I was dealing yesterday with some of the points which were raised on this amendment and on the associated amendments, Nos. 5, 6 and 7. I was pointing out that Deputy Pattison must have misunderstood what I was saying or perhaps I did not make it clear enough. I want to reiterate that what is visualised and I think what is essential and without which no planning will occur, is that the various interests in the economy will be consulted primarily by the Minister for Economic Planning and Development before the preparation of a plan for economic and social development. That would be part of the process of preparation of a plan and, thereafter, when the proposals for the plan were fully formulated, the matter would go to the Government.
It would only be when the Government had made a decision to adopt the plan either in the form put forward or in some amended form that the question of its implementation would arise. At that point—I think this is one of the matters the Deputies were concerned about—Deputy Barry and Deputy Pattison seemed to fear that the Oireachtas might have no opportunity to discuss the plan. I got the impression, not perhaps wrongly, that Deputy Pattison seemed to think the matter should come before the Houses of the Oireachtas before the Government made a decision on it. I do not think, quite frankly, that that is a workable approach to this problem.
The Houses of the Oireachtas have a particular role to play in regard to the dissemination of the terms of a national plan, a role to play in comment and, if necessary, criticism of certain proposals but I cannot see it being workable that proposals would be put forward in the House and that the Houses of the Oireachtas, having contributed their views, the final decision would then be made by the Government. I see that, in terms of a complete national plan having been produced. When I say that I am not, of course, precluding the possibility of the production of a green paper in respect of which there would be a debate in both Houses of the Oireachtas and in respect of which views would be expressed.
I must, however, say that a green paper of that kind would start life under considerable difficulties having regard to the content and history of the green paper issued by the previous Government. I am not precluding the possibility of the production of a green paper which would form the basis for a plan but it could not be, by definition, in such a case the complete proposals for a plan, which is primarily I think what is envisaged in these amendments.
I have tried to illustrate the manner in which the proposals for a plan are brought forward by any Government. I believe that they must come before this House. Indeed it would be in the interests of the Government concerned to ensure that they did. I also tried to indicate, if for any reason a Government wanted to avoid that, how the Opposition could highlight the Government's efforts to prevent the matter coming before the House. The circumstances in which a Government would want to prevent that coming before the House are almost inconceivable so far as I am concerned. It would not make any sense at all for a Government to produce a national plan for economic and social development and then try to hide its light under a bushel. It is self-defeating for a Government to approach the whole problem in that way.
In connection with Deputy Pattison's amendment designed to make it mandatory by statutory provision that consultation would take place with the parties constituting the National Economic and Social Council as of the date of the passing of the Act, I have already pointed out that this could lead to very considerable difficulties. I am not saying, as I think Deputy Pattison thought I was saying, that it would preclude consultation with other groups. I am saying that it is certainly conceivable that the bodies concerned could change and there could be considerable difficulty in identifying that this body or bodies was the lawful successor of one of the bodies at present constituting part of the National Economic and Social Council. A statutory provision of this kind would lead us into far more trouble than the absence of such a provision, especially having regard to the fact that consultation with such bodies would be axiomatic in the preparation of a plan for economic and social development.
There is one other matter in regard to the NESC I should mention, that is, that the term of the present council is coming to an end. In fact, certain provisions are being made in regard to its extension. I draw attention to that fact to illustrate that it is conceivable that, at some time in the future, there might be no NESC. There could be a different body and then we could be in the same kind of difficulty as the one I have tried to outline in regard to the individual bodies constituting it. On balance, I do not think there is anything to be gained, and there is a considerable amount to be lost, by specifying the bodies concerned and providing statutorily that they must be consulted.
While I sympathise with one of the points made by Deputy Barry, I am not sure there is a great deal of validity in it but, in an effort to meet the point he is making, I would suggest that we consider an amendment on these lines. I refer the Deputy to section 2 (2) (c) which begins:
to review and appraise the plans and activities of Departments of State ...
If that were to read:
to identify in consultation with Departments of State and to review and appraise the plans and activities of such Departments ...
I wonder would that go anywhere towards meeting Deputy Barry's point of view?