At the outset I should like to congratulate those Deputies who made their maiden speeches in the course of this debate, not least of whom was my colleague, the Minister for Economic Planning and Development.
I have been very interested in and to some extent impressed with the debate, particularly with the rather shorter contributions we had today which gave some interesting and revealing views from former Ministers of different previous Governments. I shall come to those later, but first I should deal with what seems to be the main point of criticism in so far as the Bill is concerned. While the setting up of this Department was welcomed by almost every Deputy who spoke, it was said that it should have control in regard to the allocation of expenditure if it were to have teeth. In most cases the definition of whether it would have teeth or power lay in the question of whether it would have control over expenditure.
I am fascinated by this argument which is merely a reflection, particularly so far as the Fine Gael Deputies are concerned, of a view put forward fairly trenchantly by the Leader of Fine Gael when he announced the names of the Fine Gael front bench as reported in The Irish Press on Thursday, 15th September, 1977. I quote:
He did not believe that economic planning and finance could be separated successfully, and already he had heard that this division in Government Departments was causing "great tension and difficulties". After studying the British arrangements some years ago he had come to the conclusion that the planning section which did not control finance did not work.
That theme in one way or another was put forward by quite a number of Deputies. If one accepts that view there is no logical way in which one can support this Bill. I wonder why the Fine Gael spokesman, Deputy P. Barry, announced earlier on that they were not opposing the Bill. Indeed a number of his colleagues were even stronger in their welcome of the Bill. If one believes that we cannot successfully separate the two functions of planning and control of expenditure then this Bill is totally wrong and is going to do great damage to this country. Let us examine that.
If you are saying, as many Deputies did, that control of expenditure should be given to the Minister for Economic Planning and Development if he is to have any power, what you are saying is either that we should abolish the Department of Finance and transfer all of their functions to the Department of Economic Planning and Development, or that we should not have a Department of Economic Planning and Development and all of these powers should be vested in the Department of Finance. Either way you are saying that they should be in one Department under one Minister.
It has been found from experience and under a number of Governments that it is not possible effectively to produce the kind of economic planning that is needed and at the same time to operate all the other functions that are required of the Minister for Finance, who is by law necessarily the same person as the Minister for the Public Service. On a technical point, if the argument were that we should abolish the Department of Finance and transfer all their functions to the Department of Economic Planning and Development a lot of people might wonder why we go to all that trouble. If that were to be the argument there would be some constitutional difficulties because the Constitution states at Article 28.7.1º:
The Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the member of the Government who is in charge of the Department of Finance must be members of Dáil Éireann.
It would appear, therefore, that transfer of the functions of the Minister for Finance as they were at the adoption of the Constitution to another Minister would probably require a constitutional amendment. However, that is merely a technical point. That is not what is proposed to be done. What is proposed to be done is to transfer to the Minister for Economic Planning and Development functions of the Minister for Finance which were not conferred on him by law but were assumed by him over the years and which no Minister for Finance, I think, has ever effectively exercised and which, given the complexity of the functions of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for the Public Service and the sheer work-load involved, could not be exercised effectively by any one man.
It seems therefore that the basic criticism made of this proposal in the debate falls and lacks logic unless one says "We are opposing this Bill". There would be logic in that. There is, I suggest, no logic in looking at the Bill and then saying that we should transfer control of the allocation of expenditure to the Minister for Economic Planning and Development, which takes us back to square one again and to the present set-up of the Department of Finance.
Not alone would I freely acknowledge but I would urge very strongly that the success of this arrangement depends on two basic requirements, both of which I believe are being met in the arrangements we are making. The first is that the two Departments, the Department of Economic Planning and Development and the Department of Finance, should be so structured that they can mesh together at the right points. Arrangements are being made precisely to ensure that.
Perhaps I should explain in a little more detail what I mean. Firstly, the preparation and bringing forward of the budget is of course a function of the Department of Finance, but arrangements are being made whereby the Department of Economic Planning and Development can be kept informed and can make their own contribution in that regard. Similarly arrangements are being made whereby the Department of Finance will, to use a jargon phrase, plug-in the Department of Economic Planning and Development in relation to the latter Department's preparation of longer-term plans so that the Department of Finance can be kept informed of the trend in that regard and can make their input to the preparation of such plans. Without that kind of structure this arrangement would not have much hope of success.
There is another and perhaps in some sense more important requirement and that is that the two political heads of the Departments concerned should be working in close co-operation and ensuring that the structure that is set up works. Despite various things that have been said in the course of this debate I am not only content but determined to ensure the success of the operation of the Department of Economic Planning and Development. I know that my colleague is equally determined to ensure this success and to ensure this success in co-operation with the Department of Finance. Of course the structure we are setting here is not related only to individuals; nevertheless in its first years it is relevant to consider the people who will be responsible for ensuring the success of the new Department in the way that I have been outlining.
In that context I can say that my colleague and I have worked very closely together over quite a number of years and sometimes in very difficult circumstances. We have never had the slightest difficulty in co-operating together. Sometimes we have perhaps a different approach, a different assessment of certain problems. It would be very strange if we did not, but this is not something that means we cannot resolve such differences of opinion and work together as rational people can do. We have demonstrated we can do it, and there is no reason why we should not be able to do it in relation to the operation of these two Departments.
There seems to be, however, a number of mythological tales which we have heard in the course of this debate and, indeed, read in comment outside this House. One of the myths we seem to have to live with is the idea that the Department of Finance is a super Department. I suppose the main reason for the origin of that tale is that for many years the Department of Finance was the only Department, that is, outside the Department of the Taoiseach, which is in a different category, which had a kind of supervisory role in regard to other Departments. Certainly it had to operate specifically to the other Departments. There were people in each Department who dealt with the Department of Finance and people in the Department of Finance who dealt specifically with certain other Departments. Then the Department of the Public Service was set up. It has the same role and structure and it has to operate on the same basis. However, as I mentioned earlier, that Department, by law, has to be under the control of the Minister who is also Minister for Finance.
The new Department of Economic Planning and Development will be the third Department which will be in that central role. It may be that, because of this and because of the old treasury tradition and how it was exercised, this idea grew up of a super Department. There is no such thing as a super Department. Perhaps I might say at this stage that listening to Deputy Clinton, and I listened with great interest, and even more so to Deputy Browne, I was reminded of some of Seán O'Casey's later plays where he was tilting very fiercely at a society which did not exist, one that had existed perhaps when he was in Ireland. His great efforts seemed to be directed at a society I did not recognise, because I grew up after he had shaken the dust of this country from his feet.