I wish to share my time with one of my colleagues.
National Development Plan 1994-99: Statements (Resumed).
That is in order.
In 1988 the biggest reservation was about the lack of consultation with the regions and the local authorities in formulating the plan. This error has been repeated on this occasion. Consultation has been minimal and much of the effort on the part of statutory and voluntary groups throughout the regions has come to nought. The fact that this plan had gone to Brussels before it was announced shows up this discussion for the charade that it is.
This plan represents the worst form of centralist planning. Money will be distributed on the basis of political considerations rather then on general needs. We must ask ourselves if we have got it right this time. As a nation our priority should be to reduce unemployment by creating real jobs, thereby reducing the high levels of deprivation in urban and rural areas. The Government is adopting a blunderbuss approach by throwing money around in a wasteful way at certain projects.
The last national plan stated that the Government's main priority for a five-year period was to address the deficiencies in our system and also create an environment conducive to increasing productive investment. Putting a plan in place that does not address the root causes of the problems is wasteful. In the five years since the publication of the last plan the main impediments to job creation have not been addressed. High levels of direct and indirect taxation are still with us. The major impediments to small businesses getting off the ground still exists; public liability, personal and employers liability insurance are still high. Attempts to resolve these problems have been hindered by vested interests in our society which the Government is afraid to take on. The Government has not addressed the inefficiencies in our court system in a serious way. Every time real change is contemplated the vested interests win the day.
Allowing those deficiencies to continue to exist means that money pumped into various projects will be largely wasted. The opportunities offered by the level of investment have been wasted. In excess of 300,000 people are now unemployed. That is but the base figure. It is closer to 400,000 when the numbers in part-time jobs or on training schemes are taken into account. The deprivation that existed five years ago is even greater now. We have a more widely divided society than we had then.
The Government's approach to this new plan gives me no hope that anything will be different this time. The Government has raised expectations throughout all communities. In every part of this country people were encouraged to bring forward projects but there was really no consultation between these communities and the Government, no translation of local effort into Government decision making. I do not believe that the expectations raised will be met.
We have seen the announcement of large scale investment and construction projects. These will result in the provision of jobs during the construction phase but those jobs will not be permanent. Unemployment figures will not be reduced in a meaningful way.
The so-called emphasis on eliminating social deprivation has not materialised. We hear much about that matter in the lead up to the announcement of the National Development Plan, especially from Labour Party spokespersons. When the Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare, Deputy Burton, spoke earlier about economic factors and indicators, she spoke more like an economist than a Minister. In parading indicators from time to time, the Government does not take into consideration the victims of Government policy in recent years.
The Government should have addressed the whole question of regional development in the context of local government reform. Instead they set up county enterprise boards, bureaucratic bodies that will consume large portions of their funding because of their inherent deficiencies. There will be numerous county enterprise boards duplicating work in some areas and leaving serious gaps in others. A regional approach would have been a much better way of getting real regional development off the ground. Instead of going down the road of real local government reform and combining the service role of local government with a new developmental role on a regional basis, the Government is taking a very fragmented approach to regional development which will not attain the desired result. There will be an appalling waste of public funding.
As Fine Gael spokesman on Social Welfare one of my jobs is to address the modern problems of urban living, which have not been considered in this plan. The widescale deprivation in large tracts of our cities and towns is not addressed. The consequence of this deprivation will be evident in the years ahead because there is a total lack of understanding of how to deal with the issues involved. In our cities and towns there is a vicious circle of deprivation, with unemployment creating despair and a rundown in people's living conditions and in the appearance of urban areas, resulting in these areas being unattractive to industrial investment, which in turn results in further unemployment. That vicious circle will not be broken by the thrust of this development plan. I hope the Government realises sooner rather than later that investment in large-scale projects will not help people create opportunities for themselves. I regret that this last opportunity we may get for some time to take positive action, may be lost.
The Government has taken a blunderbuss approach to regional development. The dramatic, high powered announcements that will issue in the weeks and months ahead will create an impression that the position will improve, but very little will be done to deal with the social problems which this country is facing.
Being one of the longest serving Members of this House it will be no surprise to Deputies that this is not the first time I have heard Fianna Fáil put forward their proposals for a better future. As a young Deputy I vividly recall the Lemass era of 1956 when 100,000 new jobs were announced in Clery's ballroom in Dublin. The catch cries were: "Bring your sons and daughters back from England" and "Get your husbands back to work". I remember the late Deputy Sean Collins, nephew of General Michael Collins, reminding the then Taoiseach, Mr. Lemass, that he did not tell people the jobs would be in Birmingham, Manchester, London, New York and Chicago.
In 1959 Mr. Lemass brought in a five-year economic plan with high principled ideals, but it got nowhere. He discovered that in the economic plan he had forgotten about the word "social" and in 1964 he brought in a five-year social and economic plan, with apologies to the mentally and physically handicapped, the sick and the infirm who had been forgotten about in the 1959 plan. People were reminded that as we developed our economy more money would be available to spend on the economic needs of the country. With little apology to the less well off in society, the word "social" was added to the five-year plan of 1964.
During the late 60s and early 70s the troubles began in Northern Ireland and that was a new debating platform for Fianna Fáil. They did not have to come forward with any plans or programmes to tell the country how they were going to govern. For a while during those turbulent times the then Taoiseach, Jack Lynch, was busy trying to contain the rebels, the armchair generals on the backbenches of his party. The next plan introduced was the Fianna Fáil election manifesto of 1977, and that is when the trouble started.
The Deputy forgot about the 14 point plan of 1973.
Like a few other programmes, that one did not get off the ground.
What about Fine Gael's programme?
Like the National Development Plan, the 1977 election manifesto was a give-away programme, scattering money around like confetti, as Deputy Harney said this morning. The Government threw money at problems without telling people what it was planning for. Having read this national plan and the synopsis, I share the view of many economists who wonder what the Government is planning for.
In 1982 the then Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey, introduced The Way Forward. That document was placed before the House as a motion to be adopted or rejected and it was lost, resulting in a general election and loss of power for Fianna Fáil. When Mr. Haughey was reelected as Taoiseach in 1987 he introduced the Programme for National Recovery, the implication being that the Government of 1983-87 was not a good Government and had destroyed the country. That Government set down basic principles to control the national debt and get public spending in order. It took action not because it was popular but because it was right, and it paid the price when it went out of power, losing 19 seats.
In 1990 Mr. Haughey introduced the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and now we have the Ireland —National Development Plan 1994-1999. Listening to all the promises of Fianna Fáil speakers, one after another telling us what the future will hold, it will be no great disappointment to me if this programme does not succeed. I wish it well and hope it will succeed, but it is too much like a Santa Claus programme, as Deputy Eamon Gilmore said this morning. I have been credited as the Deputy who put a name on the Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, when he was Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and had the reputation of never saying no. I glibly gave him the name “Uncle Albert” and I think it was a very apt description. Uncle Albert is doing us proud at present throwing money around like, as the late John Kelly would have said, a drunken sailor. We have now reached the new “AD era”— the Albert and Dick era. I agree with Deputy Gilmore that when the Taoiseach went to Edinburgh last year and discovered there was a Christmas box of £8 billion to be spent he did not want to give up Government and word was sent back to Dublin to do a deal which ensured Fianna Fáil stayed in Government.
I should like this plan to have been debated more thoroughly in the House. I would have liked an assurance that the plan was debated by all members of the Fianna Fáil and Labour Parties. However, there is no evidence to suggest that this happened.
To be parochial, there is nothing in the plan for north-east Donegal. Too many senior politicians regard this money as campaign money which if used to improve facilities in their constituencies will ensure their re-election. There is no evidence to suggest that the backbench Members of Fianna Fáil and Labour were consulted in the formulation of this plan. If they were consulted, then Deputy McDaid, my colleague in north-east Donegal, who has to carry the can for the Government in that constituency, must have been mute and was singlularly unsuccessful in his efforts. No money is being provided for harbours in County Donegal. The people in Greencastle, Moville, Buncrana and Rathmullan will be very disappointed at this lack of funding. I hope money will be provided to improve the main road between Buncrana and Bridgend and other roads in the area. The road from the Border to Bridgend, which is approximately one and a half miles, is in a good condition, but the remainder of the road is in a very poor condition. The Minister for the Environment cannot find money to improve this road.
Where were Deputy McDaid and Senators Maloney and McGowan when the plan was being formulated? They have been very quiet. The sooner I get answers to these questions, the sooner I will stop talking about this issue. These three public representatives have been indicted by what the Government call a national plan. This is not a national plan. On the Order of Business this morning I asked the Taoiseach if this was a national plan or a Fianna Fáil-Labour plan. It has now transpired that it is a Fianna Fáil-Labour Cabinet plan, and perhaps only a few selected members of the Cabinet are making the decisions. County Donegal has always been referred to as the Cinderella county. Any of the funding given to County Donegal has been directed to south-west Donegal; very little funding has been given to north-east Donegal. I take great exception to the people in that area being treated in that fashion.
The bishops of the west came together in an effort to motivate local communities into doing something to save the west. They blamed the lack of progress in the west on high levels of unemployment and emigration. There has been no response by the Government in the plan to their plea. I am bitterly disappointed that no money is provided in the plan for housing. There is something sick in a society which does not have the moral fibre to build houses for its homeless. The only answer the Government can give is that money for housing will have to be found from other sources. However, I cannot understand how no money for housing can be found in a sum of £20 billion.
The £8 billion we receive from Europe has to be matched by £4 billion, which the Government proposes to raise by way of taxation on workers who are already very heavily taxed, and £8 billion from Irish industry. Irish industries have told us that they are going through a very difficult time — they have low profits and many companies have gone bust. The Government says it proposes to raise £4 billion in taxation and Irish industry will give £8 billion. However, I have yet to hear Irish industry saying: "We will give £8 billion". I should like to know if the real sum is £8 billion or the projected sum of £20 billion. I should like answers to those questions.
I welcome the recent publication of the National Development Plan, including the increased allocations for the marine sector. It is good that the House has been given the opportunity to discuss the plan, one of the most fundamental plans ever produced in the history of this State, so soon after its publication.
In essence, the National Development Plan is a carefully developed and integrated strategy, designed to greatly enhance our economic development over the next five-six years. However, economic development is not an end in itself; it is important only as a means of creating greater prosperity and more jobs. As the synopsis accompanying the plan states: "This plan is about jobs". As I said, jobs are not an end in themselves; they are important because of the access they give our people to a decent way of life, to a sense of dignity and well being and for the opportunities they open up for our children and grandchildren. Even though the targets in the plan are challenging, they are achievable and realistic. They are achievable if we all play our part and work together. I would include all Members of the Dáil in that call. The Government has an obligation to make the plan work and the Opposition parties have an opportunity to support it.
I wish to deal specifically with the marine sector which is ready to play its part in two main ways — by creating jobs and increasing prosperity through the exploitation of natural resources, often in the most peripheral regions of the country, and by increasing our competitiveness as an exporting nation through more efficient and better port facilities. I have no doubt that the combination of these measures will result in significant numbers of temporary and permanent jobs, both directly and indirectly, over the lifetime of the plan. As Minister for the Marine, I have a strong philosophical view of the need to locate jobs on the periphery of this island — in other words, in the remote rural parts which have been neglected for so long. I should like to think that this plan, under my leadership and guidance in the Department of the Marine, will ensure the realisation of that philosophy.
The National Development Plan will provide for a basic investment programme of £270 million in the marine sector. Additional resources available through the Community initiative framework will bring the total for the marine sector to approximately £300 million. The key goals of the Department of the Marine are to ensure adequate and competitive port and shipping capacity and services so as to facilitate the growth of industry, agriculture, fisheries and tourism and to create the maximum number of sustainable jobs in the fisheries sector and also in port related activity, shipping and other marine industry.
The investment in the marine sector under the national plan will enable us to achieve all these goals. The main areas of investment as envisaged by the plan are: a substantial investment of £100 million in commercial ports; an investment of at least £137 million in the fisheries sector including aquaculture, the fleet, processing, fishery harbours and training; an investment of £9 million in marine research; a new programme involving an investment of £19 million in tourist angling, is an extremely important sector of tourism, and, for the first time under structural Funds, a £5.5 million programme of investment in coastal protection.
A major investment of £100 million is planned for ports and will focus on three main objectives: to facilitate the expansion of industry and agriculture and the expansion of tourism and to assist regional development.
The expansion of industry and agriculture requires that there are ready and efficient means available to get our products quickly and efficiently to European and other markets. The port development programme is aimed at facilitating the expansion of industry and agriculture by giving our ports a competitive advantage. This investment will take place in the strategic corridor ports of Dublin, Dún Laoghaire, Waterford, Cork, Rosslare and the Shannon Estuary, including Limerick and Foynes——
What about Donegal?
——as well as in important regional ports. Donegal is high on my list of priorities and I want to assure the Deputy of that.
I do not doubt that Minister.
I have a deep affection for that part of the country and, indeed, for all the Deputies who come from there. They have served this Dáil, their county and their country well.
Investments designed to stimulate increased competition at our ports will be a key element of the programme. Facilities to increase competition among shipping operators are essential to improve the frequency of services and to reduce costs. The programme also provides for investment in selected projects to improve capacity which which will be required to meet targeted market requirements. There will also be a focus on investment to improve port handling equipment. Improved handling will provide faster, more reliable ship turnaround and will also improve efficiency with resultant potential for lower charges.
The Tourism Task Force recognised access as one of the two biggest barriers to tourism development. The second objective of the port development programme is aimed at facilitating the expansion of tourism and, by improving access, assisting in the realisation of the employment and earning potential of this sector. The port investment to facilitate tourism development will be in Dún Laoghaire, Dublin, Rosslare and Cork.
Not in Donegal?
Donegal will be considered very closely in the context of the development plan and anything that I can do to give advantage to that part of the country, in the context of what I believe to be the correct philosophical and political direction of the Department of the Marine, namely, taking account of the disadvantaged peripheral regions, will be seriously taken into account.
The port development programme takes account of the national objective of achieving a balanced development between regions, which comes back to Deputy Harte's point. In many cases regional ports are the life blood of the local community and are of key economic importance in regional development. By assisting the maintenance of regional ports the programme will play a critical role in facilitating development in the regions. Investment is, therefore, planned in the main regional ports.
The investment programme for commercial ports is part of an overall development strategy for commercial ports. This will involve the introduction of legislation to provide for major changes in the management structures of the main ports with the establishment of commercial semi-State bodies and continued improvement of labour relations and practices. This will improve efficiency and enhance our ability to respond to market requirements.
For far too long the ports have been seen as the final link in a chain between Irish producers and their foreign customers. Efficient low cost ports should be the first step in linking Irish business with their customers. That is why every penny earmarked for ports in this plan will be money well spent. Its value lies not in any direct job creation in the ports but in the tens of thousands of jobs sustained or created further back along the chain if our ports are cheaper and more efficient.
The new development programme for the fisheries sector will be a totally integrated programme. For the first time, all fisheries areas including the fleet, aquaculture, processing, fisheries harbours, training, marketing and marine research will be included in a single integrated programme for the sector. This is a fundamental development. It will allow us to take a much more integrated and long term view of all aspects of the industry and to develop each individual aspect as a part of the whole. Total investment of £146 million is planned.
The general objective of the fleet development programme will be to bring about a sustainable balance between available fish resources and their exploitation within the framework of the European Common Fisheries Policy, a policy that I still believe did not give Ireland a fair deal in the sea fisheries context. The programme will include measures to improve and modernise the fleet in line with European Community fleet targets, including a new decommissioning scheme; maximise the quantity, value and quality of landings by increasing take-up of currently under-utilised quota and non-quota stocks; bring about the maximum employment in the catching sector consistent with long term viability and, most importantly, enhance operational safety. I cannot over emphasise the importance I attach to that because I believe what is required begins and ends with the safety of the vessel.
The aquaculture sector continues to grow in importance within the overall fisheries sector. The primary objective of the aquaculture development programme is to maximise the industry's contribution to the expansion of the Irish economy and to sustain and create lasting employment, particularly in the peripheral coastal regions. The strategy will include measures to improve efficiency and cost effectiveness, increase output, quality, competitiveness and employment, stimulate investment in new aquaculture products and new species and improve management practices for existing species.
A modern and dynamic fish processing sector is vital to maximising the value added to the Irish economy from the sea fisheries and aquaculture sectors. The fish processing programme will be directed to the improvement of conditions under which fishery and aquaculture products are processed and marketed. Investment will cover the provision of new processing facilities and the upgrading of existing facilities. The aim of the programme is to create a stronger fish processing and marketing base and so to maximise employment facilities and opportunities.
Capital renewal and development of infrastructure and facilities will be undertaken at the main fishery harbours and at local fishing and aquaculture harbours. Other measures include the expansion of port facilities and the ice supply network. During the currency of my Ministry I would like to see the updating and modernisation of ice plants. It is fundamental that all our fishery harbour centres have updated and modernised plants. The programme will also focus on developing the small harbour — this comes back to Deputy Harte's point, which was very relevant — where the fishing and aquaculture industries have an important role in the local economy.
Is the Minister saying we will get money in north east Donegal?
I am saying that within the overall context of the National Development Plan, as part of my strategy, I will be taking a serious look at the peripheral regions. If those regions include Donegal the Deputy can be certain that Donegal will be uppermost in my mind.
Why was it not mentioned in the National Development Plan?
The Deputy will appreciate that every harbour, river, pier and so on could not be specifically addressed in the plan, but the Deputy can take it that it is my heartfelt wish to give money to Donegal if at all possible.
A major new programme of investment in marine research will be undertaken under the auspices of the Marine Institute, another new very important element within the marine sector, something I am very proud to have established. This will provide the essential research back-up to support the development of our marine resources. The investment programme will be geared at key centres of expertise nationwide. It will underpin employment and job creation throughout the marine sector. By enhancing our technological capacity to exploit all our marine resources we will achieve greater efficiency, productivity and added value. The planned investment builds directly on the present funding initiatives under the EC-assisted STRIDE programme. This has enabled us to substantially upgrade key marine research facilities.
A main theme of the National Development Plan is the development of our economy as a high skills one. This aspect is not overlooked in the marine sector where the objective of the training programme is to improve the level of efficiency, safety, quality and business skills in the industry.
The Department of the Marine is currently working on the new operational programme for the fisheries sector. The programme will set out indicative allocations to each subprogramme of the programme and define the detailed requisite measures to be applied. In order to draw down the funding for the fisheries sector with the least possible delay we intend to finalise the operational programme with the utmost urgency. In this connection I am anxious also to have as much input as possible by industry representatives into the operational programme and the final allocation of funding as well as any ideas they may have on measures or schemes to be adopted.
Since entering the Department of the Marine it is fair to say that, as best as one physically can, I have put in place a consultative process with the fishing industry which I think is relatively acceptable to them. While there remain nuts and bolts to be readjusted here and there, I should say that consultation forms part of my stock-in-trade, part of the baggage I brought with me into the Department of the Marine. I believe in consultation, in consensus; I do not believe in confrontation. I consider confrontation to be wasteful to what we all seek to achieve which is the betterment of an industry I believe has remained in division II or division III in successive Government leagues over the years.
Most of the existing measures in place for the fisheries sector will continue. These cover financial support for vessel construction and modernisation as well as construction and improvement in aquaculture and processing establishments. In addition, I have in mind a number of new measures including, in the aquaculture area, one to allow small projects to qualify for grant-aid with increased emphasis on quality and hygiene throughout the production chain. In this respect input from the industry will be very important, again under the consultative process I mentioned.
The fisheries sector has good potential for creating jobs. With the sort of money we will be able to invest in this sector, many of these will become a reality. While it is difficult to say exactly how many jobs will be created, I would hope for the creation of a substantial number of jobs annually, most of them in the aquaculture and processing sectors.
The fishing sector is important for our economy, not merely because it provides in excess of 15,000 jobs and contributes to the balance of payments in the form of approximately £200 million worth of exports annually but also because much of the economic activity and many of the jobs generated are in those remote areas to which I referred. The fishing industry is an important industry generator and an important means of keeping communities together in these peripheral regions.
A major initiative involving an investment programme of £19 million is planned with a view to increasing substantially tourism, angling and revenue. It is estimated that the development strategy will generate approximately 1,000 long term sustainable jobs. Angling is one of Ireland's leading specialist tourism products. Between 1989 and 1992 the number of visiting anglers increased by 50 per cent, to 76,000. Maintaining this rate of growth requires continued improvement on the quality and level of facilities available to anglers. In order to maintain and develop the quality and level of Irish fish stocks I am proposing, under the plan, a comprehensive fishery rehabilitation programme which will concentrate on increasing stock levels, stock management and predator controls.
A £5.5 million investment programme is planned to protect key coastal areas by coastal protection works. This will be the first time a coastal protection programme will be included within the framework of the Structural Funds. Many of the areas under the threat from coastal erosion are major tourist amenities. Erosion, and possible loss of such amenities, would pose serious economic difficulties for local communities, who, to a large extent, depend on tourist amenities for their economic survival. Similarly, coastal erosion can pose a social threat to isolated coastal communities by disruption of vital transport and communications links.
Under the Community Initiatives Framework it is anticipated that a range of measures in the marine sector will be supported. Funding for these projects will come from the expected marine share of the additional allocations of Structural Funds under the European Community initiatives programme.
The maritime links between Ireland and England are of great strategic importance to this island. It is envisaged that there will be a joint cross-Border programme under the Community Initiatives Framework which will focus on the development of key ports on both sides of the Irish sea and on access to those ports. Under rural development measures there is scope for development in fisheries and aquaculture. These will include the enhancement of salmon fisheries in rivers in Border areas and a dedicated research programme for salmon and other freshwater fish.
In discussing a plan such as this it is almost inevitable that no sector will be entirely happy with the allocations proposed. Yet I have no doubt that the marine sector has been well catered for in this plan. With my Department I fought hard to get a proper allocation for the marine sector. We have got that allocation. It is not a matter for us to do the best we can for what I described as our common purpose, the betterment of the overall marine sector. It would be folly to regard the plan and the Marine allocation as the end of a process; in fact it is a beginning. The task now is to take this plan, finalise the detailed programmes needed to support it and get on with the job of its implementation, a task to which I look forward as Minister for the Marine.
I welcome the publication of this document. In the type of document it represents, which is always a difficult and complex exercise to put together, it is one I believe will form the basis of successful dialogue with the relevant authorities in the European Commission. I am familiar with the format of some of the documents submitted. It appears that they have hit some heavy water in terms of the review that has been going on in Brussels. This document, in its approach and substance, is likely to facilitate for this country a relatively easy production of a Community support framework which is of course the basic document on which to build this programme. Indeed, it also anticipates some key areas which will arise under the subsequent operational programmes.
In making that comment on the National Development Plan, in comparison to what I know to be the stand of some other countries that submitted national plans ahead of us, I must put on the record that, at a political level, I deplore the failure to engage this House, and its specialist committees, as partners in that process, not necessarily because the final product might be hugely or materially different but because it is an important part of the political life of the State. Now that we are part of a wider European Community, Government and Opposition, both Houses of the Oireachtas and their relevant committees should be fully engaged in what is a most important strategic exercise for the nation. Everyone in Opposition shares with Government the sense that there is a major purpose to this. The exclusion of the Houses of the Oireachtas and its committees and the presumption that the process of statements is superior to a proper debate is a wrong political decision, and I say this in the light of the welcome I have already given to the document and the general substance of it. Politically, the Government have been badly advised. It is wrong that this House has not brought its collective wisdom to address the priorities of this plan, even if many of them tend to recommend themselves.
I was interested also to hear the Taoiseach describe the employment targets as neither optimistic nor pessimistic, but realistic. On that front one has to always commend realism over spoof. Certainly, the modesty of the targets suggest a degree of realism which, I regret to say, borders a little on fatalism. I should like to develop some of these points tomorrow.
This plan clearly signals that there is potential for growth, which it will deliver, because the scale of spending is such it has got to inject growth into the economy. But the House has to focus its attention on how we translate more growth into more jobs. Those translation mechanisms signalled in the subtext of the plan — possible changes in tax and so on — need to be investigated in great depth to produce a better translation of growth into employment than has been historically the case over many Governments and decades recently, and this will remain the case if one follows the realistic gross outcome in employment. God only knows what that means in net outcome in employment. This is an issue I would like to come back to.
Also, it would have been fruitful if this House had engaged in a wider debate to include the following: the role of the exchange rate and its implications for interest rates; the role of a future wage deal in terms of wage competitiveness; the necessity to avoid any increase in the debt burden and the debt service and the necessity to facilitate productive enterprise, a point made in the body of the plan submitted. Culliton took a very wide view of what would facilitate enterprise, especially in the area of tax reform. This plan, so far as it mentions that area, takes a much narrower view. I fail to see how you can facilitate and energize the potential for enterprise by simply taking the narrower ground chosen under the tax headings in this plan compared with the wider strategic space recommended by Culliton. That, too, is a subject to which I should like to return tomorrow when this debate resumes.
I have the impression that this is a plan of various parts. I say that because there are two ways in which one can approach this process: one is based on a strategic analysis of the key blockages in the Irish economy, the key constraints in its development and the areas to which we should address our resources, and the other is that you build it as a sum of parts. It is a sum of parts plan and perhaps less strategic than some of its proponents have set out to suggest. Nonetheless, it is done with a certain substance and quality which is bound to facilitate its passage relatively quickly through the fairly tough procedures it must now enter in the European institutions.
Debate adjourned.