In the event of the Bill being enacted before the end of July, when would the Minister appoint a date for the establishment day under section 2?
Combat Poverty Agency Bill, 1985: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
Following the enactment of the Bill, arrangements will have to be made for the selection of the members of the board of the agency and that process could take a number of weeks. However, it should be possible to have the agency established almost immediately following the completion of the process of selection.
We are not talking about years. We are talking about two or three months after the enactment——
Yes. That would be the intention.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
The general function of "advising and making recommendations to the Minister on all aspects of economic and social planning in relation to poverty in the State"— to what extent does the Minister anticipate that the Combat Poverty Agency would have freedom to assess matters themselves? If we take the first one, they advise and make recommendations to the Minister on all aspects of economic and social planning in relation to poverty in the State. Would they have a function to recommend to the Minister some change in the social welfare legislation? That could be a very obvious one. What about a change in property rights within the State? For instance, if property rights within the State were found by the agency to be contributing to the problem of poverty in the State, would the Minister accept recommendations from the Combat Poverty Agency along those lines? What parameters does the Minister intend to have for this kind of advice?
Subsection (1) (a), which the Senator is referring to, can be seen as outlining the policy role of the new agency. An anti-poverty programme cannot be drawn up in isolation from economic and social planning as a whole but must concentrate on the broader aims of national policy, for example on a more just distribution of wealth, income and power in line with the Government's programme.
The agency must be seen as not just a source of supportive funding for localised actions by individual communities, or groups but must be capable of having an input into policy making at national level. The detailed policies and programmes which are adopted at any time in pursuit of the objective of combating poverty will depend on the particular situation. The involvement of the agency in this area, with its expertise and its direct involvement in combating poverty, will be of considerable benefit in terms of helping to define policy and determine priorities for effective action.
I understand what the Minister says, that the agency will make recommendations from time to time on Government policy, and try to relate to matters in line with Government policy. What I am trying to establish is, will it be open to the agency to issue reports which are against Government policy? Do you understand the point I am making? The issue of a report is dealt with as well under (2) (g) and I have a separate question later on in regard to the issue of reports, on section 11. Is it the intention that they will issue reports, maybe in controversial areas and maybe in areas and in a manner not supportive of the Government in the same way as the Economic and Social Research Institute issue reports in the economic area? Is that what the Minister has in mind?
The paragraph in question is, to my mind, quite clear, "advising and making recommendations to the Minister on all aspects of economic and social planning in relation to poverty in the State". They will be free to make whatever recommendations they see advisable in certain circumstances and these recommendations may very well be, from time to time, against what the policy would be at that given time.
I accept that and I thank the Minister for that information. What I am trying to get at, and the Minister might like to take time to think about it, is whether or not the agency will have the right to publish reports independent of his annual report and independent of reports to the Minister, that it could issue reports to the general public. In other words, if you like, to go over the Minister's head and say these are the policies which we believe will make a contribution to the reduction or elimination of poverty, even though those recommendations may not be in conformity with the present Government or any Government.
What the Senator states is correct. That will be the position.
In that regard, I would like to congratulate the Minister. It is very important that in bringing in an agency like this, even though I am sure from time to time they will issue reports which I will not agree with, and with which the Minister and I might not agree, it is important if you are going to create this new organisation that they will be given the maximum possible opportunity of expressing their views, of course, always recognising the fact that the Government are under no obligation to accept those views. But we must give an organisation like this the maximum possible freedom to operate.
In that regard, in view of the additional information which the Minister has given us, it does mean that there could be a very significant role to be played by the Combat Poverty Agency in creating the climate to tackle the problem of poverty. In that regard I would like to say that I support section 4 very strongly. I think that if it does fulfill the general functions outlined in section 4 it will make a very significant contribution towards the tackling of poverty which, after all, is not an insoluble problem. Certainly, it may be insoluble to say it will eliminate differences between people, but the elimination of poverty as such should not be beyond all our capacities at this stage.
Could I briefly make a comment to the Minister and also make my apologies for being late? I referred to section 4 in my Second Stage contribution and, indeed, many people I spoke to since in the field of poverty and generally helping socially deprived areas and so on, agreed with my sentiments. Section 4 (a) refers to aspects of economic and social planning in relation to poverty in the State and sub-section (c) refers to the nature and causes, the extent of poverty and so on, and for that purpose the promotion and the interpretation of research. Personally, and I say this from a very real, practical knowledge, I feel that we can overdo, if you like, the research, the examination and overdo all of these things. I feel that what is needed, having regard to the unemployment situation, the cost of living, the way people are living, many of them on the breadline situation, is not more research. I argue that St. Vincent de Paul and all the other organisations have that knowledge. They can spell it out on the ground where real areas of poverty are. I would hope that we would not spend hundreds of thousands of pounds seeking information that has been there for so many years. It is vital that we get down to the root cause and eliminate all the research because it has been done. Use what you have, and I certainly would hope that the Minister would be able to assure me that as little as possible will be spent in this area and that we will, in fact, get down to the important aspect of any combat poverty programme, which is the practical achievement of combating poverty in this country.
I raised on Second Stage — and I would still like to pursue further — why the Minister has felt it necessary to have such a broad power in subsection (5) of section 4 which refers to the fact that "the agency shall in the performance of its functions comply with such directions as may from time to time be given to it by the Minister." What kind of directions would be envisaged there and to what extent might the exercise of that power by the Minister prevent the agency from being both independent and, perhaps, sufficiently strong in discharging its functions? I would agree with Senator O'Leary. The functions as defined are very broadly and adequately defined, but if the Minister can by direction direct the agency, for example, not to pursue a particular area or examination or not to continue work in a certain field, then might that not seriously hamper the work of the agency? I am interested to know why it was found necessary to insert this in the section. I am still not happy that it has been adequately justified.
I would like to support Senator Robinson in that regard. It was against the background of the observations which I was going to make on subsection 5 and I asked the Minister for the earlier quotations. I gave the Opposition an opportunity of expressing their views. Senator Robinson said that it appeared to her that it was a very extraordinary power to give to the Minister. She said she could understand why no Minister liked to establish something which might in due course be a stick to beat over his head or his successor's head. I think I can understand that. At the same time it would appear that the Minister here today has not told us sufficient to indicate that the agency will be free to do these things, will be free to issue reports which are against Government policy, if you like. There would be a natural temptation over a period of years to limit the authority or the work of the agency by the threatened use of the powers contained in subsection (5) rather than the actual use of the power.
I know the way things work in State-sponsored organisations and bodies like this agency. Very often there will be a departmental representative and the departmental representative will convey to the members of the board, members of the agency, from time to time the departmental view on the matter. That is a good thing. When that departmental view is backed up by the suggestion that, after all, the agency has under subsection (5) of section 1 to conform with the directions of the Minister which can be given if necessary, I feel that the independence of the agency is seriously questioned. I questioned the Minister earlier with regard to the powers of the agency and the output of the agency and referred to the Economic and Social Research Institute. I am quite sure that the ESRI's independent reports are not subject to the same qualification. I am quite sure that the Minister cannot ask the Economic and Social Research Institute to comply with and give directions to comply with the wishes of the Minister. In those circumstances, I think the point which has been raised is a very valid point. It is contrary to the very open and whole support which the Minister has already given to the idea of independent reports even where these independent reports are contrary to Government policy, and for that reason I wonder would the Minister consider looking at subsection (5) before Report Stage. I think it would be very handy if he did that. It would be very appropriate if he did that. I would like to recommend that first action to the Minister.
I would like to point out that subsection (5) is a standard provision and it is included to enable the Minister for Social Welfare, as the Minister responsible to the Government for the agency's action, to give specific directions to the agency with regard to the performance of its function. It is considered that the responsible Minister needs some power of this nature to meet particular situations which may arise. It refers to the performance of the agency's functions only and does not extend to the functions themselves. These functions are set out in the Act to guarantee ample independence and scope for innovation to the agency.
The Minister has given us some information when he says it is a standard provision. Perhaps he would indicate what other statutory agencies or State-sponsored bodies it applies to as a standard provision. Secondly, perhaps the Minister would further clarify what type of direction in the performance of its functions the Minister might envisage giving to the agency, perhaps taking an example under (a), (b), (c) or (e) of the section, as to what type of direction on the performance of the function would be envisaged. At the moment it does seem to be very broadly framed, and I would echo a point that Senator O'Leary made. Indeed, I referred to it myself on Second Stage. This combat poverty agency is only going to be successful if, in fact, it does create quite a considerable stir in the establishment, to put it that way. If it does, in fact, have the capacity to show the changes in policy that will be necessary and identify these and have the independence to make specific proposals in the area without being hampered or curtailed or without being, in effect, directed in the performance of the function in such a way as to prevent it from discharging that type of function, it will not be able to adequately discharge the statutory role and functions which we are giving it in this section and which, I think, the House very much approves of. I am not entirely or even sufficiently reassured by what the Minister has said. I would like a further explanation, and he might take up the suggestion of Senator O'Leary and have a look at this provision on Report Stage.
The provision we are discussing here in subsection (5) of section 4 is a standard one. It is in the National Community Development Bill and also in the National Social Services Board Bill. The Minister will not have any power to change the functions that are contained in subsection (1) once the Bill is passed. They can only be changed by amending the legislation. I would like to assure the House that there is nothing sinister in this subsection. The principle reason why it is there is not to limit or to put any kind of harness on the agency but to help the agency rather than to hinder it. That is the purpose for which we envisage that section being used.
I can only speak for myself, but I can assure the Minister I do not think there is anything sinister about subsection (5). It is not a question of it being sinister, but we propose to improve the Bill and to try to make sure that this agency will get the best possible start. This agency and this type of approach has had a chequered enough history between various changes of Government and it appears, from listening to the contributions from both sides of the House, that there is a general welcome for the Bill and for the activities of the organisation. We all consider it on Committee Stage from a positive point of view. We are trying to improve it a little but so as to give it greater independence. I understand what the Minister says about not being able to change the functions of the agency. That is quite true. The Minister will not be able to eliminate the functions which are outlined in subsection (1) (a), (b), (c) or (d) or all the functions that are outlined in subsection (2). It will enable the Minister to do other things. I want to give the Minister an example of the power he or his successor would have under that legislation. If the Combat Poverty Agency prepared a report and submitted that report out of courtesy to the Minister prior to its publication — I am not talking about the annual report, I am talking about an ordinary report, a report on some aspect of poverty and which it intends for the general public — or because the Minister will have some representative on the agency it would come to the attention of the Minister. Under subsection (5) the Minister would be in a position to order the agency not to publish that report. That is not changing the function of the agency. It does fall within the definition of directing the agency in the performance of its functions. In other words, the Minister could issue a direction to the agency not to publish that report. The danger is that the agency might in time become a powerless extension of the Department of Social Welfare. In that regard the very real powers contained in subsection (5) should be looked at. I would have no objection to the Minister issuing directions to the agency from time to time to do or even not to do certain things. They could be more precisely defined, and in the event of them not being more precisely defined any directions given by the Minister should be of a public nature. That would be quite sufficient. It might not be quite sufficient but it would be better than what is envisaged under sub-section (5).
If, under the example I gave, the Minister decided that it was not in the public interest to publish a particular report he should be willing to place on record the fact that he had issued a direction to the agency and that direction would itself be the subject of public scrutiny. In all circumstances the power contained in subsection (5), which I accept is just put in as a routine matter, is however, because of the essential conflict which must exist between the Government and the agency, and there must be conflict between the two bodies if the Combat Poverty Agency is to be any good at all, not routine in the context of this Bill. For that reason I ask the Minister to look again at the question of subsection (5) and to give further consideration to it before Report Stage.
May I make one further comment arising from the Minister's reply to the comments which we have made on subsection (5)? The Minister said it is not intended to limit in any way or to put a harness on the activity of the agency. It is meant to be helpful. It would appear that the Minister has more than adequate opportunity and power under this Bill to be helpful in that sense. Under an earlier subsection of this section the Minister can modify, withdraw or confer additional functions on the agency. The Minister can increase the scope of the functions of the agency under subsection (3) of section 4. Equally under section 5, the agency is required to prepare strategic plans and to review these plans and the Minister has a very significant role in relation to that as the Minister has a role in relation to the appointment of members to the agency. It is very difficult to see how this power is needed in a specific way other than potentially to hamper and curtail the agency and deprive it of the necessary status it should have as an independent agency in this area. That is particularly in view of the functions given to this agency and the importance of those functions. If the matter was put in as a routine subsection it is not appropriate to this particular agency. I urge the Minister to look at it and, if it has only been included as a routine matter, to examine the implications of it and hopefully to withdraw it entirely or, at the very least, to provide that any exercise of his power to issue directions will be something which will be made public.
I am a little puzzled about the functions of the Combat Poverty Agency Bill. For example, subsection (d) refers to the promotion of greater public understanding of the nature, cause and extent of poverty. It would seem to me that if the causes happen to be the nature of the society, if somebody decides that the reason poverty exists is because there is inequality in all the structures of society, should the Combat Poverty Agency make a recommendation that we change the system of society, that we go on to some other sort of order, say a Socialist order in our society rather than a private enterprise society? If the causes happen to be the system then the right thing to do is to recommend a change in the system. We all know that that is not going to happen.
The Government have decided to set up the agency. The Minister for Health and Social Welfare is the person responsible to the Government for the agency's actions. He would also have the function of giving specific directions to the agency with regard to the performance of its functions. Again, in similar legislation it is a standard provision. It was felt, from experience, that Government direction would be helpful. As I said previously, it is not envisaged that that function would interfere with the independence and scope of the agency. It is felt that there is sufficient independence guaranteed, particularly in subsection (1).
On the point raised by Senator O'Leary, in section 4 (2) (g) they have the function of the publication of an annual report and such other reports as the Agency may from time to time consider appropriate. It is not envisaged that the power of the Minister would be used to stop the publication of such a report. In reply to Senator Harte, the agency will be free to advise and make recommendations to the Minister on all aspects of economic and social planning in relation to poverty in the State.
Of course I appreciate the Minister's point and we all appreciate with regard to power that it is not the intention of the Minister to use it, but we are legislating for the future, for other Ministers of this persuasion and other persuasions. We must constantly bear in mind that fact. The Minister has the ultimate power to dismiss this agency if he so desires and that is right. I am in favour of that. I do not want the State to establish something which has an existence over and above the State. That is the kind of power the Minister should have, the power to actually fire the agency if he is not satisfied with it, because by doing so he will have to justify himself in public. That power is contained in section 7 (5) which provides that any member, and all members I am sure, can be removed if it appears to the Minister to be necessary for the effective performance of the agency. That is the ultimate weapon the Minister has and I support that, but the Minister is cloaking himself with an additional power which can only be used to stifle the agency and the agency's independence. I want to say to the Minister, as I said before, that it is my experience of State enterprises that the influence of representatives of the Minister is disproportionate to their numbers. That influence will be even stronger in the event of their having the power or suggesting that the Minister is considering in any particular case utilising the power contained in subsection (5). I appeal to the Minister to give further consideration to this matter.
It should be kept in mind that the responsibility for the elimination of poverty will rest with the Government and with a particular Minister. It is not envisaged that the setting up of this agency will mean that whenever questions of poverty are raised in the future Ministers will answer them by simply saying that they have no further function in the matter and that it is a matter for the Combat Poverty Agency, that they have done this great thing of setting up the agency and therefore it is the job and the responsibility of the agency and that Ministers no longer have to provide the answers. For that reason the Government and particularly the Minister who is answerable to the Government in that direction must hold this power, to be able to expand the work of the agency. Ultimately the Government are responsible to see that the work is done. That is why this responsibility in subsection (5) is still placed on the Minister. It is necessary. It is not to limit the agency, because it is in the Government's interest, no matter what Government are in power, that this agency succeeds. No Government Minister will use the power in this to hamper or hinder the work of the agency. That would not be a motive of any Government Minister or any Government at any time. It would be a pity if a Minister for Health and Social Welfare at any given time felt that the agency could do more or could expand their role and that Minister had not the power to direct them to do that. In view of this ultimate responsibility we should leave that subsection there because the Minister should be free to give directions from time to time to the agency. It is only natural to assume that these directions, if they have to be given, will be the ones of help and assistance directed at an expansion of the work rather than a hindrance of it. The ultimate responsibility for the success or failure of the agency must be carried by the Government and the Minister.
I do not know whether we can pursue this much further at this stage. It may be something we will have to come back to on Report Stage. I am still waiting for a convincing explanation of how this power would be exercised. The Minister talks about the need for the Minister under the Act to be able to expand the functions of the agency. That is under a different subsection, sub-section (3). We approve of that and there is no problem about it. The Minister can review strategic plans, he appoints the members of the agency, but it is giving a direction on the performance of the functions of this particular agency that worries us. It worries us because this agency — Senator Harte pointed this out — is going to be delving very deeply into our society. It is going to be looking at the causes and the structures of our society in so far as they perpetuate poverty, and if a Minister politically disagrees with the approach of the agency and starts giving directions about the performance of the functions then the agency is gone down the Swannee. That is the problem.
What can the agency do if the Minister directs that they stop this approach and carry on in a different way in discharging their functions, that he does not want to hear any more talk about examining structures of our society, let them go and do some research of a university nature? I am not saying any particular Minister in office at the moment would do that. I am not even pointing the finger at any particular administration. What I am saying is that we are legislating for the future, we are legislating to establish an agency to combat poverty. As was said by a number of Members of this House on Second Stage, combatting poverty in our society means radically altering the basis of our society because of the kinds of structures we have which perpetuate poverty in our society.
I very much agree with the Minister when he says that establishing an agency is not of itself going to combat poverty. It is the kind of policies which are going to emerge, it is the attitude of the Government towards those policies, that is going to be crucial. The Minister has taken a very benign view and says that this power will only be used to encourage the agency, to support it, to enlarge on its role. That might be, but we have no guarantee. Indeed given the subject matter I would venture to suggest it is more likely that the power will be used in the future by a Minister to direct the agency away from an approach which might, in fact, threaten the establishment, which might, in fact, cause waves, which might, in fact, require radical policy changes and approaches. I am not sure whether we can pursue this any further at this stage, but I certainly have not as yet had any convincing example or convincing explanation from the Minister as to why this power, which the Minister has said is a routine type of control by the Minister, is introduced in this Bill.
I would like to agree with what other Senators have said but also to point out that this kind of direction power by the Minister may not, in fact, be exercised in an overt and very public kind of way but it is quite usual in agencies of this type, under Departments, that at least one member of the agency is a civil servant out of the Minister's Department. While the Minister may not overtly or directly say: "I am directing the agency not to do this or not to do that", when he is represented on the agency by someone from his Department one can get into the situation where suggestions coming up, say, at a meeting of the agency, will be discouraged by the Department person saying: "Well, you know, if we get ourselves into that kind of area we may find that the Minister might not like it and a direction could be issued" and so on. It does not necessarily have to be an actual overt direction or overt interference but the kind of atmosphere that is thrown over the work of an agency like this by the fact that in the background there is a subsection like this and that warning noises can be made from time to time. Like Senator Robinson, I have not yet heard any convincing explanation as to why this particular power is needed in addition to the other powers mentioned by Senator O'Leary and Senator Robinson that give the Government ultimate control over the agency. By and large agencies of this sort should be free to work in as open and as free an atmosphere as possible, and this kind of envisaging of directions from the Minister from time to time seems to be putting an additional and unnecessary and rather dangerous shackle on the activities of the agency.
I know the Minister is very concerned about this because I have known him for quite a while now and I know where his particular concern would go. It is only right that we deal with the question of the function of the agency well because there is a lot involved here. Poverty assails the dignity of the individual and it does not stop there. We are talking about something that is a social condition which involves the individual's relationship to the whole community and to its structures, to its institutions, its need, its lack of opportunity, its helplessness to cope with hostile or uncaring, exploitive situations or institutions. Overall it is a lack of dignity and above all it is the vulnerability to injustice of the individual that has to relate to the social conditions that I refer to here.
It is important to understand this in the sense that any Combat Poverty Agency will have to be very, very penetrating. As Senator Robinson pointed out, if there is too much interference and if there is not enough put on the record today about the problems of this section then for political reasons, no matter which Government are in power, there is a chance that the actual purpose of the agency can he hampered to a very large extent. The poverty report which we got in Ireland some years ago said that the existence and extent of inequality in Irish society is evidenced by the available data on such matters as the distribution of wealth and incomes, regional imbalances, educational and housing problems and rural underdevelopment. The report then went on to say that 24 per cent of the entire population were on the poverty line and that no less than 21 per cent of these were children under the age of 14. On those points I would like to stress how deep poverty goes, how extensive it is and how investigative the Combat Poverty Agency will have to be and how much freedom they will need to do that investigation, and if there is too much constraint put on them by the powers of the Minister, who may get himself into a political situation where he has to take a certain course of action, then the whole purpose of setting up the Combat Poverty Agency can, in fact, be very badly hampered. This is my major concern on the Bill. I can live with the rest of it but I have difficulty with this particular section.
I have nothing further to add to what I said about the section. I am amazed at all the points made in relation to that subsection. It might come to the notice of the Government that some area of poverty or deprivation should be looked at and under this subsection the Minister could give a direction to the agency to examine and report on that particular area. I am sure we have not yet seen all the forms that poverty can take and will take in the future. It is necessary to enable the Government of the day to look at these new areas that will undoubtedly come to light as time goes on. As Senator O'Leary said I hope the legislation will be there for a long time. Again I would ask the House to agree to that subsection as there is absolutely nothing unusual in it.
I would again urge the Minister to consider the possibility or I would be prepared to consider the possibility of an amendment for Report Stage which might allay some of the fears which we have in relation to this very general power in the subsection. For example, I suggest the direction referred to be made a more formal direction so that it does not have the potential informal impact that Senator McGuinness was talking about, a sort of cramping of the scope of the agency in relation to a wide area of performance of its activities by a sort of threat that there might be a direction from the Minister. Secondly, the direction made in that more formal sense by any Minister should be published — this could be done by a requirement that any directions made by the Minister to the agency would be published in the annual report of the agency at the end of the given year — or some provision of that kind to ensure that the power in so far as it would be exercised, would be exercised in the manner which the Minister feels confident would be the way in which it would be exercised.
As the Senator has indicated that she intends putting down an amendment we will certainly consider her amendment when it comes in and see what can be done at that stage.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
Section 5 deals with the plans and review of the agency. Assuming that this particular agency will be formed within the next two or three months and that it will take two-and-a-half years to prepare a plan, which seems to me to be an unusually long time — I shall not say this is a waste of time, I know that a certain amount of work will have to be done — in the meantime the problem of poverty will be with us and we will not be tackling it as envisaged. Having regard to the fact that the EC Council of Ministers met last December, have their programme prepared and are willing to contribute to 50 per cent of whatever programmes are available, the loss of money in that way, as a result of a two-year delay, seems to be far too long. I wonder if the Minister would comment on that and perhaps bring some hope by suggesting December 1986 rather than December 1987. The fact that 25 million ECUs have been provided by the EC is something we cannot overlook and should be looking for as quickly as possible.
I would hope, rather than have reviews, plans or records prepared, with all the work of voluntary organisations and health boards throughout the country that we should be able to come up with a plan much sooner than December 1987. Perhaps the Minister would comment on that.
Generally, on section 5, I welcome the fact that the agency will be required to prepare strategic plans. This is a good step and desirable in the particular context but I am not entirely satisfied with the structure as envisaged in section 5. It requires the agency, within quite strict time limits, to prepare strategic plans and submit them both to the Minister for Social Welfare and the Minister for Finance for their approval, a programme outlining the agency's suggested activities.
There is no requirement on either Minister to approve the plan within any specified time and there is no procedure for doing so. I would be gravely worried that it could become a serious problem for the agency if it were to prepare a strategic plan, submit it for the approval of two different Ministers with no indication of what the time scale would be in which the plan would be approved. This could seriously hamper the work of the agency. Does the section require that there be approval before the plan is implemented or is it just simply the submission for approval which allows the agency or prevents it from putting into practice the kind of strategies that are envisaged? It is not clear to me as to how that will work.
If I could come to the time limits of the first strategic plan contained in subsection (2), again it is necessary to be clear on precisely what that subsection means. As I understand it, the strategic plan is to be drawn up by the agency. It will be a plan in respect of a period which will end on 31 December 1987. I would assume that section was drafted in the hope and expectation that it would be a period of at least two years, commencing on 31 December 1985 to 31 December 1987. It would envisage the agency itself being established — hopefully this side of the summer — and having between then and 31 December to finalise, presumably with approval, the strategic plan for the first two years. I would like the Minister to say if this is the correct interpretation and whether he is confident that the agency will be established on the operative date and soon enough to enable it to prepare a plan within that time.
What the plan envisages is the projected activities of the agency over a period. One has to be clear on the plan before one can implement the projected activities in that plan. It is of vital importance that, by the end of 1985, at the latest, the first plan, which is for the period ending two years later, would be fully approved and, in effect, in a position to be implemented by the agency.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
There is a vote in the other House and I am sure the Minister would like to attend.
What is it proposed to do now?
Could we have a fiveminute sos?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That seems to be agreed.
Sitting suspended at 5.10 p.m. and resumed at 5.15 p.m.