Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 Nov 1977

Vol. 87 No. 7

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

Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.

There are amendments to section 2. Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8 and 14, inclusive, are cognate and they should be taken together.

I move amendment No. 1:

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

The purpose of the amendments which are being taken together is to insert the words "and Social" after the word "Economic" so that the Department would be the Department of Economic and Social Planning and Development and the Minister would be the Minister for Economic and Social Planning and Development. It is a strange omission from the Title of this Bill, from the name of the new Department and from the title of the Minister that the words "and Social" are not inserted and the Labour Members of this House, as do the Labour Members of the Dáil, feel very strongly that it is important that the words "and Social" be expressly included in the title of the new Department and in the title of the new Minister.

If the Bill has any sense at all it is to establish a Department to be concerned about economic and social planning and development. I accept that in the various functions of the Department there is emphasis on economic and social planning. For example, in section 2 (2) (a) there is the reference to the promoting and co-ordinating of "economic and social planning for the development of the economy both generally and as respects different sectors thereof....". In subsection (2) (e) there is provision "to review the implementation of such national economic and social plans as may be approved by the Government from time to time and to report thereon to the Government".

Nevertheless, this amendment is not merely a question of semantics and it is not a superficial amendment because the Minister must personify the focus of his Department and the type of plan which will be forthcoming. It has been one of the problems in former government planning that there has not been a sufficient emphasis on the need for social planning. There has been a tendency in economic plans to try to focus on the economic development and then, at a secondary level and later in time, to focus on the social dimension. What the Labour Senators feel very strongly is that it is essential that economic and social planning go together and that any plan deals both with the economic and social dimension at the same time, that in drawing up any economic and social plan the Minister must have regard for the need for the important dimension of social planning.

I had hoped to refer in some detail to the report of the National Economic and Social Council on the need for a social report because the thinking in that report is very relevant to the amendment; to the need explicitly to include the word "social" in the Minister's title and in the title of the new Department. The danger is that the Minister will become known colloquially as the Minister for Economic Planning or the Minister for Economic Development. This is already tending to happen when the name is shortened and it may tend to diminish the significance of the role which the new Department could have in ensuring a very high social planning content in the approach of the Department to the need for overall planning and co-ordination between Departments.

Therefore, I feel that this amendment is in the spirit of some of the functions of the new Department as contained in section 2 (2). It strengthens the role of the new Department and it is an amendment which would emphasise a dimension which has not been present to the extent that it should be in previous approaches to economic and social planning. Therefore, I think it would be an amendment which the Minister should be prepared to accept for that reason, that it strengthens and fortifies the position of the Minister and the role of the new Department.

On Second Reading the point was made—indeed there was a considerable amount of questioning of the merits of the establishment of this new Department—that the functions were being very expressly set out and that there was a Department with responsibility at this planning level which would have a certain detachment, which would not have executive functions. It would seem if this Department were really going to have a moral impact and a definite focus that it would be an improvement if it were called the Department of Economic and Social Development and its Minister the Minister for Economic and Social Development. I hope the Minister for the Public Service will see his way to accepting this series of linked amendments in the spirit in which they are offered.

I was absent for the earlier Stages of this Bill. It is not the first time the Minister has been in this Chamber since he became Minister but it is the first time that we have encountered each other in an Oireachtas context so let me add my voice to those of others congratulating the Minister on his appointment. May I also assure him that however resolute our exchanges may be, and no doubt as the years go on they will be resolute, from my side I can promise him that they will be pursued in the context of objectivity and in the context of arguing about the issues and entirely without the obtrusion of personalities.

Having said that, I find myself in a slight difficulty because had I been here for the Second Reading—I do not propose to make a Second Reading speech; I missed my opportunity to do that and I am not going to do it now —I would have argued the theory of the countervailing force against the Department of Finance. I will not do that now. I believe that the structuring of a major economic Department which balances and engages in a constructive contest with the money-gathering Department, what I call the Treasury, is the best structure by which to develop an economy. I have argued that elsewhere and no doubt will argue it again. I will not pursue it now. I am, therefore, opposed to the whole concept of this Bill and the setting up of the Department which is envisaged.

Bills do not get this far without the commitment of a Government and Governments do not change their minds in mid-stream except very occasionally. I take it for granted that this Department will come into being. Therefore, on this amendment I would limit myself to supporting the argument that if it is going to happen perhaps it is not too much to hope that the Government would at least broaden the Bill, not simply have the intention. I have no doubt that the Minister would say that is the intention. If it is to work it is well that the intention be part of the text of the Bill. In fact, what we say here in exchanges is not part of the legislation and the time will come when nobody will refer back and say what was the Minister's intention. They will simply say: "Well, what do the words of the Act say?"

The purpose for seeking this amendment is to try to focus people's minds in a way that hitherto has not happened on the question of what constitutes planning. I do not think I am betraying any confidences if I say that I was quite satisfied in my time as a Minister that there were significant forces in the Department of Finance who believed that planning as I mean it—and I might say as European social democracy means it—was a nonsense, was impossible and was irrelevant to the difficulties, dilemmas and predicaments in this country.

If you use the word "planning" either you do not attach the word "economic" to it and just call it "planning" or else you call it "economic and social" because it is not simply economic. What planning necessitates in a mixed economy is that you get a trade-off because you can raise money in certain ways and you can spend money in certain ways. You have to decide how much you can raise, you have to decide from what different sources you can raise it. Then you have to decide how much goes for industrial growth, infrastructure, how much goes into other areas of the economy, to social consumption, because the claims of all of these are endless. Any useful protagonist of any portfolio would justify the doubling or trebling of the money he gets. The whole task is a task of balance. The making of that balance successfully necessitates a growing economy because if you did not have that you would not have money to spend. It also necessitates deciding your options on how you spend the surplus that is not needed for the economy because the purpose of a growing economy is precisely to generate the wealth to satisfy social needs. The thing, in fact, is a nonsence if there is not a social component in it.

The reality that is envisaged to be brought into existence is not what I want but I do not suggest that it is a nonsense. From what I know of the Minister for Economic Planning and Development, Deputy Martin O'Donoghue, and from what I know of the realities of this work as far as this Department can be made real at all, I know that of course there will be a social component. It would be a nonsense otherwise. Though it is weak and though it is inadequate in my view, it is not a nonsense. If there is to be a social component necessary in the planning function which has these two aspects, why not say so? You might say: "If it is going to be there why bother to say so?"

I know that external evidence of the relationships between Ministers can often be deceiving but I believe there is a good relationship between the present Minister for Finance and the intended Minister for Economic Planning and Development. Again, just as we are not talking about the intention of Ministers when Bills are enacted, neither are we talking about transient relationships between individuals who can come or go. We are talking about legislating to do certain things which will have to be "do-able" and which will have to survive successfully if the relations between the two Ministers were as bad as relations could possibly be. Unless we are being unduly hypocritical about the real nature of governments, we know that in every government there are some Ministers who get on very well and some who cannot stand the sight of each other. That is normal, that is the way governments and political parties work.

Those differences are, of course, contained but they are there. It would be sensible since we cannot have the sort of enactment I would like to see, that we have one that is likely to go on working in circumstances of good and bad relations between the relevant Ministers, the two important ones, Finance and this one which also guarantees, at least, the chance of this poor creature that I consider it to be to have some chance of success. The writing in explicitly of this social aspect is necessary if the fears I have about the success of it ever materialising are to be minimised and if it is to be given a chance to get off the ground.

Senator Robinson said these amendments were not merely concerned with semantics, but with due deference to her I am afraid they are. Senator Keating said rightly that it is not a question of what are the Minister's or the Government's intentions, that in years to come when this is being interpreted people will look at the Act and say: "What is in it and what does it say?" Let us have a look at what it says.

Section 2 sets out the functions of the Minister. Section 2 (2) states:

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

It then sets out five functions and in each one of them it refers to the social aspect. Paragraph (a) is to promote and co-ordinate economic and social planing; paragraph (b) to identify the policies it considers necessary for general economic and social development...; paragraph (c) to review and appraise the plans and activities of Departments of State giving effect to the policies for general economic and social development adopted by the Government; paragraph (d) to make proposals to the Government for the co-ordination of the plans and activities referred to in paragraph (c) of this subsection and for their integration with national economic and social plans——

With respect, surely that is an argument for this group of amendments and not against them?

May I finish my argument? Paragraph (e) which is the final paragraph setting out the principal functions of the Department and of the Minister reads: "to review the implementation of such national economic and social plans...."

On reading this Bill in ten years' time one could not say that it was not intended to include the social aspect of planning. It is clearly set out in each one of the functions laid down for the Minister and the Department.

It is also true, of course, particularly today, that it is impossible to visualise economic planning which did not take full account of the social requirements of the community and the social dimenensions of planning, as Senator Keating said, the expenditure of what might be called the surplus money which is available. You have to do it and the reality is that the Bill specifically writes in the social aspect of each of the functions laid down for the Minister. What we are talking about in these amendments is not the reality of the functions but about whether it is a good or a bad thing to include the word "social" in the title of the Minister and his Department. We ought to get what we are talking about into perspective. It boils down largely to a question of public relations. I do not decry the public relations aspect of putting across to the general public the fact that the functions of this Minister and Department include social planning and development as well as economic planning and development. If you consider what is involved in this, whether there is to be any real gain by putting in this word, if you try to deal with it objectively you must come to the conclusion that any gain involved can only be marginal.

As against that, what you are doing if you put it in is you are giving the Minister and the Department the most lengthy title of any Minister or Department in Government. Senator Robinson referred to the manner in which the title is shortened for common usage and the fact that people may already be referring to the Minister for Economic Planning. This may well be so, I am not disputing it. If that is so already, does one seriously suggest that putting in the word "social" is going to change the impact of the title of the Minister or the Department? What we have to concern ourselves with here is the reality of the functions of the Minister and the Department, of the statutory powers and obligations being imposed on the Minister and the Department to concern themselves not only with economic planning and development but with social planning and development.

I hope I have demonstrated clearly that that is built into the Bill fully, unequivocally and unambiguously and therefore, if we are trying to have regard to the importance or otherwise of adding the word "social" to the title of the Minister and of the Department, we are talking about something quite different and something on which there can be, I freely admit, a difference of opinion. The balance one way or the other would depend, perhaps, on personal assessments of the situation. My assessment and that of my colleagues is that the value of adding in the word "social" to the title is so minimal that it is not worth doing when you are faced with the counter-difficulty that you are giving an almost completely unwieldly and cumbersome title to the Minister and the Department. The reality is that that title in normal usage is likely to be shortened even without the addition of the word "social". It seems there is nothing of substance to be gained by adding the word "social" and that these amendments are dealing really with shadows. Even in the field of shadows the balance of advantage lies against the amendments rather than for them.

I have listened carefully to the Minister's reply and most of it strengthens the case for the amendment. He said we should be concentrating on an awareness of the reality of the functions of the Minister. In proposing the amendment I drew attention to the fact that the functions include economic and social planning and I accept that. It is an awareness of those functions that strengthens the case for calling the Minister what he is. If the Minister's argument—and it is a strange one—is that to add the word "social" would somehow give the Minister too long a title, I find that strange because there has been some lengthening of titles of some other Ministers; for example, the Minister for Industry and Commerce is now the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy. It is quite a cumbersome title to get your tongue around. If the Minister's main reason for opposing this amendment is that it would make the title too long and cumbersome, then I would be prepared on Report Stage to bring in an amendment to delete the word "economic". Let us have the new Minister called the Minister for Planning and Development because that in a sense would meet the reality of this amendment. To talk about the Minister for Economic Planning without using the words "economic and social planning" narrows the role and functions of the Minister, in his title, in the focus and in the name of his Department.

If we want to have brevity rather than a very explicit title for the Minister which identifies his real functions, we could table an amendment on Report Stage to delete the word "Economic". Then we would have a Minister for Planning and Development.

I would like to agree that it should not be possible to think in terms of economic planning without also to be thinking in terms of social planning, but that is not necessarily so, has not been necessarily so in our approach to planning at Government level and, indeed, in Fianna Fáil's approach to planning when in Government in previous years. Was it mere window-dressing that Fianna Fáil's Third Programme was entitled "A Programme for Economic and Social Development"—a great deal of emphasis was placed on the fact that the words "and Social" were included in the title of the programme—or was it an attempt to try to ensure a change of focus? I do not think the change of programme at that stage was very successful but there was significant thinking behind it. In my opinion, it would be significant to ensure that the Minister was either called "the Minister for Economic and Social Planning and Development" or "the Minister for Planning and Development".

His functions, as set out in section 2 (2), made it clear that there was as much emphasis on social planning as on economic planning. There is a possibility—it is a danger and something we had in the past—that economic planning in a narrow sense will go ahead. For example, projects for low-cost housing where the economic dimension is emphasised can cause very significant social difficulties and social upheaval and can have a very bad effect on the environment and on the quality of life of the people who would have to live in low-cost housing which had diminished the social criteria where these had been left out.

Similarly, social planning can be carried out sometimes at very little cost. It is a question of taking into account the social dimension. Recently I participated in a seminar with the new Minister—which I have referred to previously—organised by the Council for the Status of Women. The subject-matter was Economic and Social Planning: Where Do Women Fit In? The new Minister prefaced his remarks by regretting that although he had most of his complement of staff there were no women in the higher ranks. He said he had not actively done anything about it but that that was the reality. There were no women at key level advising in that Department. That is a great pity because there is a danger that a dimension of the importance of social planning will be omitted. For example, in relation to the consideration of plans for housing and development of community amenities, women would have a greater perception of the need for concentration on the area of social planning and of ensuring that whatever plans were put forward substantial emphasis would be placed on this area.

I would be afraid that to allow the Minister—as a new Minister with a new title—to go forth with what appears to be this narrow focus on economic planning and development would be, in a sense, a retrograde step which would fail to highlight the necessity for a rounded and interpreted approach to economic and social planning. This is all the more important because it is clearly the intent in this measure. A great deal depends on people's perception and on where the emphasis is laid.

The Minister in replying to the points I made when moving the amendment was saying that this was more or less a question of semantics which I do not accept for the reasons given or, secondly, that it would make the Minister's title too long. Would he be prepared to accept an amendment which actually shortened the Minister's title and that of the Department but which achieved the same effect by omitting the word "Economic" when not linked with the words "and Social"? The Minister would be titled "the Minister for Planning and Development".

I would like to contribute to this debate. Senator Robinson is going over old ground. We might as well say the Minister for "Economic Planning and Development" or "Economic, Technology, Planning and Development", or "Economic Political, Technology, Planning and Development", or "Economic, Technology, Physical, Agricultural Development" and so on. It is clear that the term "Economic" is being used in the same context as it is used in many textbooks on economics. It catches the general dimension of what goes on in an economy, both in terms of physical and trade resources and in the social system. As a title it is a useful general term which covers what we are talking about here.

I had not intended to intervene again but the effort to suggest that this is purely semantic, which has been done both by the Minister and by Senator Mulcahy, makes their case worse and the arguments for these amendments greater. The Minister has pointed out that in five subsections the term "social" occurs, yet it does not occur in the title of the person to do these things. If we put that into the context of something that was said by Senator Whitaker, it becomes more interesting. I did not hear his speech which I have been assured was an interesting one. We do not agree but I intend to read it. I have seen the newspaper report, but I have not read the full text. From the newspaper report Senator Whitaker, who would be in a position to know, suggested that power has been taken from the Department of Finance but has not gone anywhere else. I do not know if that is a fair gloss on what he said—that it has not accrued to the new Department, although it has been taken from the existing Department.

The relationships between Departments are, of course, conducted according to decent norms but they are competitive. Every Department and every Minister, encouraged by his senior officials, tries to push out the boundaries. Every other Minister tries to push him back. There is a continuous attrition within the law-given areas of responsibility between different Departments. Sometimes the rules are changed and Departments gain a little or lose a little. That is normal. Those sort of conflicts between Departments are essential for the vigorous functioning of Departments with high morale. They are good things. Of course, there is a conflict between a Minister for Finance and a new Minister of this kind. It is decent, normal structured conflict, but it is a conflict situation. We find that the Minister for Finance in a sense, has to remove a rib from himself to create a new individual. I will not pursue that metaphor but that is what he is doing in this Bill. He is taking out a portion of his own structure and setting it up as an independent entity.

In the definition of doing that, of course, he must have certain feelings—"It is a pity; my senior officials say we could really do it better in this Department, but there seems to be a consensus that it should go somewere else". So you enumerate the things the new Minister will do. Then you do not give him the title to do it. Of course, there is a potential conflict between this Minister and the new Minister. I am not suggesting that this is so. It is not simply a situation of conflict between Departments; there is also the conflict between individuals at the Government table. That is inherent in the spreading of a planning function out of a treasury-type Department where it traditionally has been.

If you do not give a clear title to the new individual, you lay the basis for more conflict than there need be and you lay the basis for the undermining of his position. I do not think this is a good initiative. If it is to happen, then I want to see it happen successfully. The clear giving of a social aspect to the title of the Minister, as well as the writing in of certain subsections giving a social responsibility to that Minister under the Act, would strengthen him. If it is going to happen at all, it is better that it happens right. We are trying to be helpful and to make the new Minister and Department function more effectively. The responses suggesting it is purely semantic, make our case stronger.

Senator Keating is mistaken in his assessment of the position. First, the terms of this Bill, specifically the terms in section 2 (2) setting out the functions of the Minister are, of course, agreed terms not only between the Minister for Economic Planning and Development and myself but agreed also by the Government. In the event of some conflict in the future Senator Keating, I would suggest, knows as well as I do that it would not be resolved by reference to the title of the Minister or the Department, but rather to the function of the Department as defined in the Bill. He also knows that all Departments have certain titles which, as Senator Mulcahy said, are catch-all phrases, but they certainly do not include, or even suggest, many of the functions carried out by those Departments. It is misleading to lay undue stress on the inclusion or omission of the word "social" in the title of the Minister or the Department.

I have a suspicion—I know I should not say this, but I am going to say it anyway—that Senator Keating did not read section 2 (2) before he made his first contribution. I suspect that because, if you recall, he said that if somebody reads this in years to come, the Minister's intention is not relevant but rather what is in the Bill. If you look at what is in the Bill it is perfectly clear.

I must interrupt, because we are now speaking about the title of the Minister. That is what the amendment refers to.

The Bill makes it quite clear what the functions are. Senator Robinson, on the other hand, read at least portion of the section because she referred to two of the five functions containing the word "social".

To illustrate the point.

The fact is that all five include it. That is of some significance. Senator Robinson put the suggestion to me that if I do not agree with the proposition to put in "social", why not delete the word "economic" and make the title shorter? As regards making the title shorter, I would be quite happy to do that; the shorter the better so far as I am concerned. There would, however, be problems. The title would be so wide—that is, the Minister for Planning and Development— as to suggest much more than would be intended to be suggested in the title of this Minister or this Department. For example, it could be reasonably interpreted as meaning physical planning. Somebody suggested that it might even be deemed to include family planning—a topic with which Senator Robinson is not unfamiliar.

That would be one way of avoiding your responsibility.

It is not intended that the Minister for Economic Planning and Development will be officially concerned——

It might even be argued it is part of social planning.

——with family planning or, indeed, with physical planning, except as part of the economic and social planning and development. We really ought not to spend too much time on this aspect because, while I respect the ingenuity with which Senator Robinson and Senator Keating have put forward their arguments, the fact is that the Bill specifically gives the Minister and the Department functions in relation to both economic and social planning and development. The title is merely indicative. It is not something that goes to the root of the performance or the functions of the Minister or of his Department. In those circumstances, I could not recommend the House to accept these amendments.

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

Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are related and may be taken together.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 2, subsection (2), between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following new 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,".

I have no objection to these amendments being taken together as they are related. The purpose of amendment No. 4 is to insert a new and very specific and important function for the Minister for Economic Planning and Development and that is:

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.

Amendment No. 5 provides that such outline plan as provided for in paragraph (e) would be laid before each House of the Oireachtas annually. Amendment No. 6 provides that there would be a duty on the Minister:

to consult on a regular basis, either individually or collectively, with the interest groups represented on the National Economic and Social Council at the time of the passing of this Act, on the general provisions of the outline plan referred to in paragraph (e) of this subsection,

which is amendment No. 4.

The problem with this Bill—and it is a problem that was mentioned by a number of other Senators on Second Reading—is that the functions of the new Minister are very nebulously and vaguely set out. In all good faith I believe there is a danger that the new Minister will become some sort of ministerial think-tank. There is a danger that the functions of the new Minister might be confined to monitoring, reporting on and reviewing the plans which were emerging from the various Departments, that the functions might be equivalent to the functions of the central policy review staff attached to the United Kingdom Government, that it would be a detached role, not an executive position but merely one which was second rate to the planning, particularly, of the Department of Finance and the planning and priorities of other Departments. That is a potential danger in the way in which the various functions are set out. If one looks at them, they really are, whatever the new Minister and the new Department make of them, as follows:

(a) 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, ...

There is no time limit, no costing of the plans to be specifically incorporated in them and no duty to publish. At the time there could be private internal memoranda for the Government. And——

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

That could be a very internal and limited exercise of a think-tank nature, prodding the Government to do a job which they were already doing and to do it slightly more efficiently, and with more modern techniques; to identify in consultation with Departments of State and to review and appraise the plans and activities of such Department giving effect to the policies and the general economic and social developments adopted by the Government. It might have a useful consultative role but again that could be very much at a secondary back-up level. "To make proposals to the Government for the co-ordination of the plans and activities referred to in paragraph (c) of this subsection and for their integration with national economic and social plans", a monitoring, coordinating role, and, finally, "to review the implementation of such national economic and social plans as may be approved by the Government from time to time" is again a reviewing and monitoring role.

The purpose of this amendment is to create a very important and very significant role for the Department, a role which would seem to be essential if it is really to be a counterbalance to the Department of Finance, and if it is really to be a Department of Economic Planning and Development. This would require the Minister to publish annually an outline plan. I would like at this stage to emphasise that this would be an outline plan; it would not be the equivalent of a White Paper where decisions had already been taken and where it was in a sense too late in some measure to consult with the various interested groups and sectors. It could be in the nature of an outline plan which had a degree of flexibility in it. Obviously there would have to be the assumption of initial responsibility and decision-making by the Government, but it should not be an inflexible or rigid blueprint. It would be for a period of not less than four years.

The reasons for deciding on a period of four years are first, it is more or less the span of a Government—it may be slightly more or less than four years —and for that reason it would appear to be a way of indicating what the overall plan and intention of a Government in office would be. The intention would be that this would be published at the beginning of the Government's term of office. This plan should outline the objectives and the policies chosen to achieve those objectives. It should also include an estimate of the expenditure of each Department of State for each year of the plan and the expected Exchequer receipts.

In my view, a plan of this nature would conform very much to the very clear and helpful analysis of planning which Senator Whitaker gave in his speech for which I was present last week. He distinguished between, as he put it, a plan and a manifesto. He made it clear that in his view a plan had to be carefully costed. It had to set out very carefully the estimate of expenditure for each Department and the expected Exchequer receipts for each year of the plan. He also made what I thought was a very valuable and valid argument about the consequent nature of the annual budget. If you have a four-year outline plan, and it is costed, the real role of the annual budget is to make the necessary adjustments which would be required because of the reality of not being able to predict, not being able entirely to foresee certain aspects of the situation, and the budget would lose some of its mystique and some of its, I think he called it, Santa Clause aspects, and would instead become an economic instrument of annual adjustment to an outline plan.

If the Minister were prepared to accept this amendment, it would genuinely give the new Minister and Department a much more decisive and definite role in being responsible for the publication of this outline plan. Obviously the plan itself would have to be devised in very close consultation with the other Departments. It could be the fruit of the exercise of some of the functions already contained in section 2 (2).

Amendment No. 5 would require that this outline plan be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. This again would play an important role in involving the Houses of the Oireachtas in the on-going business of planning for the future of this country. This is essential because at the moment I do not believe that the Dáil and Seanad play the role they could play in relation to economic and social planning. I believe the resources of both Houses are not used sufficiently, partly because plans are not laid and costed for a sufficient period. It is only if we have the possibility of examining a properly costed outline plan for a period of four years that both Houses could address themselves to the constructive function of examining them, of making helpful contributions to the debate and perhaps of trying to change the emphasis but certainly with the objective of seeing the merits and problems in a particular outline plan.

This is absolutely essential for Ireland over the next number of years, and specifically over the next four years, because the major problem which we all have clearly identified and know all too well is the problem of providing for full employment—the massive difficulty which is going to be faced by us as a people. It will require very real resources of the State, not just of the Government, but of both Houses of the Oireachtas and of the various social partners and other interested sectors. It will require a consensus at some level about what we should be doing and an ability as a people, if necessary, to take very difficult decisions. This can only be done, we would submit, on the basis of a known and costed plan over a period of four years. If this Department are going to have any real function, that is the real function they could have. If that plan were laid before both Houses there would be an opportunity for constructive debate and for realistic contribution by Deputies and Senators.

This would be in the spirit of the concept of a plan as a constantly changing and evolving overall economic instrument. It would not be possible to have a rigid or fixed plan or, indeed, to criticise a Government for changing part of their plan. The outline, the priorities and the costing for each Department should be clearly set out.

Amendment No. 6 would place a statutory duty on the Government to consult on a regular basis, either individually or collectively, with the interest groups represented on the National Economic and Social Council. The reason for this is the substantial need for greater openness and involvement of the social partners, particularly in economic and social planning. We have seen a number of very difficult situations because there has not been an appreciation of the need for involvement and discussion at an early enough stage in economic and social planning. Therefore, I believe this amendment would provide for much greater participation and, therefore, greater involvement with an outline plan and would hopefully achieve a basic consensus for us as a people as to what our priorities were and how we were going to try to achieve them. This would be very healthy for our democracy and would allow us to use the resources of the State, to tackle that greatest of all problems which has such significant economic and social dimensions, the problem of providing full employment, of creating a massive number of new jobs and of creating a climate which will help and foster job creation, a climate in which we can build up our own industries, large and small, and attract industry from outside.

I believe that the Minister should seriously consider accepting these related amendments to ensure that the Department have the impact and the substantial role that he appeared to want to give them in his speech introducing the measure into the House. At the moment the danger is that all the functions are at a secondary level and are nebulous and will not allow the Department to have the intended impact on the performance of the Government. The danger is that there is a lacuna and, as Senator Whitaker pointed out, the Department of Finance retain all the economic instruments and this new Department can only put forward, monitor or review plans. It cannot, in fact, play a more significant role in formulating an outline plan over a sufficient period of time, allowing for open and constructive consultation by debates in both Houses on the plan and the requirement to consult with the social partners. I hope the Minister, when he has reflected on it, will be prepared to accept this amendment.

In considering these amendments it is necessary to look at what is sought to be done in this Bill and to look at what is done in the establishment of other Departments. If we look at the Ministers and Secretaries Act as a whole, we find that Departments of State were set up and their powers, dealings and functions were set out. It is also clear that these powers and functions were set out in the widest possible terms with two principal purposes in mind, first, to define the area of responsibility of each Department and, secondly, to ensure that the Departments and the Ministers have adequate power to act in the area allocated to them. The functions provided for in this Bill for the new Department are quite ample to meet the criteria which apply to all Departments.

It would appear from the amendments that the functions, as proposed in the Bill, are accepted but it is sought to add to them. Amendment No. 4 sets out a certain message or methodology in regard to the approach to planning which should be used by the Department. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with the method proposed in amendment No. 4. In some circumstances it could be quite appropriate. What I am saying is that it would be quite wrong to impose a statutory and mandatory method of approach to planning on the Minister and the Department when we know that, even if this method proposed in amendment No. 4 were the ideal method as of now, it will not be the ideal method at some time in the future. It could be deemed to be the ideal method of approach as of now. I am not going into the argument as to whether it is or not, because we could waste a lot of time on that. I want to suggest to the House that it is a wrong approach when we are dealing with the setting up of a new Department to hamper it in the way it is suggested in this amendment. This amendment is concerned much more with the methods of operation of the Department rather than with its general functions.

The method of operation of a Department cannot be laid down in the Bill which sets it up. I think a little thought will show that this could lead to enormous difficulty. There is one aspect of it to which I would draw the attention of the House. I am not making a major point of this but it should cause some concern. To the extent that you are quite specific in the Bill setting up a Department as to the things it can do and particularly the kind of methods it can adopt in approaching planning, by implication you are excluding the power to do anything else. It could be argued that any other approach would be deemed to be ultra vires if you are too specific, as I suggest amendment No. 4 is. I would also suggest that a four-year span may have something to recommend it in certain circumstances but surely it can be conceded in other circumstances that a four-year span might be far too long or too short. Are we to impose this method of planning on the Department and leave it no freedom to manoeuvre at all in the methods it uses? I hope that a little reflection will show that this is the wrong approach to a Bill which is setting up a Department and setting out its terms of reference in general terms.

Similarly amendment No. 5 seems to be inappropriate because it would lay a statutory obligation on the Department to lay an outline plan before each House of the Oireachtas annually. There may well be many years in which this would be appropriate but there will be some years in which it would not. If you have a statutory obligation to do so, no doubt the Department would comply with that, but the form of plan that you would get in such circumstances would simply be a waste of time and a waste of the time of both Houses if they were to discuss it.

Again, we are talking about the method that should be used by the Department in carrying out their function. I want to urge the House very strongly that the Department and the Minister should be left as much room to manoeuvre as possible as to the methods that would be used, as to the ability to learn from methods used, to improve some, to discard others and not to put the Department and the Minister in a straitjacket of certain statutory methods of planning. I want to make it clear that I am not opposed in principle to the methods suggested in amendment No. 4 nor am I opposed to the idea in amendment No. 5, which is the laying annually before each House of the Oireachtas of an outline plan. In general, I would be in favour of it but I have this reservation, that if it is to be done I want it to be a genuine outline plan, not one that is simply produced because there is a statutory obligation to do so. There are circumstances in which it might not be appropriate to do it and in which, if there were a statutory obligation you would simply get a document which was not worth the time of either House of the Oireachtas discussing.

Amendment No. 6 is providing for something which will happen, which must happen, if there is to be any national plan of validity or hope of validity and acceptance, but it is making the mistake again of laying down, in a statute, much too restrictive terms of reference for the Department. It provides that consultation is to take place "on a regular basis, either individually or collectively, with the interest groups represented on the National Economic and Social Council at the time of the passing of this Act". That is very specific but we know from past experience that some of the bodies now represented on the NESC evolve from other bodies or constitute an amalgamation of other bodies. It would be unreasonable to presume that a process of this kind will not take place at any time in the future and yet this amendment proposes to lay down a statutory obligation to consult with those bodies. Again, I suggest that a little reflection will show that this is not the right approach. I want to make it clear, although I am saying this is not the right approach and for the reasons I have outlined, that it is my belief and it is the belief of the Government that widescale consultation with the, for want of a better term, social partners is and will continue to be an essential part of planning if one is to hope to produce a realistic plan with a reasonable prospect of widespread acceptance. That fact is self-evident and I think that whatever Government are in power, whatever planning is being done, it will be clear to that Government that they must engage in such consultation on a regular basis if they are to have any hope of achieving their objective. I fully accept the purpose of the amendment but the actual implementation of it in this way, in a statutory mandatory way, is I believe a mistake and I urge the House not to make that mistake.

Long before the Bill came up I had been looking forward to this debate on whether there should be planning and where it should be located because as a member of the previous Government I know that this was something which was debated. There were statements about that in the Coalition's election manifesto. I heard some of the things said in the Dáil and read some of the others and heard discussions about the Dáil debate on this and I reserved judgment as to the real intentions of the Minister for Finance until I had an opportunity to be here and see him and listen to him. Unfortunately I was not able to do that on the Second Stage of the Bill and I do not want to make a Second Stage speech. As I listened to him I came to the conclusion that the real intention, to use his own word of a few minutes ago, is a semantic one, it is an intention of shadows, it is not an intention of fact.

The object of these three amendments, which logically band together, is to give this Department certain things which it must do. In section 2 (2) I have underlined the various verbs that occur in the enumeration of the functions. It is no harm to repeat them: to promote and co-ordinate, to identify, to report, to identify, to review and appraise, to make proposals to the Government, to review the implementation, to report thereon. Look at all those verbs together. It may be that the intention of the Minister for Finance is that genuine planning in a genuinely new Department should come into existence in this country.

As I listened to him it seemed to me that this Bill is a mechanism to emasculate the promise that was made of real planning. The argument I would think is the following. I have heard it before in debates that related to the future role of the Department of Finance. If it cannot be in Finance then we will see that it does not happen at all. We strive to be specific but indeed not to put a straitjacket on the new Department or the new Minister.

Perhaps as one who has recently been accused of not reading something I might point out that in our amendment No. 4 to section 2, the paragraph (e) to be added to the phrase is "not less than four years" which is a very different thing from four years. It is a matter of reading. If you do not give a Department something that it must actually do then one Minister with one single secretary and one typist could promote and co-ordinate, could report, could identify, could review, could appraise, could make proposals, could report thereon, without actually doing anything.

I have said that I think this is a bad solution to the question of economic planning in this country. My God, manifesto politics and Christmas-stocking politics apart, is it not time we had some solution? If we as a Coalition Government did not do it— I affirm that and I regret it—is it not time that somebody else did? I would have to applaud a Fianna Fáil Government if they did. The object of these amendments is to make it possible for the new Department precisely to act. We have not managed our economic affairs well in the history of this State. I say that in a blanket sense about Cumann na nGaedheal, pre-war Fianna Fáil, and the various Coalitions. None of us have done it. The trouble with growth is that it is one of these compound interest things, in any period the function of how big is the economy at the start of the period, then, if you are losing a ½ per cent or 1 per cent per annum over a decade the difference at the end of 40 or 50 odd years, during which we have been trying to do something with our economy, is enormous. We have suffered literally in levels of current personal income from the ½ per cent or the 1 per cent interest points that were lost down the decades. We have not done well.

There is a consensus that we need planning even though there is not a consensus as to what planning is. We have gone ex-gross in 1973. There is a new economic environment in the parts of the world that are relevant to us. I may be handing a piece of the armament of an Opposition over to the Government but is it not the case that in any given set of economic circumstances—current economic circumstances are difficult—we generally know the things that we ought to do but we find it difficult in a time of manifesto and Christmas-stocking politics to get the national consensus to do those things. Is it not, therefore, the case that it is essential not just to talk to an Opposition but to talk to all the social parties? If we are going to find the courage to make a difficult decision—I have given an example of that decision—who knows it better than someone who at different times has been Minister for Finance and is now Minister for Finance again?

Is the great argument not how much money can you spend on social consumptions versus how much do you have to go to investment in industrial and agricultural production? That is a continuing argument. It is the great dilemma of democratic mixed society. The more the public know the more you can have rational answers to that and the more indeed you can stymie an Opposition from playing what I call manifesto and Christmas-stocking politics. If we really wanted to see this Department function one would have to support these amendments but if one wanted to carry out a formal promise and consign a thing to limbo so that it existed in theory but in fact did nothing then one would enumerate the responsibilities and tasks of the Department of Economic Planning and Development precisely as they are enumerated in subsection (2) (a) to (e); you would refuse to have them hardened, clarified or made specific under the guidance of the straitjacket and you would let the poor creature wither. My fear is that this is a formula for letting the poor creature wither. Our economy at any time, but particularly in the time facing us, will be the worse for this Bill not giving the power to a planning department to function as planning departments are now understood to function, of necessity, in mixed economies.

I was glad the Minister emphasised several times in his contribution to the discussion on these amendments that he agreed in principle with the amendments, with the idea of publishing an outline plan over a period of not less than four years, with the idea of laying such plans before the Houses of the Oireachtas and also that he agreed in principle very strongly with the idea of consultation with social partners. His objection was to making these requirements mandatory because this would not leave the Department and the Minister with enough room to manoeuvre. I find that rather strange and worrying because it is part of our democracy not to leave a Minister or a Department too much room to manoeuvre in the sense of too much lack of function, so that we do not perceive that the functions are not being performed. That precisely is what is at the bottom of these amendments and one of the potential weaknesses of the present identification of the functions of the new Department and the new Minister.

I made it clear when moving these amendments that it is not intended to conceive of an outline plan as something fixed, rigid and, therefore, a straitjacket, to use the Minister's term. That is not what is meant in any sense when we are talking about setting out the costed economic and social plan of a Government, showing what the Estimates and expenditures of the various Departments would be over a period. I made it clear by referring to the fact that the budget would be a necessary instrument for making adjustments on an annual basis and for changing the nature of the plan. The fact that there is provision in amendment No. 5 for the outline plans to be laid annually before each House of the Oireachtas again shows that the intention would be to have flexibility and to adapt to the reality of the situation.

I would welcome some elaboration by the Minister of what he meant by saying that in some years it might be appropriate to lay an outline plan before the Houses of the Oireachtas, and some years it might not.

I meant that a one-year term might be appropriate or might not depending on certain circumstances, rather than the question of laying it before the House.

Perhaps I could clarify it. That is not a problem. It is not intended by seeking, as this amendment does, to have the outline plan laid annually, that the plan would envisage a time span of 12 months. The whole purpose would be to have an involvement by the Oireachtas in the evolution of the plan. The outline plan would be one which would have what I think would be regarded as a necessary span in it of not less than four years—that is the whole idea of an outline plan—and an estimate of the expenditure of Departments and of the receipts. The idea of tabling an outline plan annually would be, in itself, a most effective way of monitoring and reviewing the implementation of the outline plan.

The only sense I can put on the Minister's expression that "some years it would not be appropriate," is because of political embarrassment at not being able to deliver what was in the plan, not being able to meet the expectations or having miscalculated on the Estimates of expenditure of particular Departments. There are very strong democratic reasons why we need the involvement of the representatives of the people in the working out of an outline plan for economic and social development over a period of years. This must be done by retabling the plan annually as it is envisaged for that particular year, up-dating it in an evolutionary way.

We need the active involvement of the social partners. The problem about an assurance by a Minister in the Seanad on 30th November, 1977, that of course there will be consultations with the social partners, is that it does not carry any real statutory weight, it is a ministerial assurance. I am not trying to undermine the good faith of the Minister. I am sure he intends that there be active consultation with the social partners. If there is not there is no way of ensuring this. It is not a requirement that there be this specific type of consultation, consultation about the outline plan, which rules out all the other dimensions of consultation in our democracy between Government, social partners and other interested groups.

Any suggestion that by inserting a specific provision here one is preventing any other type of consultation does not stand up to examination. That is not the effect of the amendment. The effect of the amendment is to provide a statutory requirement of regular consultation to give the social partners an involvement in the formulation of the outline plan. This is in line with the whole theory of participative democracy, that the Government commit themselves to an outline plan over a sufficient period of years, that they have the capacity to adjust that outline plan to the reality of the situation, but that the whole process is done in an open and visible way in consultation with the social partners and with the participation of the representatives of the people in both Houses of the Oireachtas.

As the Minister has taken the trouble to repeat that he accepts the principle behind these amendments it is difficult to see why he says he will not accept the amendments on the grounds that they would tie the hands of the new Minister and his Department, that they would tie the hands of the Government, and be rigid and mandatory. It is clear that the amendments are not rigid in the accepted sense of the word. They would, to some extent, tie the hands of a Government in that they would commit a Government to an outline plan, that they would commit the Department to the discipline of estimated costings related to this outline plan. Surely it is in the interests of achieving a sufficient consensus to be able to cope with particularly difficult problems we face and most of all that difficult problem of providing for sufficient job creation and sufficient discipline in relation to jobs, to achieve the objective of full employment.

I do not wish to delay the proceedings unduly but there are a few things I would like to say. First, Senator Keating made a couple of references to "manifesto politics and Christmas-stocking politics". I adverted to this matter previously but I should like to say once more that if there is implied in what Senator Keating is saying that as far as Fianna Fáil are concerned they put forward a list of goodies to the people and succeeded in being elected as a result, I want to refute totally that suggestion because it is too easy for people to produce excuses now for their failure.

The facts should not be forogtten. They are that the Fianna Fáil election manifesto contained a lot more than goodies. It contained a number of restrictions, for instance, moderation in pay, and was quite specific on that, limitations on the amount of expenditure that could be contemplated in this year, in the coming year and in the years thereafter. There was detailed discussion in the various news media on those aspects before the election. I should like to say that once more because I want to refute the suggestion that is being made. I am not necessarily saying that Senator Keating is making it, though it seemed to me to be implied in what he said, but it is open to another interpretation. I want to make it quite clear in so far as I am concerned, we have to let the facts speak for themselves and not allow a myth to be created that would explain away the failure of the Coalition in the last election.

If I might come more specifically to the matters at issue: I have never been one to denigrate the political astuteness of Senator Keating. He displayed certain aspects of this again in what he said here today. He got in to concede that the Coalition did not engage in planning. Of course he is perfectly right. Factually they did not but I think he may have thought he would soften the blow a little by acknowledging it first. He was a member of a Government whose Minister for Finance said that it would not be possible to publish a meaningful programme pending a re-assessment of medium-term planning in the light of the current, unsettled world economic situation.

What is the difference in that and the Minister saying that it may not be appropriate in particular years to publish a plan? The Minister said that himself.

What he said was "no planning."

This is not fair and is untrue.

Apart from what he said let us look at what he did and what Senator Keating did, and what his colleagues did in Government. Let us have a look at the facts.

The Minister ought to know that when giving a quotation it is normal, decent practice to give the date and the circumstances.

Is Senator Keating disputing the quotation?

No, I am not. I well recall the circumstances of that quotation. So I would like the Minister to give the date and the circumstances as normal, decent debating practice. One can give a general answer to apply to all circumstances or relate it to a particular circumstance.

It was included in the 1974 budget statement of the Minister for Finance—I can not give the exact reference to it—but those words were used.

That was some months after the greatest economic upheaval for half a century and the Minister generalises that to be a statement of principle. That is cheating.

Let us have a look at the facts then. Let us look at what happened. Maybe the Senator does not like the facts. Is that changing the subject?

No, the Minister was changing the subject.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister, without interruption, please.

I do not mind this interruption at all. I welcome it because Senator Keating is suggesting that I am trying to misrepresent the position of the former Minister for Finance and his colleagues in Government. If he wants to argue about that at least he cannot argue about what happened or did not happen. There is no room for argument on that, presumably. He says I am changing ground. The facts are that whatever was said, or whatever may have been said in public or behind the scenes, no plan was produced by the Coalition Government. We had promises. We had indeed the infamous or notorious promise of a plan by mid-summer of a certain year. Eventually what emerged was the Green Paper. That is the only thing that I think even Senator Keating would regard as even remotely resembling, approaching or contiguous to a planning outline. I do not think he would suggest that that was a satisfactory document or that it constituted an outline plan. That is what happened or did not happen and it is in that context that we have to consider the comments which are now being made.

Senator Robinson is in a different position because during this period she was not committed to supporting the Coalition Government who failed to plan. She did, however, stand for election in the general election and sought support for that Government. To that extent and to the extent that she is now a member of the Labour Party she has to accept responsibility for what the Coalition did or did not do in the context we are discussing here today. In that context it is suggested by Senator Robinson and by Senator Keating that they have fears in regard to what I am saying and to what is in or is not in the Bill. They are entitled to express these fears but their expression of these fears and apprehensions will have to be assessed in the context of the performance of the Government which they asked the people to support in the last general election.

As far as I am concerned there is apparently a misunderstanding on the part of Senator Keating as to how the whole planning process would operate in Government. I say "apparently". I am never quite sure whether what he says fully represents his views. I did note that he said that he was aware of or heard—I cannot quite remember which phrase he used—certain people in the Department of Finance saying: "If we cannot have the planning process well then let us make sure nobody has it." Maybe he heard that but I would be very interested to know the source. However, I have found no evidence of that approach. I must repeat that this Bill represents the consensus of the whole Government but specifically of the Minister for Economic Planning and Development and myself.

Senator Keating quoted the various verbs in the various paragraphs setting out the functions of the Department and said that putting them all together what it really meant was that the Department would not really do anything, that they would propose, would appraise, would recommend but would not do anything. I want to suggest to Senator Keating that it would not be the function of this Department or any other Department to publish a national plan. That is the function of the Government and nobody else. No Department can be in a position where they can impose that kind of thing on other Departments or on the people. The function of this Department is, as it is set out clearly——

It would be the Department of Finance who would draw up the plan.

If words mean anything section 2 gives that function to the new Department. What is involved is——

Why can the Department not publish it then?

——that when the Department have done this, when they have drawn together the various pieces of information from different Departments and have drawn up a proposal for a plan, they would then have to bring it to the Government where it would be discussed. It could be accepted fully. It could be rejected fully or more than likely it would be amended and modified in certain ways. It would then be accepted by the Government. It would be the responsibility of the Government, not of any Department or any Minister. Such a plan if it were to be published, strictly speaking, would be published by the Government, not just by this Department. Because by that time it would represent a Government document, a Government decision. However, I mention this because it seemed to me from some of the comments made that some Senators did not understand the process that is involved in this. More particularly I want to make it clear that I still think that to impose on this Department what is suggested in amendment No. 4, far from being a help to the Department, would be a hindrance. It would be a straitjacket. While I do not agree with the views expressed by my predecessor which I quoted earlier in regard to the possibility of publishing a meaningful programme——

The Minister knows the context of that and knows that he is misrepresenting it.

Does Senator Keating subscribe to that view?

The Minister is generalising that as an opinion.

Does Senator Keating subscribe to that view or not, the view that was expressed by his colleague, the Minister for Finance?

That was in 1974 at the time of the greatest upheaval and total uncertainty in the world economy.

Did he subscribe to that view expressed by his colleague the Minister for Finance?

That was the only time in the last 25 years, immediately after the October Suez and the OPEC crises, that one could say that.

We have established that much. It is some gain I suppose that Senator Keating at one time one year was not in favour of a plan.

The Minister will read the record and will be ashamed of these tricks of debate because he is not trying to debate the Bill.

Talking about tricks of debate, I do not think there is anybody who can equal Senator Keating in that regard. He now tells us that he agreed at that time in 1974 that it was not possible to publish a plan. That time he agreed but did he agree in 1975, 1976 and 1977? One can draw one's own conclusions about this. Unlike Senator Keating I do not agree with the view that was expressed in that context or otherwise but I accept that the methods of planning required will vary from time to time to meet a particular situation. Of course, what happened to the world economy affects, and would affect if it were to happen at any other time, planning and methods of planning. I have never disputed that but Senator Keating was unduly defensive and assumed that I was contesting that. The only point I was trying to make is that it is quite conceivable that at certain times due to certain circumstances it would be necessary to change plans and the methods of planning. That being so it should be clear that at certain times a four-year perspective would not be appropriate. It could be too long. It is conceivable also that in some circumstances a four-year perspective would be too short. Therefore, it would be extremely foolish to impose a mandatory statutory requirement of this kind on this Department. Far from helping it, it would hinder it and hinder the whole planning process.

If Senator Keating wants to interpret that as meaning that I, as Minister for Finance, am trying to ensure that the new Department will not work, I cannot help the fact that he draws that implication from it. All I can say is that he is wrong and that time will show he is wrong. I hope, since he referred to the record of this debate, that when that time comes he will refer to the record and see just how wrong he was.

I did not ask Senator Robinson to accept my assurance, because it was an assurance being given by me, that I favoured or thought it necessary to have consultation with the social partners. What I was trying to convey was that any Government in these circumstances if they want to succeed must have consultation with the social partners. It is not a question of my assurance. If one considers the situation it will be self-evident that it would be necessary to have such consultations. Perhaps I did not make it quite clear to Senator Robinson what my objection was to this amendment. The Senator seems to think that I was arguing that this would prevent consultation with parties other than those mentioned in the amendment. I was not arguing that. Let me give a concrete example. One of the parties involved under this would be the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. If a number of the difficulties existing in the trade union movement today in regard to unions outside congress and so on, were to be overcome it is conceivable that the body which would emerge would not be called the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. I am just taking that as an example. The same would be true of other bodies and there have been examples in the past of changes that have taken place.

It is suggested that this Bill should contain a statutory requirement that consultations should take place with A, B, C, D, E and F and so on, including the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. We could easily end up with a situation where the statutory requirement was to consult various bodies and the bodies existing were not the bodies mentioned in this amendment. That is the point I was making.

It is a very interesting example.

Would the Senator like me to take another one?

Perhaps the Minister would like to elaborate on that one a little further.

I should have thought that at this stage all people of goodwill would be hoping that there would be such an improvement in the structure of our trade union movement that whatever difficulties we would be faced with we would not be faced with the problems of non-congress unions versus congress unions. God knows, we are familiar with some of the difficulties which can arise from that problem. I would have thought that people who would be involved on both sides of that argument would hope that a solution would be found to it. If a solution were found it could well involve a change in the name and possibly the structure of the organisation known as the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Senator Robinson is young but she may remember reading of a change which resulted in the establishment of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. That was not all that long ago. It had a predecessor.

Similarly on the employer side there have been changes. There was an abortive proposal some years ago for an amalgamation of a number of what might be called "employers' groups". Although it was abortive, there were changes on that side. There are other groups in which changes have taken place and it is inconceivable for anybody to say that changes will never occur in the future. While I agree with the idea of consultation and while I say that consultation must take place whatever Government are in power, this particular amendment specifying particular bodies as they exist at the passing of the Act is unreal and unworkable.

I do not want to delay the House unnecessarily in relation to this amendment but I would like to comment on one or two remarks of the Minister when he intervened again. He seemed to take some time to erect a sort of camouflage of words rather than answering the specific points I had put to him about why, if the amendments were acceptable in principle, it was not appropriate in some years to publish an outline plan, to lay an outline plan before both Houses of the Oireachtas in the context in which I have explained—that it would be an up-dating of the overall plan which had been published and which would be for a period of not less than four years. Again he seemed to miss the point that we are talking about less than four years and it could be for longer. I do not know why he raised that objection.

But not for shorter.

The purpose of not having it shorter, and this would be a generally agreed idea, is that if it is an outline plan of the nature we are talking about it is the sort of outline plan and programme which must be for a period of not less than four years. Otherwise it is not possible to have a very meaningful plan and it is particularly relevant that it would be updated annually.

That gets back to Senator Keating's point about the difficulties of 1974 and what would be appropriate in those circumstances.

I was interested that the Minister seemed to have to go back and fight old battles about the Coalition. It is clear from the fact that the Labour Senators are tabling this amendment that we are very strongly in favour of an outline plan over a period of not less than four years in which there is the maximum participation both by representatives of both Houses and by the social partners in discussing and coming to some consensus on the plan. This is in the context of a country faced with immense social and economic problems. We have certain advantages but we have real problems, a very real demographic challenge in the structure of our population and in the need to create jobs.

The dimension of the problem requires that we approach our planning in a way that neither the Coalition Government nor previous Fianna Fáil administrations had approached it. We must approach it by requiring the Government, and I accept that it would be the Government through this particular Department, to publish an outline plan over a period of four years. If the Minister would be happier, we could amend amendment No. 4 to make sure that it was understood that it was to publish annually an outline Government plan for economic and social development for a period. It is clear that this is what would be intended and that it would be related to the other functions of the Department as set out in the Bill where it would form, if you like, the central function of those various functions set out. The approach is an approach in principle, the idea that the Government must publish a four-year plan or a plan for not less than four years, must cost that plan, must have the economic instruments to make the necessary adaptations and variations and would come annually before both Houses to debate the outline plan as up-dated annually.

It is in that context that it would be more possible for us to cope with an unprecedented crisis like the oil crisis, because it would be possible in the annual submission of the outline plan to both Houses to make clear what the extraordinary circumstances and difficulties were. The reception in both Houses would be sympathetic for that reason. The difference between the proposers of this amendment, as I see it, and the Minister in his reply, is a very fundamental one. It is a fundamental difference in principle in the approach to planning. Planning should be carried out with the maximum participation and consultation and that can only be done if there is a published framework for a sufficient period where Departments have committed themselves to particular costs, to particular estimates of expenditure for that period and where there is then a very open process of consultation and where, therefore, it would be expected that the plan would change. The degree to which it would change would depend on the particular circumstances but it would be a commitment and it would set out the priorities. It would outline how we would, for example, achieve the objective of trying to provide for full employment, of trying to provide proper services for the people.

I find the Minister's acceptance and repeated acceptance in principle of what is behind the amendments and then the very narrow reasons for refusing to accept them—the fact that amendment No. 4 does not make it clear if it were a Government plan——

I made that point in another context but that was not the major argument I made against the amendment.

The major argument the Minister appears to make against the amendment is that it would be mandatory and therefore binding on the Department and it would require the Department to do it.

To do it that way and no other way.

That way is a very flexible way. It only requires publication and a process of consultation. It is not a straitjacket in the sense of binding, in a blueprint way, to every clause and comma in the outline plan. It is an approach in principle and if accepted in principle I fail to see why the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment and to commit the Government and the new Department to publishing the outline plan in this way and to a statutory requirement of consultation with the social partners and to a statutory requirement to lay an annual up-dated outline plan before both Houses for debate.

The basic principle behind the amendments is that we in the Labour Party feel that there is a vital necessity for this type of open consultation and that the planning process cannot be an internal governmental one if we are to achieve a sufficient consensus in the community for the types of decision that will be required. Time will tell which approach would be better but I sense in some parts of the Minister's reply an unwillingness to be tied down, an unwillingness for the Government to be specific about the publication of their plans and specific consultations with the social partners and a sufficient role for the representatives of the people in both Houses of the Oireachtas. I do not wish to delay the House unnecessarily on this amendment but I am not reassured by the Minister's comments on the amendments.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 2, subsection (2), between lines 39 and 40, to insert the following new paragraph:

"(i) to publish annually a comprehensive series of economic and social indicators relevant to economic and social planning."

This amendment would be more significant if it had been possible to persuade the Minister to accept the three amendments which have just been discussed. It would require the new Minister to publish annually a comprehensive series of economic and social indicators relevant to economic and social planning. The amendment has relevance even without the previous amendments in that it is vital that there be available the type of information which will enable the social partners, enable the political parties, enable interest groups in the country, to have sufficient information on which to comment and on which to try to influence Government planning.

One of the real defects even in our participation in the European Community is to see again and again in tables and printed statistical material where one is talking about social statistics, social indicators that very often for Ireland from 1974 onwards, and sometimes from 1975 onwards, there is a blank because the figures are not available, because the social indicators are not sufficiently known. Therefore, since we are creating a new Department, and thereby establishing a new Minister for Economic Planning and Development, it seems that logically there should be a specific statutory responsibility on that Minister to provide and to ensure the provision of adequate materials by publishing annually a comprehensive series of economic and social indicators.

This is perhaps more necessary in Ireland than in other member states of the European Communities because we have changed so rapidly and so radically in most of the economic and social indicators. We are not the country we were even ten years ago. We are still changing very rapidly, changing in our demographic structure, in our patterns of behaviour, in the priorities of our citizens, in the movements of our citizens and we very badly need much more information. Once again I think it is not sufficient to say that yes, an attempt will be made to make this sort of material available. If there is a statutory requirement, there are various ways in which the pressure can be put on the Minister and his Department to furnish the particular material. We have a bad record in this country when it comes to publishing statistical material. The Minister will probably say that the Coalition had a bad record on it. I would only have to reply that we have had a bad record down the years. It is not a party political point. It would be appropriate to have a statutory requirement for the publication of this material and that it be done by the Minister who has charge of this function and responsibility and that it be done annually so that this material would be available not only for our own internal use but also for comparative purposes in a European Community context.

The development of economic and social statistics indicators will be promoted by the new Department as part of their general function to promote and co-ordinate economic and social planning for the economy. As Senator Robinson indicated, we have a different situation here in regard, on one hand, to economic statistics and indicators and, on the other hand, to social indicators.

On the economic side the Department of Finance and the Central Statistics Office mainly already compile what was described by the National Economic and Social Council as a "reasonably comprehensive set of economic indicators widely accepted as reliable". When we come to the social indicators side the position, unfortunately, is quite different and much less satisfactory. We have far fewer statistics on the social side. The NESC have done some valuable work in this area, like forwarding the work of preparing social indicators, but they point out that obtaining actual social statistics is one thing but the measurement of social change over a period of time is relatively less easy than collecting the statistics and, certainly, presents much greater difficulties than on the economic side. Indeed, in some areas one comes to quite difficult intellectual problems in deciding how the statistics should be interpreted to register change over a period of time. Whatever the intellectual or other difficulties involved, the fact is that it would not be possible for the new Department, or any Department, at this time or within a reasonably short time, to produce annually a comprehensive series of social indicators, as is required in this amendment. It just would not be possible.

There is a further difficulty in that a number of the statistics required, both on the economic and the social side, come from different sources as I have mentioned, the Department of Finance and the CSO. The social Departments, as such, produce a number of the statistics which would be used as the basis for the social indicators so that I would not wish to interfere with the operation of these various bodies in producing their statistics. I would, however, visualise a role for the new Department as encouraging the improvement of those statistics and arranging for the collection of statistics required where they are not being collected at the moment. In the main I would see this new Department as being the one concerned with the kind of difficult operation to which I have referred, the measuring of social change over a period. I would see that as the role of this Department.

However, the amendment is something quite different; it requires the Department to publish annually a comprehensive series of economic and social indicators relevant to economic and social planning. It would not be physically possible for the Department to comply with that. In the first place, they would not be comprehensive, and, secondly, the role of this Department with regard to these statistics must be much more one of co-ordination than the actual production of such statistics. But the primary difficulty is that it would not be physically possible for any Department, or indeed for all Departments together, to comply with what is required in this amendment and it will not be possible for them to do so for some years. I would not like to estimate how long it will be; it depends on what progress we can make under the guidance and stimulus of the new Minister and the new Department in this area. It is clear that it will not be possible for some years anyway to produce what is sought in this amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 8 to 14, inclusive. not moved.
Section 2 agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.
Top
Share