, in the unlikely event that it were, I doubt that it would be wise. Whether I am right or wrong about the wisdom of it, I am quite certain it is not practicable.
In effect, what the Minister is saying is that it is like asking a builder to build a house without giving him the materials. It is essential for the formulation of proper planning that the type of information I am seeking to make it mandatory for the Department to provide should be provided. It is not a good excuse to say that is difficult and to talk about other problems. It is an essential ingredient and foundation for the development of any plan that this type of information should be made available. I fail to see how any plan can be developed without having the information my amendment seeks to have made available.
As the Minister has pointed out, there are not available at the moment what you might describe as an adequate and fully comprehensive series——
I want to see that being done. Because I accept the fact that it is not possible at the moment, I want to correct that position. I want to make it possible for the future.
The Deputy quoted from the two NESC reports which touched on this question in the social area. If I remember the quotation correctly he said these statistics are sketchy. If they are sketchy, how on earth can you commit a Department to publish annually a comprehensive series when it might take years to develop a comprehensive series?
My amendment seeks to correct that situation.
If we pass this legislation today, or next week, or whenever it is, does that mean there is a legislative requirement on the new Department within 12 months to publish a comprehensive series? I have to say I do not want to have that hung around my neck because it is not necessarily the most urgent priority. Surely the most urgent priority is to get started using such bricks or other building material as are available, to start doing some work, and then by all means we will be pushing ahead.
I would be prepared to change my amendment to read from 1979 onwards they would be published annually. The Minister said it would not be practicable to do that within 12 months from now. We should hope to achieve that. I would agree to change my amendment to provide that they would be published annually from 1979 or 1980. There is a necessity, as the saying is, to put the gun to somebody's head and to get this put right as soon as possible. If we had it as a statutory requirement it could be done.
We can distinguish two strands in it. If there were any such requirement in legislation I have no doubt we could stick together something into a booklet or a paper and say: "There you are. There is a series of economic and social indicators" or whatever you want to call it. You can always publish a document. If they are to be adequate social indicators there is a separate problem. There is still a whole research area there. It is not just Ireland. Other countries in the world are very conscious of that. We do not really have satisfactory ways of measuring or assessing social progress. Quite a number of research projects and activities are going on in this field.
I have no way of telling the pace at which useful and usable results will flow from that type of activity. That is why I am reluctant to have to contemplate publishing whether it is in 1979 or in 1980. On this side of the House we are very much in sympathy with the aim or the spirit of the amendment and I can assure the House that whatever information or indicators are available in this field will be published in appropriate forms at appropriate times. However, it does not help me at this stage to have a specific commitment to publish annually, even if the starting date is moved back. The next difficulty is, to publish what annually? "Fully comprehensive", how is that to be unravelled? If that is watered down and the "fully comprehensive" bit taken out, there is the phrase "to publish annually such economic and social indicators as are available." That is fine. Of course we can do that, but where does that lead in the sense that whatever is available will be published anyway? Therefore, the gun is not being put to anybody's head to do anything that cannot already be done.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 9 to 15, inclusive, not moved.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage?
If we have an amendment I do not think we can take Report Stage now.
I understand we can.
By agreement, it can be taken.
Do I move it now?
The Minister has an amendment on Report Stage?
No, I am not proposing another amendment.
Could I get things straight? The Bill is now about to pass Committee Stage amended, and that is as far as we have got. I think the Minister, Deputy Colley, wants to know does he have to move Report Stage.
There is a particular point I wanted to mention that Deputy Barry raised, but I can do it on the next Stage.
Under Standing Orders the procedure is that if there are no amendments on Report Stage, we proceed straightaway to the Fifth Stage.
There is no discussion on the Fourth Stage?
No, there is no discussion on the Fourth Stage if there are no amendments.
There can be on the Fifth Stage?
Yes, on what is in the Bill.
Agreed to take Fifth Stage today.