I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
This Bill is required to give effect to the announcement made by the Taoiseach in the Dáil on 5th July last that a new Department of Economic Planning and Development would be established. I am also preparing, and will shortly introduce, further legislation to provide for the appointment of Ministers who will not be members of the Government. These two major developments in relation to our institutions of Government will provide a solid basis for carrying out the programme of national development which the Government are now embarked on.
In considering this Bill, it is important to see, in perspective, what is being proposed, to recall the background to our current economic state and to try to foresee our environment in the coming years. The Ministers and Secretaries Act on which our present structures of Government are based was enacted in the twenties. It has evolved since then mainly in relation to the creation of new Departments and the re-allocation of the functions of Government as the need arose. This present Bill should be seen against the fact that since the twenties the role of the State in economic and social affairs has developed greatly—both internationally and here at home. There have been a number of attempts over the years to cope with this situation.
In the late twenties and thirties the concept of State-sponsored bodies was introduced to our public service and has developed since then. They made possible much of the economic and social development which has taken place by providing the framework whereby policies are implemented and various programmes delivered to the community. In the late fifties and early sixties also various innovations took place. The Government programme for economic development in 1958 and the emphasis within our public service on regional development are cases in point. The late sixties saw an emphasis on public service reform— which is now being given renewed momentum by the Government. With these developments during the past 50 years, as I have said, the role of the State in economic and social development has grown. Hand in hand with this, of course, has been the resulting growth in economic responsibilities of certain Ministers—but most pronounced in the case of the Minister for Finance. One need not dwell unduly on the very serious economic difficulties which this country has experienced over the last four years to appreciate the need for Government to reorganise itself in order to strengthen its capacity to lead and fashion the course of economic and social development. What is now required is that government has an institutional capacity, strategically placed, to develop and co-ordinate its response to the challenge of economic and social development. This strategic capacity must be effected at the highest level; in our view by a Government who are specifically equipped, at ministerial and Department levels to spearhead economic planning and development.
Ever since the Public Services Organisation Review Group reported in 1969 a debate has, I will not say raged, but at least ebbed and flowed, on the desirability of reforming the machinery of government. In the past few months we have seen the Public Service Advisory Council in their report for the year ended 31st October, 1976, recommend that "... urgent attention be given to the provision of appropriate planning institutions in the public service"; indeed the council went on to say that the plans of individual Government Departments should not only be consistent with, but form an integral part of, a national plan.
We on this side of the House have for a long time been convinced of the necessity for and the practicability of separate institutions for planning. On assuming office, the Government decided that the prospects for overall national planning would be greatly strengthened if a separate Department were established with a specific planning remit. In deciding on this the Government were aware fully that planning is a difficult activity whose achievements, however substantial they may be, are often less considered by the public than its inevitable failures no matter how unimportant relatively. The 10 per cent of failures may attract more attention than the 90 per cent of successes. The planner will sometimes be discouraged and, if he has the opportunity to direct his efforts to an activity susceptible to more readily-achievable targets like financial control, he may well succumb to the temtation to abandon planning. In sum, planning is an activity which needs to be structured in an organisation in such a way that the planner does not divert his energies unduly either to the performance of day-to-day executive activities or into other areas. This is best secured by the creation of a specialised area of organisation which has primary and overall responsibility for planning.
Lest anyone should object that this will leave the planner in an ivory tower, I would emphasise that the very real consideration which will prevent planning and development from being removed from reality is the fact that the Minister in charge of the Department will be in regular contact with his colleagues at Government meetings. Furthermore, it is our firm resolve that the Minister for Economic Planning and Development will have a very close working relationship with the Minister for Finance so that, although the function of economic and social planning will be organisationally separate from the budgetary work of the Department of Finance, both functions will mesh into the systems for co-ordinating the whole business of government.
Although most people intuitively regard planning as a good thing, there is, regrettably, little consensus, even amoung the theorists, as to what the concept involves precisely. At one end of the spectrum the term has connotations of rigid compulsion: at the other, it is a loose arrangement for undisciplined forecasting. The Government's view of planning places it between the two extremes. While the influence of Government in economic affairs is not all-pervasive, few will deny that an attempt to outline the direction of the economy rationally and in a comprehensive manner is anything other than sensible. It is thus partly to extend the time horizon of economic policy and partly to give it a higher status that central responsibility for co-ordinating economic and social planning is being assigned to a new Department.
While the finer details of the whole planning process have yet to be worked out, our general design is clear. The new Department will be the focal point for a widespread planning system throughout the whole public service. Other Government Departments will have responsibility for developing the economy from particular viewpoints and for developing and implementing policy in particular areas; the new Department, with limited executive responsibilities, will be largely concerned with the development of the overall view of the goals of the economy and with the co-ordination and development of sectoral and regional plans against national criteria. In relation to regional development, I believe that the new Department should have a major role to play. I am strengthened in this belief by the proposals of the National Economic and Social Council in its report on "Institutional Arrangements for Regional Economic Development" when it says that:—
The primary objective of regional development is to remove, or at least reduce, regional inequalities in living standards and opportunities, within the overall national objective of full employment at rising living standards. The achievement of this objective requires the creation of employment opportunities and amenities in particular places and regions. This objective cannot be achieved by any single body or agency but requires co-ordinated effort by the relevant Government Departments, State Agencies and Local Authorities both at the policy-making and day-to-day executive levels. This co-ordination is required both at national and regional levels. There is no single body or agency at national level with overall responsibility for all aspects of regional revelopment (the Regional Development Committee which was charged with this task has not met since early 1972), while at regional level the performance of the Regional Development Organisations has been uneven. Any proposals for institutional arrangements for regional development must try to remedy these defects.
In making proposals for change in the institutional arrangements for regional development it must be borne in mind that radical institutional changes may be impossible or self-defeating, and that changes must be gradual, building on existing arrangements to work towards a more satisfactory system. Equally, the creation of an extra layer or layers of Government should be avoided because it would in all probability exacerbate the existing problems.
Given the importance of regional development it is essential that there should be, and should be seen to be, a real commitment to regional development at the very highest level. It is our view that, without political involvement it will be difficult to achieve progress towards the development and effective implementation of regional plans and policies. We recommend, therefore, that a Minister should be assigned responsibility for regional policy.
Before I speak of the practicalities of the model proposed, however, I would like to make some more general comments. While an apology for planning might, for ideological reasons, have been necessary in the early 1960s, it is now scarcely necessary for me to say that the Government do not subscribe to an imposed concept of planning. There is no doubt, however, that in all Western democracies, the State is being called upon to play a greater role in the fostering of economic and social progress. For this it must have at its disposal the most up-to-date skills and techniques backed up by political commitment. Such techniques and skills for the planning process are essential but they are in the end only the tools and the scaffolding; the real heart of the business of Government is policy. It is in the area of providing a service to all Departments to promote developmental but co-ordinated policy-making that the new Department may, indeed, make its most important contribution. Novel solutions and imaginative ideas will have to emerge if the economic and social problems which we face are to be overcome. All the analysis, diagnosis and identification of problems and difficulties will not in the end solve anything unless the final step of translating the process into action is followed through. Resolute government will also be required. With the best will in the world on all sides, from Government, trade unions and employers, it may be that a consensus will not be forthcoming. I cannot but agree with the National Economic and Social Council in its Report No. 32 on its work in the period 1974-76 when it says:
To the extent that such discussion (between the various interest groups) succeed in getting to grips with the basic issues, differences and divisions are exposed, articulated and possibly reinforced rather than reconciled. While the exposure and articulation of unreasonable viewpoints may not change them it could detract from their support. However, in the last resort such differences may be resolved, or the action that is appropriate to the circumstances taken despite them, only by a political process or procedure. This is a responsibility which in a democracy must properly be borne by the Government alone.
Implementation of the policies necessary for economic well-being requires more than the whole-hearted commitment of the Government; it demands that the institutions through which the Government discharges its responsibility be adequate for the task in hand. The mission of economic reconstruction with which this Government has been entrusted poses a considerable challenge to those institutions, particularly the civil service.
As far back as 1961 the then Taoiseach, the late Seán Lemass, was asking how far the civil service as organised then could contribute effectively to a dynamic policy of economic development. He referred to the help given by the Department of Finance in particular in generating new ideas. We all from time to time worry about the flexibility of old institutions and their office-holders to adapt to changing circumstances. It was to help this process of change along the road that in the late 1950s and early 1960s the Economic Development Branch and later the Development Division of the Department of Finance were established and from the beginning they made a weighty contribution to economic policy in the 1960s and, in particular, to the change towards freer trade. What happened then shows that the civil service can, if directed properly, be as imaginative as any other group. This Government will not fail to provide such direction. One result of the transfer to my colleague, the Minister for Economic Planning and Development, of some of my burdens for economic policy is that I will, as Minister for the Public Service, be able to devote a greater amount of time towards the task of public service reform.
I therefore see the establishment of this new Department as part of the evolutionary process first begun when the Economic Development Branch was established within the Department of Finance. It may well be asked why we did not, if we considered a separate planning institution so important, establish some form of independent commission to look after such affairs. In my view Government Departments are more suited because they are at the very heart of our constitutional system of Government and the Minister for Economic Planning and Development will be answerable to this House for policy matters concerning economic and social planning and development. I can therefore think of no more suitable organisational form for such a unit of administration than a Government Department. In seeking statutory authority for the creation of this Department, Ireland will be pursuing an organisational course which has been followed successfully by many countries, like, for instance, Belgium, the Netherlands, West Germany and Sweden.
Having made these general observations I would like to speak of the functions and, in so far as they can be foreseen, of the operations of the new Department of Economic Planning and Development. First of all, their general remit will be to promote and co-ordinate economic and social planning for the development of the economy including the co-ordination of plans for the different sectors and regions. The effective exercise of this function will require a more professional planning and policy analysis capacity in most Departments of State to ensure that the central operations of the new Department have a reliable base in the main executive areas of Government.
As regards the particular steps necessary to discharge their general functions, the first essential for the new Department is, having regard to the current position and the trends affecting the economy, to identify the policies necessary for successful economic and social development. The Minister for Economic Planning and Development will report to the Government who will decide on national aims and policies and who may from time to time publish draft plans as discussion and consultation documents. Meanwhile it will be the responsibility of the Department to review and appraise the plans and activities of individual Departments in the light of overall national requirements. In undertaking this activity the Minister and the new Department will bear a heavy load in relation to consulting with and hearing the views of the various interests in relation to our economy. For instance, they will engage in consultation with the social partners and other appropriate groups, as may be desired, on matters of economic and social development and they will co-ordinate the dialogue on such matters. They will also participate in the relevant activities of international institutions relating to economic and social development, particularly the institutions of the EEC and OECD. Apart from the merits of this work in relation to effective policy formulation it will also ease the burden on certain Ministers who until recently had to deal with these matters in addition to an already very heavy work load. The end product of this activity will be a set of proposals to the Government for the co-ordination of the plans of Departments, having regard to all the inevitable constraints, and their integration with national social and economic plans. From this process, the Government will decide on their future economic and social policies.
Finally, it is intended that the Department of Economic Planning and Development will review the implementation of such national economic and social plans as may be approved of by the Government from time to time and will report thereon to the Government. We are therefore providing in this Bill for a system facilitating a continuing process of planning consisting of the identification of the measures necessary for the more effective operation of the economy, the recognition of constraints and the fixing of realistic targets in national plans, the review of implementation and the taking of corrective measures as planning cycle follows cycle. In this task all units of Government and, indeed, all interests in the community will have their contribution to make; the prime role of the new Minister and his Department will be as central co-ordinators and facilitators of the process with a crucial role in bringing these matters before Government and reviewing their implementation after Government decisions have been taken.
We are, in this Bill, laying down the structures for planning and intend, of course, to have them underpinned with statutory authority so that the new Department will have the legal authority to get their work done effectively; we are not laying down any rigid forms for planning itself, but we are leaving it open to the Department to devise for the consideration of the Government the actual strategies to be adopted. It is therefore not appropriate for me to deal here with any of the technical issues associated with planning and policy formation. Instead, I am proposing to the House the necessary measures to provide a framework within the administration through which all these things will be attended to. The creation of this new Department is seen by the Government as an important component in their overall strategy for dealing with the many economic and social questions confronting our society at present.