The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the Taoiseach's statement in Dáil Éireann on 5th July last that a new Department of Economic Planning and Development would be established.
Before I go on to deal with the circumstances leading to the proposed establishment of the new Department, I think it might be helpful if I dealt briefly with the technicalities of what is being done in order to avoid possible confusion in the debate. Quite simply, the Bill will amend the Ministers and Secretaries Acts, 1924 to 1973, to provide for the establishment of a new Department of State which will be in charge of a member of the Government known as the Minister for Economic Planning and Development. The Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924, was described in its long title as an Act for constituting and defining the Ministers and Departments of State. It established 11 Departments of State, administered by Ministers, amongst which the administration and business of the public service were distributed. The powers, duties and functions of each Department were set out in general but comprehensive terms. The reallocation of functions and the creation of new Departments to meet changing needs since 1924 have been effected by amendments to the 1924 Act. The Ministers and Secretaries Acts now provide the statutory basis for the Departments of State and define the distribution of the public business between these Departments. The descriptions of the functions of Departments are necessarily set out in rather general terms, leaving scope for development to meet changing circumstances. No effort is made in the Acts to provide for the detailed operations or the processes to be employed by the Departments.
In the circumstances of 1924, the concept of the role of the Government in the management of the national economy was, to say the least, undeveloped. Over the intervening years, however, a series of developments have revolutionised the position. The tentative first steps towards State involvement in the economic process through the creation of State-sponsored bodies accelerated through the thirties and the post-war years. The growing importance of Government action in the management of the economy was finally recognised institutionally with the publication of the first programme for economic development in 1958 and the subsequent establishment of the Economic Development Branch and later the Development Division of the Department of Finance. Looking back, it is now clear that the institutional developments from 1958 onwards brought about a radically new approach to the development of economic planning by Government; it has, however, become increasingly clear in recent years that the time has come for another fundamental institutional development.
The Report of the Public Services Organisation Review Group in 1969 stressed the need for the strengthening of the planning function throughout the public service. The Public Service Advisory Council, in their last report, urged that urgent attention be given to the provision of appropriate planing institutions in the public service and that the plans of individual Departments should not only be consistent with, but form an integral part of, a national plan. Above all, however, it was the absence in recent years of any overall national economic plan or programme that indicated that it was time to take stock once again and ask if the existing institutions for planning are equal to the needs of the economy.
The Government have been convinced for some time that the first essential reform is to provide separate institutions for planning not only within Departments but by assigning central responsibility for planning within the Government to a Minister in charge of a separate Department. Looking at the response to the difficulties which faced this country over the past four years, it became evident that the Government need an institutional capacity to co-ordinate their approach to economic and social development. Because of the importance which the Government attach to this major institutional reform, the Taoiseach announced, in his first statement on his appointment, that legislation would be introduced to establish a new Department of Economic Planning and Development to be headed by a separate Minister.
We are fully aware of the difficulties which will face this Department. Planning is an activity which is difficult and which often receives little recognition for its achievements. If, and when, all the targets of a plan are achieved, the planner can expect little thanks. When we achieve our aims we are already looking forward to other objectives. On the other hand, the few failures of the planner will attract more attention than all his successes. It it no wonder, then, that both people and institutions often prefer to devote themselves to other tasks and to neglect this difficult and unrewarding activity. However, unless we are to place our trust in luck alone, the success of our endeavours depends on the competence and diligence with which our plans are laid and pursued. For this reason, it is now a common practice in large institutions to assign to a specialised part of the organisation the responsibility for developing and tracking the implementation of plans for the future. In establishing the new Department we will, we are convinced, therefore, be bringing the organisation of government into line with the best modern practice.
The general responsibility of the new Department will be to promote and co-ordinate economic and social planning for the development of the economy both generally and as respects different sectors thereof and as respects different regions of the country.
These functions have in the past been discharged by the Department of Finance, not under specific statutory authority but as complementary to their responsibility for the business generally of the public finance. In this Bill it is necessary, in constituting and defining the Minister for Economic Planning and his Department, to set out his functions, which is done in Section 2 (2). The functions as set out in the subsection contain a wide definition of the area of responsibility of the new Department but they do not and should not lay down the details of the processes and operations of the new Department. Because they are both concerned with the central co-ordination of Government business, the Ministers for Finance and Economic Planning and Development, and their Departments, will necessarily have a very close working relationship. Although the functions of economic and social planning and of budgetary and financial control will in future be organisationally separate, they will both form part of the central co-ordinating systems of Government with the main areas of contact in the preparation of the budget and the development of national plans.
Although the finer details of the planning process will be worked out and developed when the Department become fully operative, the general design is now complete. The new Department will be required to promote and co-ordinate economic and social planning. The Department will, therefore, be the centre of the planning system for the whole public service and for developing the overall view of the economy and reconciling sectoral and regional plans with national goals and criteria. Other Departments will have particular sectoral responsibilities in such areas as industry, agriculture, health and social welfare. As part of the development of the planning system the planning capacities of the responsible Departments will also be strengthened to form part of a total public service planning function and to provide a support service to the management of these Departments.
Apart from their remit to promote and co-ordinate economic and social planning and development, the Department of Economic Planning and Development will be assigned certain more specific functions to enable them to act in the appropriate areas of Government. In accordance with what I have said about the definition of functions rather than processes for the new Department, it is important to ensure that this definition of functions is wide enough to allow the Department the freedom to develop the method and techniques of planning without being tied in advance into a set of processes which may prove unsuited to the needs of a developing economy. The more detailed functions set out in section 2 (2) have been drafted with great care and after much consideration, to achieve these ends.
After the general mandate set out at (a) of subsection (2), the first more particular function of the Department, as set out at (b) of the subsection, is designed to make the Department the central source of advice to the Government on economic and social policies. The Department will be required to report to the Government on the policies they consider necessary for economic and social development. To do this, they must have the capability to ascertain and analyse the evolving state of the economy. They must be in a position to identify the possibilities, offered by availing of external and internal opportunities and by policy changes, to operate at maximum capacity. The output of the analytical process will be a report to the Government by the Minister for Economic Planning and Development on the desirable direction of Government policy towards economic and social development. I would stress, however, that the final decision will be for the Government who may, as they see fit, publish draft plans as discussion and consultation documents.
The translation of policy into plans and activities is a critical stage in the planning process and (c) of subsection (2) assigns to the new Department the function of consulting with Departments on their plans to give effect to Government policies for economic and social development and of reviewing and appraising these plans. The end product of such consultation is set out at (d) of the subsection — to make proposals to the Government for the co-ordination of these plans and activities and for their integration with national economic and social plans.
In this process, two things are not rigidly laid down. First, it is the intention of the Government that there will be consultation with the main interest groups in the economy on the preparation of economic and social plans. Employer and employee representatives, industrial and agricultural groups and other important representative bodies will be consulted but it would not be wise to specify once and for all in legislation who exactly are the groups to be consulted. Groupings will change in the future as they have in the past; bodies will coalesce and disintegrate and the Minister for Economic Planning and Development will have to take account of such developments in deciding on the bodies with whom he will consult from time to time. Secondly, no attempt is made to lay down the time perspective for national plans nor to specify the frequency at which plans will be prepared. Planning is concerned with an uncertain future and it is essential that the Department should be left with the flexibility to structure their plans to the changing needs of the times.
In this connection, I might also mention that the need to consult the Oireachtas on national plans is fully appreciated by the Government. I can assure the House that there will be an opportunity for debate on such plans; I am convinced, however, that to require the presentation of plans at regular intervals would be counterproductive; it is preferable to have the production of plans geared to the requirements of economic and social conditions than to have the production of plans made a mechanical exercise to be completed at set intervals.
Finally, the functions laid down for the Department require them to review the implementation of national economic and social plans and to report thereon to the Government. The greatest danger facing a planning system is that, with the devotion of a major effort to the preparation of plans, those concerned may believe that the job of planning has been done. However, to will a desired outcome is not to ensure its achievement. Progress with the implementation of plans must be kept under review; where targets are not being achieved, the reason must be ascertained and corrective action must be taken or targets must be revised. It is only by such an iterative process that the plan can be maintained as a continuing overall guide to development.
Given the functions of the Minister and his Department, the details of the planning process will, as I have said, be developed as the Department put the new planning system into operation. The task will require certain structural arrangements. I have pointed out that the planning capacities of the main economic and social Departments will need to be strengthened to form part of the total public service planning function and that the Department themselves must have an economic and social analytical capacity equal to their task. Outside the Department proper there are other institutions concerned generally with the planning process for which the Department will assume general responsibility. The first of these is the National Economic and Social Council whose main task laid down in their constitution and terms of reference is:
to provide a forum for discussion of the principles relating to the efficient development of the national economy and the achievement of social justice, and to advise the Government through the Minister for Finance on their application.
The NESC, who are not a statutory body, will in future relate to the Minister for Economic Planning and Development whose Department will deal with their finances and other relevant matters. The new Department will also deal with the Economic and Social Research Institute whose finances are at present largely provided by means of a grant-in-aid from the Vote for the Office of the Minister for Finance. Under legislation at present under consideration, the Minister for Economic Planning and Development will also have responsibility for the new National Board for Science and Technology.
The new Department will have responsibility for the promotion and co-ordination of economic and social planning as respects different regions of the country. While the reconciliation of the regional and sectoral elements of the planning matrix will require development, the immediate structural effect will be the transfer of responsibility for the county development teams and the special regional development fund to the new Department.
Finally on the institutional arrangements, I might say a few words on the informational and statistical bases of the Department of Economic Planning and Devolpment. Much of the statistical material on which the Department will depend is already produced by such institutions as the Central Statistics Office and the Department of Finance. In other areas and, particularly in the area of social statistics, there are gaps not only in the statistical material available but, more importantly, in the development of meaningful indicators. The improvement of the statistical base for economic and social planning will be a task for the new Department in consultation and co-operation with the Central Statistics Office and the various Departments concerned.
I have dealt with the purpose of this Bill and with the functions and broad structural arrangements for the new Department of Economic Planning and Development. Recognising the deficiencies which have existed in the function of planning, we are, in this Bill, proposing the institutonal means for strengthening this function to meet the increased demands imposed by the acceptance by the State, in this country as in all western democracies, of a central role in economic and social development. The perfection of systems and the introduction of the necessary skills and techniques will require hard work and effort but, in the final analysis, it is a technical problem capable of a technical solution. No matter how well the new Department work, and, indeed, the better they work, the wider will be the range of alternative courses of action for final choice and implementation. The National Economic and Social Council have come to the central issue in Report No. 32 dealing with the question of choice between different policies in the light of the conflicting views of different interest groups. I quote:
However in the last resort such differences may be resolved, or the action that is appropriate to the circumstances taken despite them, only by a political process or procedure. This is a responsibility which in a democracy must properly be borne by the Government alone.
This Government are firmly committed to making the necessary choices and implementing the consequential policies and programmes. This Bill provides for the necessary framework for planning and I confidently recommend it to the House. The consequent responsibility for the development of the economy will, in the final analysis, rest with the Government, but I can give a firm assurace that, before making final choices, the Government will engage in the maximum possible consultation with all the relevant interests in the State and will afford the opportunity to have national economic and social plans fully debated in the Oireachtas.