Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 10 Nov 1977

Vol. 301 No. 5

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 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.".

—(Deputy P. Barry).

Minister for the Public Service (Mr. Colley)

I was dealing yesterday with some of the points which were raised on this amendment and on the associated amendments, Nos. 5, 6 and 7. I was pointing out that Deputy Pattison must have misunderstood what I was saying or perhaps I did not make it clear enough. I want to reiterate that what is visualised and I think what is essential and without which no planning will occur, is that the various interests in the economy will be consulted primarily by the Minister for Economic Planning and Development before the preparation of a plan for economic and social development. That would be part of the process of preparation of a plan and, thereafter, when the proposals for the plan were fully formulated, the matter would go to the Government.

It would only be when the Government had made a decision to adopt the plan either in the form put forward or in some amended form that the question of its implementation would arise. At that point—I think this is one of the matters the Deputies were concerned about—Deputy Barry and Deputy Pattison seemed to fear that the Oireachtas might have no opportunity to discuss the plan. I got the impression, not perhaps wrongly, that Deputy Pattison seemed to think the matter should come before the Houses of the Oireachtas before the Government made a decision on it. I do not think, quite frankly, that that is a workable approach to this problem.

The Houses of the Oireachtas have a particular role to play in regard to the dissemination of the terms of a national plan, a role to play in comment and, if necessary, criticism of certain proposals but I cannot see it being workable that proposals would be put forward in the House and that the Houses of the Oireachtas, having contributed their views, the final decision would then be made by the Government. I see that, in terms of a complete national plan having been produced. When I say that I am not, of course, precluding the possibility of the production of a green paper in respect of which there would be a debate in both Houses of the Oireachtas and in respect of which views would be expressed.

I must, however, say that a green paper of that kind would start life under considerable difficulties having regard to the content and history of the green paper issued by the previous Government. I am not precluding the possibility of the production of a green paper which would form the basis for a plan but it could not be, by definition, in such a case the complete proposals for a plan, which is primarily I think what is envisaged in these amendments.

I have tried to illustrate the manner in which the proposals for a plan are brought forward by any Government. I believe that they must come before this House. Indeed it would be in the interests of the Government concerned to ensure that they did. I also tried to indicate, if for any reason a Government wanted to avoid that, how the Opposition could highlight the Government's efforts to prevent the matter coming before the House. The circumstances in which a Government would want to prevent that coming before the House are almost inconceivable so far as I am concerned. It would not make any sense at all for a Government to produce a national plan for economic and social development and then try to hide its light under a bushel. It is self-defeating for a Government to approach the whole problem in that way.

In connection with Deputy Pattison's amendment designed to make it mandatory by statutory provision that consultation would take place with the parties constituting the National Economic and Social Council as of the date of the passing of the Act, I have already pointed out that this could lead to very considerable difficulties. I am not saying, as I think Deputy Pattison thought I was saying, that it would preclude consultation with other groups. I am saying that it is certainly conceivable that the bodies concerned could change and there could be considerable difficulty in identifying that this body or bodies was the lawful successor of one of the bodies at present constituting part of the National Economic and Social Council. A statutory provision of this kind would lead us into far more trouble than the absence of such a provision, especially having regard to the fact that consultation with such bodies would be axiomatic in the preparation of a plan for economic and social development.

There is one other matter in regard to the NESC I should mention, that is, that the term of the present council is coming to an end. In fact, certain provisions are being made in regard to its extension. I draw attention to that fact to illustrate that it is conceivable that, at some time in the future, there might be no NESC. There could be a different body and then we could be in the same kind of difficulty as the one I have tried to outline in regard to the individual bodies constituting it. On balance, I do not think there is anything to be gained, and there is a considerable amount to be lost, by specifying the bodies concerned and providing statutorily that they must be consulted.

While I sympathise with one of the points made by Deputy Barry, I am not sure there is a great deal of validity in it but, in an effort to meet the point he is making, I would suggest that we consider an amendment on these lines. I refer the Deputy to section 2 (2) (c) which begins:

to review and appraise the plans and activities of Departments of State ...

If that were to read:

to identify in consultation with Departments of State and to review and appraise the plans and activities of such Departments ...

I wonder would that go anywhere towards meeting Deputy Barry's point of view?

Mr. P. Barry

I presume the Minister will bring this in on Report Stage and I will have a further chance to look at it. Is that correct?

Mr. Colley

I had hoped we might get all Stages now, but I appreciate the Deputy's difficulties.

Mr. P. Barry

The Minister is saying, to identify——

Mr. Colley

"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 ..." and so on.

Mr. P. Barry

I accept the point made by the Minister that it is the Government's job to adopt and to bring it forward. I am seeking to have that plan brought back here for review afterwards. A green paper would provide an opportunity for the House to offer opinions. The actual plan is the Government's business and it is our job to point out to them afterwards where they failed to achieve targets in that plan. I do not know whether that could be incorporated in the Bill.

As I said last night, it is nearly inconceivable, although not completely inconceivable, that a Government would not be willing to debate that plan in this House. I am trying to make it obligatory that the Minister concerned would appear here once a year to account for what he had been doing so that we could point out in what way the plan needed to be readjusted or where it had fallen short of the targets set out in it.

Minister for Economic Planning and Development (Professor O'Donoghue)

I very much appreciate the point about wanting the House to debate plans but I find it very difficult to formulate some satisfactory set of words to meet that point. Frankly, once you start getting into that area, can you envisage circumstances in which a Government would not want to have their own plans debated? If you can envisage such circumstances——

Mr. P. Barry

That could be the case.

Professor O'Donoghue

——almost certainly what would happen is that, if there was a mandatory requirement in legislation to bring anything called a plan before the House, you would be back to the old Shakesperian problem of calling a rose by some other name. You would probably call it a green paper, or maybe we would even discover other colours for papers. The line I took was that the essential functions which have to be established and authorised by the House were the functions spelling out the relation of the Department and the Minister to the Government, and making sure all decisions were Government decisions, and that the Government had proper control and direction over anything which purported to be done in their name. The relationship between the Government of the day and the Houses of the Oireachtas is very difficult to tease out in any legislation.

Mr. P. Barry

I appreciate that, but it is part of my duty to ensure that the rights of Members of the House and of the public are protected. That is what I am seeking to do.

Professor O'Donoghue

Speaking for myself, I can assure the Deputy I would welcome the maximum publicity and discussion. It is right that there should be the fullest possible awareness on the part of the public at large, and all interested parties, of any plan. The Minister made that point yesterday. I recognise that in legislation we are laying down a framework which should apply for the future.

Mr. P. Barry

For all time.

Professor O'Donoghue

It is in that context I see the difficulty of trying to write into the Bill as a mandatory function something governing publication and debate. Quite frankly I do not think it is possible.

Mr. Pattison

Could the Minister identify the section of the Bill as it stands which makes it a statutory requirement that any plan must be produced? As I see it, there is no provision in the Bill whereby a plan must be produced.

Professor O'Donoghue

That is so.

Mr. Pattison

This is it. At the moment we are discussing how we should deal with a plan but, in fact, the Bill does not make it mandatory that the plan must be produced. I pointed out the weaknesses in the Bill and I tried to put them right. Once the Department are set up, under the provisions of this Bill there is no statutory obligation on them to produce any plan. That is one of the big weaknesses.

The weaknesses in the Bill were referred to on Second Stage and it appeared to myself and many other speakers that what is contained in the Bill represents what other Departments, and in particular the Department of Finance, were prepared to give way on. We said that was very little, if anything. Even after Committee Stage, the Bill will be almost the same. I do not think there will be any change in section 2 where the teeth of the Bill should be. My amendments were designed to put teeth into it particularly in relation to the obligation to publish a plan and have it debated in this House and to have other people involved in it. There is still no provision in the Bill setting up the Department for Economic Planning and Development that the Department must produce a plan. That is the weakness in it.

Mr. Callanan

I sat here all yesterday evening listening to the debate on Committee Stage of this Bill. I agree with the Minister and Deputies on the other side of the House that, in debating the Committee Stage of Bills, politics should be forgotten. I listened to the Committee Stage of many Bills being debated over the past four years and I saw many improvements made to Bills on Committee Stage. Even though, as the former Deputy Thornley once said, Deputies have to drag their feet to vote for something they do not agree with, they should give their opinion. The democracy of this country depends on the success of this new Department that is being set up, because its aim is to create employment, and if the unemployment situation continues as it is over the next ten years, there is danger to democracy.

The person who is taking charge of this Department, Deputy O'Donoghue, has a responsibility I would not like to have. He must have ideas and must consult with everyone who is relevant to the plan. However, if he is tied up in a straitjacket now, it is as well not to set up the Department at all. Naturally, the Minister must go to the Government before he comes here. He has to convince them first of the plan. He has to convince the Minister for Finance to give him money for the plan, and he has to convince his own officials. If a Minister is not strong enough when he goes in to his Department, it is the Department that will run him. Therefore, he has to take command there as well, and say: "I will accept all the advice you can give me but what I say is law." The Minister who does not do that should not be a Minister. Unfortunately for democracy, that does not always happen; the Department runs the Minister instead of the Minister running the Department.

I accept that the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, will run this Department and that he will consult with every person who has anything to offer in this regard. On his success depends the success of the Government of which he is a member, and there is a day of reckoning coming in that respect too. The people will ask the Government to give an account of their stewardship in a few years' time.

The Minister, Deputy Colley, pointed out the various ways in which the Opposition can inquire into the running of this new Department. I can understand the Opposition's anxiety to see that nothing would be done that this House would not know of, but this is a new planning Department. As Deputy Pattison said, there might be no plan; there might be occasions when it would be very difficult to bring in a plan because of changing world conditions. I would ask the House to let this Bill go through as quickly as possible, leave it to the new Minister, who has to come in here with his Estimate and give an account of his stewardship. The Government will have to do the same and keep check on this Department. If we tie this up too much we will be back to square one, and there will be no opportunity for the head of this Department to do the planning which is urgently required.

Mr. P. Barry

I do not disagree with a great deal of what Deputy Callanan has said. I have no doubt that the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue will run his Department, but what about "Minister McDonagh" in a hundred years' time? He will operate under this legislation, and what will he do? We must see that this legislation stands up for all time, not just for the term of this Government or this Minister. When we come to Committee Stage on Bills, we can find words that seek to protect all the points of view of this House, and that is merely what I am trying to do. I am not sure about procedure and, perhaps, you would guide me, a Cheann Comhairle. The Minister obviously wants to get this Bill as quickly as possible. I do not want to hinder that unnecessarily. Could we adjourn this debate for a few hours so that I could have a look at that amendment in writing? Is that procedurally possible?

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Report Stage is taken today, it would have to be an oral amendment.

Mr. Colley

I appreciate Deputy Barry's concern, but before we could adjourn this debate we would probably have to consult our respective Whips.

Mr. P. Barry

I am not well up enough in procedure to know what we should do.

Mr. Colley

The House can change the order, as far as I know, if it agrees, but I think it should not agree without the Whips being aware of the consequences, which may be unknown to us.

An Ceann Comhairle

It would be a matter for the House to decide whether the debate would be adjourned.

Mr. Colley

I am suggesting the House should not decide it without the Whips being aware of it and approving.

Mr. P. Barry

We can contact the Whips and in the meantime proceed with the debate.

Mr. Colley

My officials did not know anything about the suggested amendment I read out, so I will put it in writing and hand it across to the Deputy to give him a chance of considering it.

Mr. P. Barry

That would be helpful.

Professor O'Donoghue

To follow up on this point that if the legislation proposed is passed there will still be no requirement on the part of the Department to publish a plan and so forth, I agree with that, but again I see that question as a further extension of the point that Deputy Barry was raising. Suppose we wrote into the legislation "and the Department must produce a plan each year and lay it before the Houses of the Oireachtas", any time the Government of the day did not want to publish things of a substantive or potentially controversial nature, then you would get a document called a plan and it would be a lot of old waffle. It would offend my sense of economy to have people wasting their time producing large tomes of what is usually referred to as cotton wool or gobbledegook, and I think all of us have experienced and suffered such documents in our time in our respective walks of life. I do not see that it is helpful to leave oneself open to that charge, that one is simply making sure that there will always be documents. Documents by themselves do not tell anything about effective planning and effective policy making. I have to keep emphasising that there is this important connection between policy making and policy analysis in relation to planning. The actual procedures gone through in drawing up a plan involves, perhaps, people going off and writing up nice proposals sticking them all together and having exercises in targetry, as somebody calls it; and at the end of the day many people have spent a lot of time but they may not necessarily have done a thing that would help to create a more effective economy, or a more systematic use of the public purse, or more sensible policy-making on the part of the Government.

Frankly, I do not want to see these documents and experience cotton wool types of plans prepared by just anybody and that is why I would rather have the legislation in a form in which we could deal with it in a realistic manner. As I see it, a realistic manner is where the Government of the day have some idea of the kind of policies they want to implement and face the technical problems all Governments face in having ideas and discovering how to translate those ideas into effective action. This is at the heart of preparing an effective plan and formulating effective policies. That is the approach any Government should adopt. When the Government have done that, then they will want to publish their plan and have it debated.

Without trying to anticipate the future let us go back for a moment through history. We all know either from living through recent history, or reading further back, that at different times, for variety of reasons, Governments go through periods when the last thing they want to do is commit themselves to any clearcut set of policies for the years ahead or spell out in detail the nature of the policies they are contemplating. In these periods, if there is insistence through legislation that documents must be prepared, all that will happen is a cotton wool exercise. That is why I have no particular enthusiasm for writing in mandatory requirements to publish documents because documents, I repeat, are not the essence of effective planning and effective policy making.

Mr. Pattison

I think what the Minister has just said makes the case for not setting up this Department rather than setting it up. He says that there may very well be periods—long periods, perhaps, possibly the full duration of this Dáil—in which it may not be possible to produce any plan. I understood the purpose in setting up the Department was to enable the Department to live up to its name as the Department of Economic Planning and Development. As such, one would naturally assume its function would be to produce plans but judging by what the Minister has just said, that is not really its function at all. According to the Minister, its function is possibly to produce a plan if circumstances lend themselves to such a situation. At other times plans might not be produced.

Professor O'Donoghue

May I come in for a moment? I am not saying it is not the function of the Department to produce a plan. I am saying I do not want it mandatory that it should publish. I want to draw a distinction as clearly as I can between doing the work and publishing it. Take a very simple example: at the moment we are running into a period in which a great many people want to know what is going to happen on the pay front and what are the Government's intentions. Does any Government seriously begin by announcing the various policy steps contemplated or the manner in which it is proposed to implement policy in an area such as I have mentioned? One formulates a policy and works out a plan and waits then until the various groups involved have an opportunity to work through their particular positions and then seeks to take the appropriate steps to implement policy in such manner as time and circumstances dictate.

A much more homely analysis is a game of chess. If one is going to play a game of chess the last thing one does is announce to one's opponent the moves one contemplates. A chess player can have a number of plans, a set of policies, if you like, and he will modify his plan in the light of his opponent's moves.

Is that not frequently the case with Government in its dealing with business? Almost by definition, the most important and the most complex items of business are the ones where you do not publish everything in advance. If we were to commit ourselves to publishing annually a plan setting out the Government's taxation and expenditure policies in detail for the next four or five years, how could one seriously expect that to prove accurate or, indeed, proper in a democracy? For that kind of exercise one would need dictatorial powers. It is argued that at the end of a year the plan could be revised but then one would be committing oneself to saying in some detail what the policies are for the next four years and there could be many periods in which the nature of the detail and the policy the Government would want to spell out would vary with circumstances.

The crucial requirement is not to publish. The crucial requirement is to carry out the work on behalf of the Government, put the policy options together, having identified the various options, and construct some sort of coherent set of policies which would constitute a plan. What the Government do then with that plan is a matter for the Government. If it is appropriate they may publish it in toto. We may as well allow for the possibility that there will be times when the Government will not want to publish their plans at all. If a mandatory requirement is written in, then there will be a variety of documents over the years because, when it suits the Government to publish, they will publish realistically and, when it does not suit, they will publish cotton wool. That is my point. I do not think a legislative requirement to publish adds one iota to the effectiveness of planning or policy making and analysis. Perhaps I am wrong in that and, if anyone can indicate the way in which publication would assist, I will certainly consider that.

Mr. Pattison

The principal reason why I put down this amendment was to ensure there would be as much public discussion and involvement as possible in the plan. That is a crucial requirement if the plan is to succeed. It must have the wholehearted involvement of all sections and, without publication, I cannot see how that can be achieved. Again, we have a plan that most of the sectoral interests will regard as being handed down to them rather than one in which they have a feeling of involvement. This amendment, like the others, is not putting a straitjacket either on the Department or the Minister or tying anybody in knots. The basic motivation for it was to help rather than hinder.

Because planning is particularly about social needs, particularly in the area of employment, people must be involved. It must not be something far removed from them and decided at a different level. It should help the Minister and the Department if this kind of facility were provided. It could be described as a public relations exercise and that is very essential to the success of any Department and in the case of this Department the public relations element would be particularly important because it has to bring along with the Department the various elements that make up society.

Perhaps some other form of words could be used to achieve what I think should be in the Bill, provision for the greatest possible involvement of all sections of the population through the publication of an outline plan. The amendment says "annually" but there is flexibility about the period. "Annually" was put in because the work for which the Department is set up is very urgent and demanding and it was intended to give that sense of urgency and importance to the Department which it should have. The basic purpose of the amendment was to get as many people as possible involved in order to help the Minister and the Department to achieve the aims that are so necessary to achieve.

Mr. Callanan

If I publish a plan, the general principle of the plan is known but the details of the plan may be altered from time to time. Does the Deputy suggest that the details should be published? I do not think so because various circumstances outside one's control may arise in which one may have to vary the plan or change the details of it. If you go into details, you are tying yourself in knots completely.

Mr. P. Barry

I am a little worried about the Minister's last contribution— I intend to call one "the Minister" and the other "the Tánaiste" so that I shall not be continually repeating their titles. I fear he is going down a rather dangerous road when he says that the Government of the day would behave in what he inferred would be a secretive manner. A Government is not a business. When a business is run by a board of directors they are using their own capital and the results of their failures will rebound on their heads. Politically, the results of a Governments's failures may rebound on them but economically and socially it is the country that suffers if the Government make wrong decisions. Of course, I fully understand the Minister's example of the pending wage negotiations in which, I presume from what he said, he will have a part. Obviously, in a negotiating situation you do not display your cards beforehand. But in the matter of planning the economy I think those in this House are entitled to know on what basis and in what direction the Government are moving. When the Government have started out on that road the people are entitled to know at regular intervals what progress has been made and where they have fallen down. At times the Government will seek to cover up failure by producing cotton wool.

What is done is more important than what is written or said but we are talking about something fundamental here. It is not like running a business, a federation of industries or a trade union. We are talking of the people and their representatives, their right to know and participate. This makes an enormous difference. My amendment seeks (a) to get the Government to say on what basis and where they are going and (b) when they have done something—I recognise there is a Government decision in this—to come back here so that we can tell them where they have gone wrong and what they should have done. They can explain why their plan has not come up to expectations or why in one sector the economy has expanded at a faster rate than was anticipated when the policy was first thought out or adopted. But I consider the line the Minister is adopting could be for democracy a dangerous line, one I should not like to see followed.

Professor O'Donoghue

I recognise and fully share Deputy Barry's concern. In very different contexts I am on record as arguing that it is necessary for a healthy and more effective democracy to have much more information and much more public awareness and discussion.

Mr. P. Barry

That is rather surprising.

Professor O'Donoghue

No. In discussing this I want to come back to the question of being realistic and practical. I share the Deputy's concern. That is the direction in which we must move and to that extent I welcome Deputy Pattison's remarks and agree with them. His purpose is to bring about the maximum public involvement and awareness and so on. I want that also.

Let us also look at this in a realistic way. Has there been, in fact, to date any adequate handling of Government business in that manner? Are we accustomed to objective, detached, impartial analyses of policies and economic programmes and then revising them in the light of experience and going on to the next year? The answer is, "no"; almost invariably what appears to have happened is that every event or episode was turned into the usual party political football. So, we are trying to do two things, first to set up the mechanism to introduce some sort of longer range, coherent and, I would hope, effective type of planned policy formation. It would not be realistic to want to launch this and at the same time say that it must be launched with a specified form of publicity. If it were to be done absolutely comprehensively we would be expecting an incredible leap forward in the whole attitude and approach of people not only in this House but outside, to the whole manner in which they discuss Government action and Government policy. I would rather we made it possible to progress at whatever rate is tolerable.

While I want to see us move in the direction of greater public awareness and greater information, we will not arrive at that happy state overnight; it will take time. People will have to get a chance to get accustomed to planning documents and to talking in terms of reviewing this or that type of policy, and it will be a while before we settle into any sort of pattern. As part of that evolutionary process in the public discussion and debate of policy, there is a need not only for much greater information but for much greater publicity. I do not mean propaganda, but publicity in the best sense. I do not see how one can cater adequately for that requirement in the context of a specific Bill for a specific Department. It is a more general requirement which will be needed not only in relation to anything that might be called a plan, but in relation to all the other areas of Government business. I would rather approach that problem in that more general context. That is my reason for not wanting to be saddled with a requirement for statutory information and statutory publicity.

If this Bill had been passed in some previous term of Government and I now found myself as a Minister saddled with Deputy Pattison's requirement, it would depend on the present set of attitudes of public opinion whether or not I could afford to publish in detail what would be regarded as plans and policies of Government. Deputy Barry's point was that Government is not like a business, and while it is perfectly justifiable for a business to have its secrets it is not appropriate for a Government to have them. I fully accept that, but as a matter of practical politics, at the present stage of democracy, I am not aware of any Government who do not try to hold at least some of their secrets. We have to go through a period where we gradually build up a greater degree of information to the public and a greater degree of public understanding of the nature of the issues confronting any Government. At the end of the day, no matter which way we look at it, the position is that there should always be dissent in a democracy and a wide range of opinion. That means there will always be different schools of thought in relation to every issue that arises. There will always be a temptation to reduce any issue or policy to an arena for party politics. It would be unrealistic not to recognise and allow for that.

At least for the immediate future I assume that no Government will find themselves in a position where all of their plans and policies can be launched without criticism on to the public stage. Part of the reason for that is the manner in which this House among others commented on earlier attempts at economic planning here. Even yesterday Deputy Pattison talked about the failure and the abandonment of the second programme and the third programme. Did they fail? Were they abandoned?

It is one of the great myths that the second programme failed. The employment target failed. The output target did not fail and a lot of the other targets did not fail. The basic direction of getting a certain rate of industrial growth, of recognising that there would be a reduction in the size of the agricultural sector and so on, were justified by events. In that sense it was quite a successful attempt at planning. If we had had a more mature and more experienced approach to planning at that stage we might have been able to get the sort of thing the Deputy is talking about. We could have come along and said that things were not working out exactly as envisaged in the original publication and that we now needed to revise it, update it and to publish an amended plan. That is not what happened. Whether the growth rate was 4 per cent or 3½ per cent, whether employment was going up or down, became a party political football.

Mr. P. Barry

That is a very good thing.

Professor O'Donoghue

Which is a good thing there? Is it good that the baby was thrown out with the bath-water?

Mr. P. Barry

This is really what democracy is about. I realise that we are getting away from the Bill but this is interesting. If a Government produce and publish a plan and if their expectations and judgments turn out to be wrong, they will try to cover up with a subsequent review of the plan. It is a very good thing that that coverup should be exposed in here because that reflects on the Government. The Government attempt to stay in power and we try to regain power. That is what it is all about. It is our job to expose the weaknesses in plans and the shortfalls in the fulfilment of the plans. It is an obvious human reaction when there are shortfalls for the Government to try to downplay them, and when the plans have succeeded or are above target to say: "Are we not marvellous?" and so on. It is to try to have that process continue in public in this House that I am seeking to have amendment No. 4 adopted. There is a very obvious need for security. Naturally a Government cannot reveal everything that is going on, such as in negotiations with trade unions which the Minister mentioned, but democracy will not continue if a Government continue to refuse to divulge to the people and to the elected representatives what they are doing, why, and what end result is expected.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I would remind all Deputies that we are on four specific amendments at the moment. We cannot have a full economic debate.

Professor O'Donoghue

These remarks were related to the question of whether publication of a document to be labelled a plan would or would not strengthen or further the functions of planning and policy formulation of the new Department. It was in that context that we were trying to tease out the extent to which publication of a plan would assist or not. I take the point of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and I apologise if we appear to have strayed a little.

I fully accept that a Government should publish their policies, that they should not be allowed to conceal them and so on. I accept and recognise that point. I am saying that, of course, a Government are going to want to publish and get publicity for anything which they believe is beneficial, not only beneficial but, at times, they may want to publicise things which may be painful or may give rise to adverse publicity in the short term because the Government of the day feel it necessary, in the national interest, to move in a new direction or introduce some new policy. I am saying simply that those types of decisions, whether they be decisions to publicise popular or unpopular measures are not necessarily always best formulated in the context of any particular annual requirement. That is all.

Mr. P. Barry

I am not talking about an annual requirement. I want it laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and debated here. As the Minister knows, the tendency is that when there is good news the Minister announces it at a chamber of commerce dinner or on television and, when it is bad news, it is put across that a Department spokesman inferred it. I want the Minister in here giving all the news, good and bad.

If the amendment is accepted I hope I will be the one affected by it in five years' time, that I will have to come in here and justify my plan or proposals for the economy. I do not want unnecessarily to delay the House; I think we are now going around somewhat in circles.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is amendment No. 4 withdrawn?

Mr. P. Barry

There is a procedural question here.

Mr. Colley

There has been some consultation between the Whips. Subject to one problem I shall mention in a moment, there would be agreement, if the House wished to do so, say, to adjourn for 15 minutes to enable Deputies P. Barry and Pattison to consider the amendment. If at that stage they wished further time for consideration we could resume on the next item on the Order Paper which is the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1977, and, say, could continue on that for one hour or one and a half hours and then resume on this Bill. I understand the difficulty is that it is Deputy P. Barry who is in possession on that item and that might present him with some problem.

Mr. P. Barry

Another possibility I had in mind was that I was thinking that, although I am in possession, I had nearly finished on the No. 2 Bill. I do not know how many other speakers there are. I was going to suggest that we might adjourn this until 3.30 p.m. Does that suit the Minister for the Public Service? Then we could continue on the No. 2 Bill, allowing the European Assembly Elections (No. 2) Bill, 1977 to come in then, after Question Time, and resume again on the No. 1 Bill.

Mr. Colley

That does not present any problem from my point of view except that while I appreciate I cannot get an undertaking I would hope we would be aiming to complete at least the Committee Stage of this Bill today.

Mr. P. Barry

I thought we would be out drinking coffee at this stage.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

As far as I am concerned, I have only heard of this suggestion since coming into the House. I would point out that, under Standing Order No. 25, it is not good procedure; indeed, it is doubtful procedure. However, I am not worried about creating a precedent, if it is such, if the House—by full agreement between the three Whips—wishes to adjourn this debate until 3.30 p.m. If we have the full agreement of the three Whips we can now report progress on this debate, adjourn it until after Question Time and then resume on the Committee Stage. That is if I am satisfied that we have the full agreement of the three Whips. There can be objections afterwards from any other Deputy who is entitled to object to the procedure because it is the Taoiseach only who has the right to decide at the commencement of Business the Order of Business and the order in which it is taken.

Mr. P. Barry

Our party are all right and I gather the Government party are also. I do not know about the Labour Party.

Mr. Pattison

Yes, it is all right with us also.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Then we have the full agreement of the three Whips to adjourn this debate until 3.30 p.m. I take it we will have further amendments at 3.30 p.m., or possibly substitute amendments.

Mr. Colley

The position is that I have written out the amendment I suggested across the floor of the House and have given a copy to Deputies P. Barry and Pattison. They need an opportunity to consider that. If we adjourn this debate now until 3.30 p.m. would it be proposed to proceed immediately with the next item, or is a short adjournment required at all?

Mr. P. Barry

I had almost finished my contribution on the Second Stage of the No. 2 Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We would proceed with the next item, then resume on this Bill at 3.30 p.m., resuming the order afterwards. The order will continue until 3.30 p.m. Then we will resume on the Committee Stage of this Bill.

Mr. Colley

Yes.

Mr. P. Barry

My suggestion was that we would take the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill now, and if that concludes before Question Time, we would move on to the European Assembly Elections (No. 2) Bill, 1977.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The order will continue until 3.30 p.m., as ordered this morning. Will the Minister move to report progress on this Bill?

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.