asked the Taoiseach the estimated cost to the Exchequer of the proposed series of meetings to be addressed by him and other Ministers throughout the country to promote the document Building on Reality.
3.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - “Building on Reality”.
2.
asked the Taoiseach the cost of printing the document Building on Reality; the total number of copies printed; the number of specially bound volumes and their cost; the number circualted to local authorities, officials, and other such people and their cost; if he proposes to circulate the document to the public, the estimated cost of such circulation, and the method of circulation proposed.
4.
asked the Taoiseach the cost of launching the document Building on Reality on 2 October 1984 in Dublin Castle; if he engaged public relations consultants to launch and promote the document; and the cost of these services.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 together.
The meetings referred to by Deputy Flynn are meetings organised by the Fine Gael Party and no special cost to the Exchequer, therefore, arises.
A total of 9,943 copies of the document Building on Reality 1985-1987 were printed at a cost of £22,118. There were no specially bound volumes of the plan. To date, some 5,000 copies of the document have been circulated including copies to Members of the Oireachtas, Government Departments and local authorities. Most of the circulation was by hand, therefore the cost cannot be estimated. With regard to general circulation, copies of the document may be purchased through any bookseller or direct from the Government Publications Sale Office in Molesworth Street, Dublin.
Public relations consultants were not engaged for the launching of the document in Iveagh House, assistance in this respect being provided at no additional cost by consultants to the Department of the Public Service. A bill for £430.50 from a catering company in respect of refreshments on that occasion has been received.
Will the Taoiseach agree that it is improper for a political party to invite public officials to attend a party political meeting?
It was a public meeting.
I would not agree with that at all.
It was a road show.
It was my practice when leader of the Opposition to hold public meetings throughout the country, which I did at least twice in each constituency during that period. In many cases the invitations extended widely and often to public officials whom I had met on social occasions or at meetings to which they were invited. That was accepted as normal practice and no questions were raised about that at that time and I do not see why being in Government precludes a party from inviting people to public meetings.
I agree that there is nothing wrong with the Taoiseach inviting people to attend meetings at which he would be present but my question was if it was improper for a political party to issue invitations to public officials thereby intimidating and embarrassing them to attend meetings they would not otherwise be obliged to attend?
The Government have no shame in them at all.
The Deputy misunderstands the position. The meetings were organised by our political party at present in Government on the same basis as they were when we were in Opposition. Invitations were extended to people to attend and it was open to them to accept or not as the case may be. The use of the word "intimidation" is absurd in this context, as the Deputy is aware.
Was the cost of the meetings included in the Estimate for the Taoiseach's Department or will the Taoiseach be moving a Supplementary Estimate before the Dáil?
The cost is covered in the ordinary way by the Estimate for the Department.
Nobody was at those meetings.
Will the Taoiseach outline the criteria used in selecting people for invitations? Why is it that the Opposition parties were not invited to the launching?
Is the Deputy speaking about the meeting in lveagh House when the plan was launched?
I am not talking about Castlebar but about lveagh House.
Invitations were issued to a wide range of bodies representative of the community as a whole with a view to ensuring the maximum impact of the plan on publication.
In the course of his reply the Taoiseach said that no bound volumes of the plan were printed and I should like him to indicate if any explanatory memoranda or summaries were printed at the expense of the Exchequer, bound or otherwise, and the cost involved?
A summary of the plan was printed and circulated widely. It was made available to all political parties on a proportionate basis, the same proportion in relation to Deputies for each party. I am sure all parties made good use of the copies that were made available. That is the only other document produced at public expense in respect of the plan.
I understand that the Taoiseach had volumes specially bound for his own backbenchers which were not made available to other Members, that they contained the good news but that the bad news was left for further consideration. We did not receive any bound volumes. We are not sensitive about not having received those bound volumes. Will the Taoiseach publish a second edition of Building on Reality or does he intend to face the electorate with this document as a joint Fine Gael-Labour election manifesto?
The next edition will be in 1988.
Naturally we made our own arrangements to inform our own party, at our own expense, about the details of the plan, as any party is entitled to do. But the public documents made available were made available to all parties on a pro rata basis, that is the summary and the plan itself in accordance with normal practice.
Will the Taoiseach face the electorate with this document or will there be a mark 2Building on Reality?
The electorate will, of course, take into account — when it comes to 1987 to which the Deputy referred — the achievement of the Government in relation to the plan. No doubt they will at that time have available to them also the plan for the following four years or whatever the appropriate period may be.
The Deputy's party's plan is awaited with interest.
May I put this straightforward question to the Taoiseach: would the Taoiseach not agree that, in the case of what purports to be a serious document indicating the Government's intentions in regard to future economic development, it is creating a very corrupt and dangerous precedent in a matter of that kind, on which the two parties in Government have apparently come to agreement in producing what they regard as a document to be considered seriously by the public, for a political party within that Government to embark on a travelling roadshow, wasting energy, resources and Minister's time that should be spent in charge of their Departmental duties, that that sort of precedent is a very bad one in the present economic and social climate here?
The Chair does not consider that a very valid argument.
It is certainly very argumentative. The word "straightforward" would not perhaps adequately describe the full amplitude of the Deputy's question and I reject the word "corrupt". Any political party have their own job to do in informing their members of their activities whether in Government or in Opposition. I intend to perform that function in my party. I hope the Deputy is doing the same thing in his party. We have made available to him and his party, pro rata, copies of the plan, so that he may have exactly the same opportunity to inform his party of the contents of the plan as we have.
We reject the plan totally.
If he wishes to do as we have done as a party, and provide at our own expense summaries of the plan, then he is free to do that too. But it is essential that the full contents and implications of the plan should be brought home to people of all parties so that everybody will be given an opportunity of forming their own judgment on it.
Would the Taoiseach not agree that the important aspect at present is that he and his team of Ministers — if they do presume to be the Government of this country — should behave as if they were the Government of this country, taking their responsibilities seriously——
That does not arise.
——providing leadership for this country——
That does not arise on this question at all.
——and not engaging in circus stunts around the country, engaging in a road show in every town——
The Deputy is out of order. He is making a speech.
——as has already started in Castlebar? This is so outrageous at present that it is an insult to the intelligence, particularly of young people who are concerned about the current position?
Would Deputy Lenihan please resume his seat.
On the question of the intelligence of the Deputy in what he has just said — in suggesting that it is in any way improper for any political party to hold meetings, private or public meetings or for Ministers to attend them — that proposition is a most extraordinary one and one which certainly does not follow the practice of the Deputy's party at any stage. Quite rightly they have held their meetings, talked to their people as to their policy, as we are doing. Therefore I reject completely what has been said. The important thing is that the plan has been made available to all parties equally, on a pro rata basis, and that no Government funds are expended otherwise than in an impartial way in that respect. What any party do, what that party opposite do in expressing their views and guiding their members as to what line to take in regard to the plan or what they think about the plan, is a matter for them. I shall be astonished to hear that no meeting of the Fianna Fáil Party takes place at which the plan is discussed and suggestions put to members as to how they should talk about it. I would regard it as very odd if that did not happen. I certainly hope that the Deputy's Party will be doing that.
The plan has been rejected.
No, it has been accepted both by this House and the Seanad, as the Deputy should know.
Would the Taoiseach agree that he has been somewhat contradictory in the reply he has just given in that he keeps referring to the question of the meetings, the 19 proposed meetings, to inform their people, I take it they being the Fine Gael people? Would he not now agree with me that their people should not include public officials who do not have the tag of Fine Gael? Consequently would the Taoiseach now consider abandoning the remaining meetings considering the poor attendance experience of 184 people in Castlebar, reminiscent of another famous day in Castlebar, the races of Castlebar in 1798, when the British were routed as Fine Gael were routed last Thursday evening?
I understand — although I was unable to attend the meeting in Castlebar as I had to attend Mrs. Gandhi's funeral in New Delhi — that the numbers present were between 500 and 600. Therefore the Deputy's information in that respect would appear to be substantially incorrect.
(Interruptions.)
May I have order, please, Deputies.
The Deputies opposite are making fools of themselves again.
The Taoiseach, please.
The Minister for Fisheries and Forestry can be sure of one thing, he was only——
(Interruptions.)
Order for the Taoiseach, please. I am speaking to all sides of the House. The Taoiseach should be allowed answer a question.
I am doing my best to be as informative as possible. I drew a distinction — obviously the Deputy did not pick me up — between informing our own party, at meetings of our own party, and having public meetings to inform the public generally. Both types of meetings have been undertaken on these occasions, as has been the practice since I became Leader of my Party.
Would the Taoiseach inform the House whether he discussed the plan with Mrs. Thatcher on the lift back from India?
(Interruptions.)
One final supplementary on my question. Would the Taoiseach propose — wearing his other hat as leader of the Fine Gael Party — to circulate the document to the general public; I am asking him as Leader of Fine Gael now not as Taoiseach?
I do not understand the question. Let me repeat: copies of the plan were published. About 5,000 have been circulated, it is on sale, indeed the sales have been extremely good and a large part of the cost——
Sales going well.
——has been recovered already in sales to date. Secondly, a summary was prepared which was made available widely, indeed to each political party, pro rata with its membership of the Dáil. That has had a wide circulation also. These are two public documents, publicly prepared. In addition to that our party is ensuring that its own members are fully informed about the plan in its own way.
When the document is placed in the library would the Taoiseach say whether it will be filed under the heading of "Fact" or "Fiction"?
Its title describes it as reality.
I am calling on Deputy De Rossa for a final supplementary before moving on to the next question.
The third document to which the Taoiseach referred — which he claims was produced, presumably at the expense of the Fine Gael Party — was, I believe, produced at the same time as the Government document. Can he tell us how it was that the Fine Gael Party could know what was in the Government document so that it could be produced at the same time on the same day?
Divine inspiration.
A Deputy
Perhaps the party opposite could tell us where they get all the money to publish all their documents?
(Interruptions.)
I am calling Question No. 5.
A Ceann Comhairle, I had asked the Taoiseach how it was that the Fine Gael Party knew what was in the Government document so that there could be a printed, bound, volume produced at the same time as a confidential Government document? Is the Taoiseach not obliged to reply?
There is nothing I can do about it.
That is no trouble to the handlers: they can leak and leak.
Is the Taoiseach not obliged to reply?
I am calling Question No. 5.