Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 18 Nov 1999

Vol. 161 No. 3

National Development Plan: Statements.

Minister for Finance (Mr. McCreevy)

I very much welcome the opportunity to address Seanad Éireann on the National Development Plan 2000-2006.

Last Monday saw the launch by the Government of the most comprehensive and ambitious national development plan in the history of the State. The plan will involve an investment of £40.6 billion at 1999 prices of public, EU and public private partnership funds. An additional estimated £6.4 billion private sector investment means that total investment on foot of the plan will be some £47 billion.

The level of the proposed investment has caught the public imagination. It is indeed a major commitment of resources by historical standards. The current 1994-99 plan will see an estimated spend of some £15 billion. Therefore, the new plan involves expenditure over 2.5 times higher. While some of this increase is accounted for by the inclusion of new areas such as housing and health capital, the plan represents a major multi-annual commitment by the Government to tackling the development needs of the country.

The plan investment is broken down by region in line with the designation of two regions in Ireland for Structural Fund purposes, namely the southern and eastern region and the Border, midlands and western region. The indicative allocation for the eastern and western region is £27.3 billion or £10,250per capita, and for the Border, midlands and west region is £13.3 billion or £13,790 per capita.

I will presently outline the key features of the plan for Senators. Before doing so I would like to comment briefly on some of the public reaction to date to the plan.

In general I am very much encouraged by the response to the plan. The positive reaction from the social partners and regional interests has been particularly pleasing and important. While this reflects the validity of the strategy in the plan it is also the fruit of the intensive consultation process in which we engaged prior to finalisation of the plan. There are some specific issues which have arisen in public reaction which I would like to address, namely the alleged lack of a central strategy or vision in the plan, the question of delivery of the plan investment, the impact on the environment and the consultation process.

I strongly reject the assertion that the plan lacks a strategy or vision. In my foreword to the plan I state, "The vision of the national development plan is to ensure that Ireland will remain competitive in the global international marketplace and that the fruits of our economic success will be spread more equally at regional level and throughout society." In short the vision of this national development plan is about improving the quality of life for all our people.

It is pointless, of course, having a vision but no substance. The plan investment in areas such as economic and social infrastructure, in human resources, in promoting social inclusion and in rural development will all give effect to the central strategy. The vision also informs the commitment to balanced regional development. This commitment is backed up by a detailed framework for regional development and the innovation of two operational programmes for the Border, midlands and western region and the southern and eastern region respectively.

Implementation of the plan investment will of course require the continuation of the macroeconomic policies which have served Ireland so well for more than a decade. The plan is therefore firmly anchored in a framework of economic and budgeting stability.

Since the publication of the plan, questions have been raised about the extent to which the programme for infrastructure investment can be delivered. These concerns are valid given the massive increase in resources being devoted to ensuring that by the end of the plan the country will have an infrastructure befitting a modern, dynamic economy. I am confident that the infrastructure programme can be delivered over the period of the plan. An indication of the Government's concern in this area is the fact that, earlier this year, it set up a Cabinet committee on infrastructural development, including public private partnerships. The Taoiseach chairs the committee and the other members are the Tánaiste, the Minister for Environment and Local Government, the Minister for Public Enterprise, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Attorney General and myself. The committee is being assisted by a cross-departmental team of senior officials.

The main aim of the Cabinet committee is to monitor and oversee at Government level the delivery of key infrastructural projects. The committee is also seeking to promote all necessary measures which will accelerate programme and project delivery. To this end, the cross-departmental team is currently examining appropriate institutional, administrative, legal and regulatory reforms. Particular attention is being focused on legal issues arising in relation to infrastructural delivery. This is a sensitive area but the need for action demands that the potential for reform in this area should be urgently assessed.

Within my Department I have established a small unit to proactively monitor and drive the implementation of the infrastructural investment programme in the plan. The unit is actively pursuing all of the issues in close co-operation with the cross-departmental team of officials which is assisting the Cabinet committee. The initiative to establish this unit is a signal of my determination as Minister for Finance to ensure value for money in terms of efficient delivery of the massive level of resources, mainly from the Exchequer, being provided for infrastructural investment.

In addition to work under way under the aegis of the Cabinet committee, there have been a number of specific developments of relevance to deliverability of investment. In relation to the roads network, a very important recent development is the Planning and Development Bill, especially in terms of measures such as transferring ministerial decision-making functions on motorway schemes, CPOs and environmental impact studies to An Bord Pleanála; requiring An Bord Pleanála to decide on these matters within four months of the conclusion of the relevant oral hearing; and imposing a six week time limit for submission by local authorities of motorway scheme and CPOs to the board for approval or confirmation.

The National Roads Authority is also gearing up to meet the demands and the requirements of the accelerated roads programme. Its internal capacity is being strengthened by the provision of additional posts. Moreover, staffing in NRA regional design offices is being consolidated and increased. Assisted by more consultancy resources, these design offices now provide the project management of all major national road schemes up to construction stage. In addition, by overlapping previously sequential stages in the planning process the NRA is aiming to reduce the normal planning and procurement period for a major road project from five to less than three and a half years.

The Cabinet committee is actively supporting the development and implementation of the framework for public private partnership which is a crucial element of the structure that is being put in place to ensure the timely implementation of infrastructure projects. PPPs can not only increase the level of funding available for investment but also generate benefits for the public sector by allocating risks to those best able to handle them. The private sector can bring benefits in terms of management, personal and technical skills. The PPP approach, therefore, has major potential to deliver infrastructural investment more quickly and more efficiently.

A number of structures have been put in place by the Government to facilitate implementation of the PPP approach, both within the responsible agencies and Departments, through establishment of PPP units, and in the form of co-operative arrangements. The Government established a central public private partnership unit in my Department at the beginning of 1999 to lead, drive and co-ordinate the process. I am determined that the PPP potential will be maximised. The PPP plan provision of about £1.9 billion is a minimum target. The objective is maximum usage of PPPs consistent with the principles of efficiency and best value for money.

In summary the Government is tackling the issue of infrastructure investment delivery across a number of fronts. My Department is centrally involved in all these initiatives. I repeat what I said earlier, namely that the infrastructure programme in the plan is deliverable and we will concentrate all efforts on ensuring it is delivered.

Claims have been made that the plan is weak on the environment, something I totally reject. Chapter 13 of the plan contains a detailed assessment of the environment and the challenges posed. In addition, each of the chapters on the operational programmes contains an assessment of the effect on the environment of the measures proposed. For the first time, appendix 4 contains an eco-audit of the plan. In specific terms the proposed plan investment in areas like public transport, water and waste water, water management and alternative energy will have a major beneficial impact on the environment.

There has also been some comment that there was insufficient consultation on the plan. The plan was formulated after an exhaustive consultation process. This process involved submissions from the eight regional authorities and the social partners on the priorities which should govern the plan. On the establishment of the two new NUTS II regions of the Border, midlands and west regions and southern and eastern regions, the Government invited and received proposals on plan priorities from them and received the two consultancy projects prepared by Fitzpatrick Associates. At national level, the Government commissioned the Economic and Social Research Institute to conduct a study, in the context of the plan, on investment priorities for the period 2000-06. These studies and proposals were supplemented by other submissions received on the plan, including one from the Western Development Commission. In addition, a seminar on plan priorities was organised by the Department of Finance on 13 May last at which there was wider-ranging representation from social partners, other NGOs, regional authorities and the European Commission. Earlier this year I appeared before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service at which there was a wide-ranging exchange of views on plan priorities.

There was also a number of meetings at political and official level between central Government and the social partners and regional authorities on the plan. In advance of the most recent of these meetings, and in an unprecedented step in plan consultation, I transmitted to these delegations, as a basis for the discussion, an overview of the draft national development plan. This overview set out in some detail and on a regional basis the proposed priorities, structure and indicative financial allocations in the plan. It provided for a well informed exchange of views at these meetings and this was very beneficial to the Government in finalising the plan.

The commitment to balanced regional development is a core objective of the plan. This commitment is not simply about policies to develop regions of the State which are lagging behind. It also encompasses policies to ease the pressure on urban infrastructure, to tackle urban and rural poverty and, over the long term, to better integrate physical and economic planning through more effective land use in particular.

The objective of balanced regional development will be implemented in the plan through the following: infrastructural investment in the operational programmes, especially roads, public transport and environmental services investment; the promotion over the period of the plan of a small number of additional regional gateways or urban growth centres to complement the existing gateways and to drive development throughout both regions – a national spatial strategy will be completed within two years, which will identify the additional regional gateways; a commitment to spread the benefits of growth to other smaller urban and rural areas in the regions; the inclusion for the first time in a national development plan of two regional operational programmes targeted particularly at local infrastructure, the local productive sector and the promotion of social inclusion; the two regional operational programmes will be managed by the two recently established regional assemblies; and consistent with the new regional aid guidelines positive discrimination in favour of regions lagging behind in relation to support for new enterprise and the productive sector in general.

A new feature of the plan, reflecting the importance of the regional dimension is the inclusion for the first time of two regional operational programmes for each of the two regions. These programmes will encompass areas of investments which are more regional or local in nature. The total expenditure under these programmes in both regions will be about £5 billion.

Under the headings of infrastructure the areas of activity that will be funded are non-national roads, rural water, waste management, urban and village renewal, communications and e-business, seaports and regional airports and culture, sport and recreation. In the productive sector there will be investment in micro-enterprise, tourism, fisheries, forestry and rural development. There will also be significant provisions to promote social inclusion in both regional programmes. Under this heading the areas to be funded include child care, equality, community development, family support, countering involvement in crime and drug abuse and services to young people and the unemployed.

The regional operational programmes will be managed by the new regional assemblies. This is a major new departure in devolution of management of operational programmes as on previous occasions all operational programmes have been managed centrally. On foot of this role the assemblies will chair and will provide the secretariat for the monitoring committees for these programmes.

I stress to the regional assemblies that the Government will work in a co-operative way to help them discharge their role as managing authorities for the regional operational programmes and more generally in monitoring implementation of the plan at regional level. The regions will of course benefit significantly from investment under the three national or inter-regional operational programmes.

Reflecting the major focus in the plan on tackling Ireland's infrastructural deficit, the highest level of expenditure under the inter-regional programmes is in the economic and social infrastructure operational programme. Some £17.6 billion is being provided for economic and social infrastructure over the period of the plan.

The major elements of this investment are national roads, £4.7 billion; public transport, £2.24 billion; water and waste water, £3.5 billion; and, for the first time in a national development plan, a multi-annual commitment in the areas of social housing and health capital amounting to £6 billion and £2 billion respectively. The provision for national roads represents an annual average increase of 180 per cent over spending levels under the current plan. It will ensure upgrading to motorway or improved dual carriageway standards of the key national road arteries, as referred to in paragraph 4.46 of the plan.

Equally importantly, it will also fund major improvement on a host of other roads at both national and regional levels. This investment in roads will be crucial in assisting the promotion of economically lagging behind regions.

The level of investment in public transport is also unprecedented. The programme comprises two principal measures: a £1.6 billion investment programme for the greater Dublin area covering Dublin, Kildare, Meath and Wicklow and a £650 million regional investment programme. Full details of where the investment will be channelled are set out at paragraphs 4.20 to 4.43 in chapter 4. However, I want to stress one clear message in relation to public transport. The Government is absolutely determined that this unprecedented level of resources will be translated into a better deal for public transport customers. As is indicated in the plan, appropriate institutional changes in the area of public transport will be introduced if necessary to ensure this.

Unlike its two predecessors, this national development plan includes social housing and health capital. In housing the plan will lead to an additional 35,500 local authority housing units; an increase in the output of the voluntary housing sector from the current level of 500 to 4,000 units per year; and an increase to 2,000 units per year under the local authority affordable housing scheme and shared ownership schemes. In addition, considerable resources are being allocated to expand the provision of serviced land for housing. In summary, the aim for housing is to reach a situation where housing output will reach about 50,000 units per annum.

In relation to health capital, the investment priorities will be to provide facilities for persons with an intellectual disability; to develop a range of facilities for the elderly; to address major unmet needs in the provision of modern accommodation for the mentally ill and the physically disabled; to provide a comprehensive, quality and accessible acute hospital infrastructure; to address child care needs; to remedy deficiencies in the network of health centres; and to maximise the potential of information and communication technology in the health care sector.

The importance of people to our economy is recognised in the allocation of almost £10 billion to the employment and human resources operational programmes. The priorities for this programme will reflect those of the national employment action plan and will be organised under four sub-programmes to reflect the four pillars of the EU employment guidelines, namely, employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. A particular focus of the plan under this heading is the promotion of social inclusion. In this context the plan includes a range of initiatives to prevent early school leaving, to improve adult literacy and to broaden access to third level education. Also included under this heading is provision of £1.62 billion for education and training infrastructure in facilities, new equipment and information technology. Investment at third level in research and development and in the technology sector will provide higher education relevant to the needs of the modern economy.

A provision of about £8 billion, including the CAP accompanying measures, is made in the plan for the productive sector. A key element is the provision of almost £2 billion for research and development. The programme also provides for support for foreign direct investment – FDI – and for indigenous industry. In relation to FDI, there is a commitment in the plan that IDA Ireland will seek to ensure that over the plan period, at least 50 per cent of all new jobs from greenfield projects will be in the Border, midlands and west region.

Support is also provided in the productive sector programme for the food industry, agriculture and tourism. A separate programme will be implemented for CAP rural development accompanying measures. A total of £3.4 billion is provided under this heading which will be expended on the rural environment protection scheme, early retirement scheme, compensatory allowances and forestry measures. More generally, rural development will also be assisted via measures in the regional operational programmes. In total it is estimated that £6.7 billion will be expended directly on rural development under the plan.

The promotion of social inclusion is a central objective of the plan. A key element of the overall strategy is the continuation of sustainable economic growth to promote jobs. The objective is that employment is opened up to all sectors as this is the best way to counter poverty and social exclusion. There will also be substantial investment in education and training, child care and recreational infrastructure and investment in people through lifelong learning and skills development, community development and family services.

However, the plan also recognises that ensuring the correct overall economic environment for job creation is not sufficient on its own to alleviate poverty in areas and groups throughout the community. Targeted interventions are provided for, primarily in the regional operational programmes, to deal with these problems. In total, £15 billion is provided in the plan directly to promote social inclusion.

This plan aims to keep Ireland's economy at the top of the world competitiveness league. It will sustain our record level of employment and help thousands of people into jobs over the next seven years, especially the unemployed, young people and women re-entering the labour market. It will sustain our economic growth by addressing the key areas which might inhibit growth. It will tackle social exclusion and address the gaps between the richer and poorer regions of Ireland. In summary, it is the blueprint for Ireland's continuing economic and social development into the next millennium.

I strongly commend the plan to the House.

Mr. J. Doyle

I thank the Minister for his statement on the national development plan. The level of investment, £40 billion, in the plan over the next seven years might appear ambitious but spending on this scale is urgently needed to develop the State's infrastructure. Some time ago there was a pre-national development plan debate in the Seanad. On that occasion I said that while our economic growth far exceeded the economic growth of other European countries, our infrastructure was well behind theirs. I am pleased that the plan will address this deficit.

The plan covers a wide range of issues but I will concentrate on transport, housing and education. The central goals of the plan are to address the congestion threatening to strangle the growth of Dublin, to lay the foundations for growth in less developed regions and to tackle social exclusion. The most significant increase in spending is on developing the State's economic and social infrastructure where almost half the money will be spent. This will fund a major increase in investment in our road infrastructure, public transport in Dublin and social housing.

Whereas provision is made for a major increase in investment in urban public transport, it is not clear that a full strategy for this investment is in place, especially in the Dublin area where there is no strategic, physical plan. It is almost 30 years since Buchanan reported on regional development and advocated the designation of alternative growth centres to take the pressure off Dublin. Three decades later, this plan still cannot decide what form regional development will take. In the meantime, Dublin has reached a critical mass because of the absence of a strategy to contain it.

The Government has failed to bite the bullet on this issue. Unlike Fine Gael, it did not have the courage to choose and name the six towns that could be developed as new centres to relieve overcrowding in Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Galway. Unless such choices are made, nothing can be planned. In fact, the Government is doing its planning back to front. There is no advance planning. It is announcing a list of individual projects now but says we must wait until 2002 for the national spatial plan. The national spatial plan should be a map of Ireland which should tell us where houses are to be built and how they will fit in with the roads, railways and so forth. If the Government must wait until 2002 to produce that plan, it will be too late.

Due to the lack of advance planning, it seems unlikely that the national plan will substantially alter the latest projection of a population of almost two million in the greater Dublin area by 2011. Indeed, the indications are that the city's commuter belt will become even larger as high house prices and improved roads facilitate more dispersal. I draw the attention of the House to the programme for major roads investment, which I welcome. According to the programme, by 2006 the roads from Dublin to Belfast, Galway, Cork, Limerick and Waterford will be developed to dual carriageways. However, there is a limit to the amount of traffic Dublin can take on these dual carriageways.

For many years I have been frightened by the lack of planning, especially design planning, for roads and road structure. It is vital that before these dual carriageways are constructed, land is purchased on the boundary of the city for park and ride facilities so people driving to the city have a choice to park their cars and take public transport. These sites must be purchased now; it will be too late when the dual carriageways are completed. This problem arose in relation to the quality bus corridors which are currently being implemented. It would be great to have sites for park and ride but the land is not available. I urge the Minister to designate sites, particularly adjacent to the M50, for such facilities.

I welcome the plan's proposed measures to reduce reliance on private cars in the Dublin city area and its recognition of the need to switch to public transport to reduce traffic congestion and the pollution it causes. A sum of £1.5 billion has been pledged to develop the new bus network, implement the Luas light rail system, increase the capacity of the DART, improve suburban rail services and provide park and ride facilities. The plan outlines a phased purchase of 46 additional DART cars. Since the DART was put in place 13 years ago not one carriage has been added to it. I do not understand the use of the word "phased". The 46 cars are needed now. The additional buses for Dublin are also needed now as a matter of urgency, not on a phased basis.

A capital provision of £430 million has been made for the construction of the surface element of the proposed Luas light rail system with a timetable providing that the Tallaght-Connolly line will be completed by 2002. The first stage of work on that line has commenced with the transfer of the underground services, and that is welcome.

In 1998 the Government decided to put part of Luas underground. I opposed that measure in the House, but a provision has now been made for the underground section, the cost of which is not yet available, although it will be available at the end of the year and a contingency provision of £500 million has been made for it. That money will not be well spent because Dublin Corporation has plans to take traffic out of O'Connell Street with a proposal to ban the left hand turn at the end of Dawson Street, thus providing more space on O'Connell Street for public transport.

A far more sensible proposal would be to provide an underground link between Spencer Dock and Heuston Station. The Dublin Docklands Authority, of which I am a member, supports such a link. I would also welcome an underground link between Connolly and Heuston stations, but such a link was ruled out on the grounds of its cost, estimated at £200 million. That sum is relatively small compared to the £40 billion available under the plan and that relatively small amount would cover the cost of linking the two main rail stations in the capital city, which would greatly benefit the city.

The plan consists of a number of projects, but it does not have an over-arching vision that brings these projects together in a picture, so to speak, of how this plan will work for Ireland and for how the people will live ten years from now. There seems to be very little awareness in the plan of the role of a good public transport system, not only to cater for existing demands but to provide a reliable structure for future high density housing. Recognition of the crucial link between land use and transport would give more credibility to sustainable development.

Fine Gael believes that the focus of the national development plan should be on rail lines. We can only stay within national pollution levels if we can encourage more people to leave their cars at home and take the bus or train to work. Rail investment must be accompanied by high density housing close to railway stations so that people will be able to walk to the stations and gain access to public transport at that point. One cannot plan for housing unless we know where the railway lines will be located.

The national development plan is weak on housing. Houses cannot be built without an adequate water supply and sewerage services. The provision for water and sewerage facilities in the Book of Estimates published this week is only 4 per cent up on last year, which is barely above the rate of inflation. That suggests housing starts will be slow due to the lack of services. Fine Gael's plan urges that 9,000 local authority houses should be built annually. In this plan, the Government has provided for the building of only 5,000 local authority houses annually at a time when 46,000 people are on the housing waiting list. A total of 5,000 people are on the Dublin Corporation housing list, but no building land is available in the city to build houses. The plan ignores that problem. How can houses be built if no building land is available in the city? If I have overlooked something in the plan that would address this problem, I would appreciate if the Minister drew my attention to it.

I acknowledge that the plan provides £15 million for programmes to combat social exclusion. Among the most depressing areas are the integrated plan areas for Dublin. A common factor in these areas is that young people leave school aged 14 or 15 without qualifications to equip them for life and many of them fall into a life of crime and drug abuse. I hope the plan will address that problem by providing education in deprived areas to give the children of those areas hope and prepare them for a better life.

In the context of this plan, the greatest challenge facing the Government is its implementation. The framework for its implementation is the weakest part of the plan. No credible timetables are provided for projects. Without the setting of timetables for projects, there can be no accountability. Drifts, delays and repeat announcements will happen unless timetables are set.

Fine Gael has produced its own national plan. We will conduct a consultation process throughout the country and compare our document with the Government's plan. I have no doubt that the choice between the Fine Gael plan for the nation and the Fianna Fáil-Progessive Democrat national development plan will be a key issue for the electorate in the next general election.

Having made that political point, the last development plan was based on the premise that we would tackle the problem of unemployment. I never thought that in my lifetime almost full employment would be achieved in this State. Great credit is due to the policies of successive Governments and the social partners in helping to achieve that. If this plan is only half as successful as the previous one, Ireland will be a better place to live as we enter the next millennium.

Ms Cox

While I agree with some of what Senator Joe Doyle said, members of the Fine Gael Party should take off the blinkers. To say this plan does not have vision is shortsighted. The plan has vision as anyone who has read it will recognise. Perhaps the Fine Gael members need to open their eyes to recognise that the plan provides for an infrastructure in the west and a commitment to equality that will allow people to work from home by using computers in teleworking and e-commerce. The plan provides for appropriate child care facilities to enable people to gain access to jobs, to foster social inclusion and to get people out of the poverty trap in which many of them, particularly those in outlying regions, have been caught.

I throw Fine Gael the challenge to talk about what is in the Fianna Fáil-PD national development plan when its engages in a consultation process throughout the country. There is vision in this plan and I agree with what the Minister said about that. Prior to the publication of the plan, intensive consultation took place. Anyone who read the various regional documents which formed part of the input to this plan, will recognise that many of the concerns and proposals have been addressed in it.

We have bitten the bullet. This is not an inadequate plan. The plan does not provide for every issue to be addressed but it shows that we are committed to working to address the issues that arise. Every plan needs to be implemented, continually reviewed and evaluated and, at times, adjustments may need to be made. I welcome this plan and the vision behind it. It is important that people open their eyes and recognise what it provides.

The plan contains a strong commitment to regional development. One of four key objectives of the plan is to foster balanced regional development, which I welcome. It is a statement that the areas of the country outside Dublin are equal and must be used to counterbalance development in Dublin. I am sure Senator Joe Doyle recognises that difficulties have arisen because too much investment has been made in the eastern seaboard and the west has suffered as a result. I am delighted that is acknowledged in the plan and that we are moving forward to adjust that imbalance.

Another objective of the plan is continuing sustainable national economic and employment growth. As Senator Doyle said, did we ever think we would see the day when there would be almost full employment? I am involved in recruitment in Galway and it is difficult to find people to fill the jobs available. We have to ensure we can follow up on the commitments made by the IDA and FÁS and ensure a supply of labour for industries that are attracted to locate in the west.

The plan has addressed various issues related to labour needs – the issues that constrain the supply of labour include equality, long-term unemployment, training and development opportunities and child care facilities. As I said to the Minister earlier, he probably did not know how many times child care is listed in the plan – it comes up about 50 times. I would like to count how many times it was listed in the previous development plan. This highlights the Government's vision in the plan and Fianna Fáil's commitment to continue to strive for equality and to provide for the inclusion of all citizens, whether rich or poor, male or female, able-bodied or with disabilities.

As to the criticism that the plan is vague, it sets out our objectives, the money that will be spent and it sets deadlines for the implementation of many parts of the plan. There are some proposals for which deadlines cannot be set, but such proposals will be disseminated into operational strategies. These strategies will be operated at the lowest level suitable for the implementation of these programmes through the regional assemblies, regional authorities or local authorities, whichever is appropriate. There is little to criticise in the plan if this is what people criticise as being vague or showing no vision.

I welcome the commitment to balanced regional development, which the Minister mentioned. Coming from the west, I welcome the strategy which will help to develop the Border, midlands and western regions. Balanced regional development is a fundamental objective of this plan. It is important that there is continued development in this area to allow it to catch up with developments throughout the country.

As regards social inclusion, I welcome the substantial investment in education and training, child care and recreational infrastructure, lifelong learning and skills development, community development and family services. This shows we are putting the family, the community and the workers at the centre of what we are planning to do until 2006. We recognise that education and lifelong learning is vital to our continued economic growth. We also recognise that community development and crime prevention is vital to ensure we have the quality of life we are entitled to and have come to expect. One of the key aims of the Government is to ensure that employment is available to all sectors of society as this is the best way to counter poverty and social exclusion. We will work hard to ensure that social exclusion is a thing of the past and that every person has an opportunity to become involved and to share in the country's success.

As regards infrastructural investment, while many Members of the Opposition may concentrate on Dublin, it is important that people who live outside the Pale have good roads to allow them to get from other regions, such as Galway, Sligo and Limerick, to the capital. We need additional resources and extra sites, as Senator Joe Doyle said, for park and ride facilities around the M50. These must also be provided for cities in other regions, such as Galway, Limerick and Cork.

There is a commitment in the plan to focus expenditure on public transport and to upgrade major routes, such as the Galway to Dublin road, to motorway or dual carriageway standard by 2006. It is vitally important that people who work in Galway and who spend time travelling once a week or month or twice a year to Dublin can travel safely and within a realistic timeframe. I welcome the commitment to develop the western corridor from Sligo to Limerick and on to Rosslare and the work which will be completed on the national routes along the way. The plan recognises that not all roads lead to Dublin and the need to invest in other networks throughout the country. There will be continued investment in national secondary roads and the National Roads Authority will continue to work in association with the local authorities to improve the roads which link our national primary routes by the deadline of 2006, which is not vague or aspirational.

I welcome the commitment in the plan to provide accessible public transport. It states that the Government is committed to improving accessibility to public transport for mobility impaired persons and people with disabilities, that new and upgraded bus and rail stations, light rail vehicles, new suburban rail cars and new urban buses will be fully accessible and that new implementation structures will be put in place. That is one of the most important statements in the plan. It is a commitment from the Government to those who have limited mobility or are disabled that all new and upgraded facilities will be accessible to them. We are not just talking about people in wheelchairs or those with impaired vision but about people with prams and buggies because it is as difficult for them to get on buses as it is for those with limited mobility.

It is strange to hear people say the housing programme is not good enough. We are building on some of the initiatives put in place over the past 12 to 18 months. We are working on removing the constraints to building more houses, such as limited land, lower densities and planning difficulties. The plan states that an additional 35,500 local authority housing units will be built. It also states that the number of units in the voluntary housing sector will be increased from 500 units per year to 4,000 units per year. There will also be an increase of 2,000 units per year under the local authority affordable housing scheme.

There is a commitment in the plan to continue the local authority affordable housing scheme. Perhaps it needs to be reviewed in terms of income limits and the cost of houses. Higher income limits should be introduced in areas where houses are more expensive. A person who buys a three bedroom house in Galway which costs £130,000, for example, would need to borrow more money than someone who buys a house outside Galway. That scheme has been successful in areas, including Galway, where local authorities have implemented it. People are moving into the first phase of that scheme on 1 December. We have been successful at providing affordable housing for people and we must continue to do that.

The plan has been welcomed by people in health care. We have addressed the issue of the provision of services for the elderly and for people with intellectual disabilities and the provision of modern accommodation for the mentally ill and the physically disabled. This will help to solve the problem of where children with disabilities will be looked after when their parents get older. Parents' biggest fear is what will happen to their disabled children when they die. They worry about who will look after them or if they will be a burden on the rest of the family. I welcome the commitment to address this issue and to fund the provision of respite and residential places.

Child care needs are also mentioned in the plan. The Government recognises that child care is a complex issue and is not simply a question of providing tax breaks for people who are paying for child care. First of all, child care must be child centred. The Government is committed to ensuring that any measures announced in the forthcoming budget will be child centred. Some provisions were made in the last two budgets to address this question but continued effort is needed. We must recognise the importance of the child care professions and provide funding for continued professional development and improvement of standards. We must recognise that the cost of child care can be a disincentive to parents seeking work. This problem must be addressed and I know this will be part the Minister's budget strategy and of the programme for Government. Fianna Fáil is committed to addressing this issue.

Mr. J. Doyle

Do the Progressive Democrats have any part to play in this?

Ms Cox

The Progressive Democrats have their policy and I have no doubt they will announce it. The Fianna Fáil Party has a clear policy on child care and we will work to resolve this question. Child care is not simply a family issue, a society issue or a business issue. It is a basic right in an inclusive society. It is because of our commitment to inclusiveness that we are addressing the child care issue so effectively.

Transportation strategy forms an important part of the national development plan. The plan commits £8 million to the further development of regional airports. When the Minister of State, Deputy Cullen, was in the House on 20 October I mentioned the importance of a study of land use and transportation in Galway. This is a joint study between Galway County Council and Galway Corporation which has set out the land and transportation needs for the next 25 years and estimated the investment required at £145 million over the next five years. I know the Galway local authorities will have no difficulty in coming back to Government and showing our commitment to continued balanced regional development and I am confident that Galway will receive the necessary funding to build the necessary infrastructure on the western seaboard.

I welcome the new role for county enterprise boards. The plan speaks of the new role for women and of specially tailored packages designed to extend an enterprise culture to first level schools and to support the participation of women in business. For many years I have spoken of the entrepreneurial skills of women and of the contribution that women make to business. With the continued support and development of micro-enterprise through the county enterprise boards we will see this fostered and developed. I recognise the need for soft measures of support, advice, mentoring and management development services.

I welcome the section of the plan which deals with crime prevention and refers to investment in research into the causal factors of crime. It is no longer good enough simply to place offenders in prison for the rest of their lives. The plan identifies the parameters which must be put in place for prevention rather than cure.

The Minister might investigate the feasibility of an IDA-type organisation to focus on the provision of housing. Such an organisation could be established for a limited number of years and could provide a means of meeting the deadlines which have been set. The plan is a vision for the future. Anyone who cannot see this vision should look at it again. It is a vision for Ireland developing, continuing to support our economic growth and ensuring that the quality of life pro vided by our booming economy is shared by all members of society.

Mr. Norris

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, to the House and I hope he does not take it amiss when I say I regret that the Minister for Finance is not here to hear some of what is said. However, I had an opportunity to have a word in the ear of the Minister in the corridor.

I would not go so far as my friends on the Government benches in describing the plan as a visionary document. It is not that. It is a clear, practical, far-sighted and realistic document and that is what I like about it. The elements of vision in the plan relate to social inclusion, social housing and capital investment in the health service, but the keynote is struck by the Minister when he says, "This plan aims to keep Ireland's economy at the top of the world competitiveness league." That is where the plan is targeted and it is what is necessary. In order to keep that position we need considerable investment in infrastructure, education, social support and so on. I was glad to hear the Minister speaking about social inclusion. He did not merely speak about infrastructure and material things. He also indicated a concern with the lived realities of people's lives. This is very important.

I welcome the Minister's commitment to public private partnerships, particularly with regard to a matter mentioned by Senator Doyle and raised by me many times in the House – the rail system for Dublin. We had a long argument about this question. I succeeded in having it included on the Order Paper and debated several times. I also managed to amend the Transport (Dublin Light Rail) Bill to allow for the provision of an underground section at a time when it was very unpopular in certain places. I am glad the independent Members held the balance of power in the House and we were able, against strong resistance from the Civil Service, to have that included in the Bill. Several reports were generated, the various Ministers involved met with people involved in the integrated proposal and one of the elements was public private partnership. The Mitsui corporation of Japan, which had put in similar urban networks all over the world, was waiting in the wings. People poured scorn on the idea and said it was rubbish, a fantasy. Now they are at the table and I would like to see them encouraged not to put in the half-baked system which is proposed at the moment.

This is a rolling debate. We can put in a good transport system if we handle this debate properly. We have managed to get the north-south axis put underground. The arguments we raised in this House on the basis of transport economics, timing, levels of rolling stock, capacity to carry passengers, frequency of trains and so are acknowledged as being correct. However, the east-west axis has been left overground and will continue to cause chaos.

We should look at the proper development of public private partnerships, a classic example of which is the partnership with Mitsui. That knocks on the head an element of the financial argument that was always used against us, that this would be the ideal system but we could not afford it. First, we certainly can afford it now and, second, we have the ideal situation for the positive development of a public private partnership. The involvement of the Department of Finance will be there – perhaps I should say "subtle". I hope the integrated proposal people who, from a very isolated position, made the snowballs I fired in this House – I happen to agree with them – will be consulted by the Government.

CIE should not be let have its way. It has never built a railway and it is obvious to regular travellers that it is having some difficulty in running the railways it already has. Anyone who travels to Cork, Sligo or Galway will know what I am talking about. I wish CIE well and do not want to attack it, but it has no experience of building a railway. The people who know how to build railways should be let do it and they should be given a franchise so it will not be so gross a charge on the Exchequer.

I welcome the possibility of money being made available for the development of airports. That is very important, and not just in Dublin – the development of regional airports must be continued, particularly to foster the development of businesses in areas such as Donegal. I applaud this development. I am very much in favour of public private partnership and I would like it implemented, particularly in terms of the Luas system for Dublin.

One of the headings relating to infrastructure in the Minister's speech referred to "rural water". God bless them. It is pouring rain on the country the whole damn year. I do not know where one can get water if not in the country, but one will not get it in Dublin city. Could we have a little dribble of water on the north side of this city? I pity Dublin Corporation because it does not have the money to do what it knows it needs to do. I restored a house in North Great George's Street and everyone in that street is in exactly the same situation. It is illegal, under the corporation's by-laws, to install pumps but the corporation instructs people to put in pumps. I have three pumps to try to get water, drop by drop, up to the top of the house. It is, of course, completely selfish of me to raise this but I represent a very large number of people on the north side of the city who have exactly the same problem. If we are talking about infrastructure, let us do something for the city of Dublin as well as the country. I cannot put a barrel in my back farmyard because I do not have one. Sometimes one cannot get any water.

I want to refer to the integrated areas. Again, I am being very parochial and specific. Frank O'Connor, who was a very wise man, said it is very good to be parochial because if you know your own backyard, you know everybody else's as well. I want to tell the Minister what is happening in my backyard, which is the complete dereliction of Parnell Street from the Parnell monument to Gardiner Street. For some reason, this is completely ignored everywhere. When the Bill dealing with integrated area plans was debated in this House, this was omitted from the list of named areas. It is the worst eyesore in Dublin. Let us set up a committee to deal with this or give Dublin Corporation whatever money is required to support a proper development. There are very important places in that area, such as the Municipal Gallery, Mountjoy Square, which is returning to being a very pleasant area, the James Joyce Centre—

Mr. J. Doyle

The Writers' Museum.

Mr. Norris

I thank Senator Doyle for reminding me about the Writers' Museum. There is also a very big, thriving hostel and a number of hotels. The link between O'Connell Street and all these places is a walking disaster, about which something should be done.

I note the level of investment in micro enterprises. I am astonished by our success in this regard. I was on an aeroplane the other day and according to an article I read in an international magazine, which seemed to be well informed, Ireland supplies 50 per cent of the software in the European Union. That is a stunning success for a small, offshore island. We must continue investment in this area.

We must also continue investment in education, which is now paying dividends. I sometimes slightly begrudge my colleague, Senator O'Toole, because he is so good at squeezing money out of various ministerial stones. However, education is a good investment. It is a long-term investment and, therefore, not usually politically popular because the benefits are not reaped until the Government is well and truly gone, but it is vital. Particular areas should be targeted in that sector. We must get financing into the inner cities because investment in education, infrastructure and so on there will save the money that is shamelessly being wasted on building prisons.

Prisons are an utter and expensive waste of time. All we need in this country is one small prison for people who cause actual damage to their neighbours. That money should be invested in the provision of services to ensure people are not damaged early in life. There was a remarkable woman of Irish extraction – I did not catch her name – on the radio this morning who had been a prison governor in England. She said the most heartbreaking thing was that at the funeral of a woman prisoner who had committed suicide, a representative of the prisoners said the woman had been abused but added, "We were all abused – that is why we are in here." The governor realised that was the truth. Criminals are manufactured by sexual, financial or social abuse. Investment must be targeted, particularly in areas such as the north inner city and areas of depri vation in Cork, Limerick and Galway. That will save the State money in the long run.

I was given some assurances by the Minister's representatives during the debate on the Finance Bill in regard to capital acquisitions tax. I will not go into this in huge detail because it is not particularly relevant to this debate, except in so far as the Minister spoke about human resources. Misery is created by the unfairness of capital acquisitions tax, especially as it affects unmarried people living together, people of the same sex in a long-term relationship and so on. I put the details of this on the record the last time and I have just sent the Minister the "blacks" of that debate, including the commitments which were then clearly given to this House. I would like that to be looked into.

I received a letter from a well respected professional person I know, a trade unionist and an activist. In the letter he quotes from an article by Denis Coghlan in The Irish Times of 16 September 1999 which stated, “Action will be taken to change the tax code to accommodate second marriages, homosexual couples and other interpersonal arrangements.”. My correspondent went on to state:

It is now a matter of very great disappointment that in the recent announcement of the revised Programme for Government, it seems that the promised reforms may specifically exclude unmarried couples, whether opposite sex or same sex partners. I am writing in a sense, therefore, on behalf of all such couples who share a home, from which, after a death, the surviving partner will most likely be ejected because the tax bill will force the sale.

That is not human justice.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator is straying slightly from the subject matter of the debate.

Mr. Norris

I was almost going to say this is more fertile territory, but that could be construed the wrong way.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Part of that matter will be raised on the Adjournment this evening.

Mr. Norris

I am delighted. I do not know who is raising it on the Adjournment but he or she has my strong support. I am sure the Minister will take up this matter. This may be a slightly illegal method of getting it back on the agenda but I really wanted to do that.

I was very pleased with what was said about social inclusion and the provision of substantial sums for people's welfare. I draw the attention of the Minister to issues such as the provision of facilities for people with varying degrees of disability, again through the health service. I was very heartened listening to a debate about a week ago on the health services when the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Cowen, came into the House. He gives the impression of being quite truculent, as he was that night, but he was also very impressive and one got a feeling of real concern and real commitment to investment. He said something which is very unusual and which I have never heard a Minister for Health say, which was that in his dealings with the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, he found that he was, to a certain extent, pushing an open door and that he was pleased at the positive and creative approach that he met in the Department. This is very much to be welcomed. It is not often one hears this kind of sentiment expressed by a Minister for Health about a Minister for Finance.

I wish to see this transferred into reality because I have raised on the Adjournment the case, for example, of an autistic child whose parents were distraught because, while he had been making enormous advances because of the care given to him by a speech therapist, that facility was taken away for budgetary reasons by the hospital. It is on the record of the House. That boy is now travelling back into a world of silence and exclusion. This is a question of money. I hope that what the Minister, Deputy Cowen, said and what Minister for Finance said this morning means that human situations like the plight not just of the boy but of the family will be addressed in the near future.

I hope there will be provision for carers, who are in a very difficult situation. The regulations from the Department of Social Welfare seem to be extremely niggling and miserable. Somebody who is a carer is expected to be there 24 hours a day, and if they are not there 24 hours a day, even if they are certified by their doctor, they are docked money. In a period of such affluence, we ought to make decent, generous provision for the most vulnerable people. It is heart-rending to have a handicapped child. Of course the parents love them and regard them as special children, but people who say in a patronising way that they are a wonderful gift are talking drivel. They do not have to wipe their backsides, feed them every morning or yank them out of bed. Of course the parents will love their own child and I sure that they bring them special qualities but it is not a situation without its anxieties. If money can help relieve them then I am all in favour of making as much money available as possible.

I raise one matter which I will be bringing up again. I have been approached by what has turned into a very large group of women who have adopted a regime from international groups and are looking for a paid holiday for women of one day per year. At first sight this seems a bit frivolous, but if one contemplates it, it might turn out to be a reasonably good idea. This arose from a task which Ireland undertook, as part of its international responsibilities, to survey the economic impact of unpaid work in the community. This is envisaged as a reward and a recognition of the work that is done mostly, if not exclusively, by women.

I welcome the national development plan which is a realistic document. It has a certain view, which it might be a slight exaggeration to call "visionary". However, the Minister sees it in humane rather than strictly economic terms and is prepared to commit himself to considerable expenditure in areas such as social housing and health capital, which is good. I welcome the public private partnership and I hope it will be directed towards the proper, sensible development of a transport system. I make no apologies for concentrating quite a lot on the Dublin area. I am occasionally accused of being very petty by some of my colleagues but they come from different parts of the country. They make the case for their own areas and more power to them – that is the purpose of this Parliament.

Mr. Walsh

Anybody examining the national development plan could not do other than welcome it and look with optimism to the future for an Ireland that perhaps was dreamed of in the past and thought of as one that would never be achieved. The role of Opposition is to oppose and this was a particularly difficult task for them. Senator Doyle did his best by alleging the plan's lack of vision and criticised it on that basis. The detail of the plan and the very extensive investment outlined are beyond criticism. Others have taken up the cudgels to attack the plan's vision. It is no surprise to me that the plan has not only a practical outline of how we want the economy to progress in the future but it has a vision of how Irish society will be structured and what it will be geared towards.

Senator Doyle will agree that the Fianna Fáil Party had the vision in the 1930s to cease paying the annuities to Britain and to terminate the oath of allegiance, asserting our independence which had been achieved in the early 1920s. That was followed by neutrality in the 1940s which saved Ireland from the worst excesses of that terrible atrocity, the Second World War.

Senator Norris has alluded to an area which many economists and commentators see as the genesis of the current economic growth, the investment policy of the Fianna Fáil Government in the 1960s and of Donagh O'Malley. A commitment was made to provide free education which gave people who did not have financial resources the opportunity to participate in an educational system that is now the envy of many other countries. Our students and graduates can compete with the best across Europe and other parts of the western world to secure the best of employment. I am delighted to see an ongoing commitment to education because undoubtedly it has been the cornerstone of our success to date. This is also welcome as a continuation of the first economic plan in the 1960s under the stewardship of T. K. Whitaker, which we built on in the succeeding decades.

Our party at local and national level over the last decade or two adhered to a policy of fiscal rectitude. This was essential in correcting the excesses of one of the parties in Government at that time, which Senator Doyle represents in the Seanad, and the profligacy from 1982 to 1987. That policy, combined with the enlightened decision to introduce social partnership, has led to other countries, particularly the developing eastern bloc countries, looking to Ireland to examine our approach to economic development.

The amounts of money being talked about are vast and in some ways long overdue. The policies pursued by Government in the 1980s deprived us of the opportunity to make the necessary investment in infrastructure. It is welcome that the required correction is being made to the infrastructural deficit in what is the fastest growing economy in Europe. We have had many debates in this House on public transport and the programme of the National Roads Authority under which £6 billion was to have been spent over the next 20 years. I always maintained that the expenditure of such a sum would not achieve the required accelerated rate of improvement if we wished to maintain current growth rates and our prominent position as one of the leading economies, albeit a small one, in Europe and a model for the European Union. The national development plan has the capacity to do so. That is not to say that there will not be difficulties and serious challenges in ensuring its full implementation.

The purpose of the national development plan is to ensure the economy remains competitive. This is essential if we are to participate as one of the leading nations in the European Union and have a strong economy. Our transportation infrastructure is of critical importance in this regard. There are monopolies in certain sectors of the economy, in some instances because, following independence, the State had to involve itself to generate economic growth. Under the Department of Public Enterprise they are being placed on a commercial basis and will be the stronger for it. The consumer will now have a choice.

There is a dominant player in the construction supply sector. I am concerned that the investment being made in the construction sector will ensure not only correction of the infrastructural deficit but also value for money. This ethos is now being applied in local authorities and other State agencies. The Government may have to adopt a strong view and even invite overseas companies to tender to ensure competitiveness. While the shareholders of the public companies which will receive a large slice of the investment will welcome the national development plan, there is a need to ensure the taxpayer and the State receive value for money and are not placed at a disadvantage because of the dominant position held by a public company.

The capacity of the construction sector to deliver the policies outlined in the national development plan will have to be examined. The local authorities will be of crucial importance in this regard. As those of us who are members of local authorities are aware and as highlighted yesterday in the debate on the Planning and Development Bill, there is a staffing problem which has to be addressed. I welcome the Minister's comment that a Cabinet sub-committee has been dealing with the matter since early this year to ensure the national development plan is implemented cohesively and satisfactorily. This committee or the Department of Finance should assess the ability of State agencies to ensure delivery of the developments identified over the period of the plan. The Administration will be judged on how successful we are in this regard. I am delighted with the manner in which the sub-committee has been structured to achieve this. Much emphasis is placed in the national development plan on public-private partnerships. This is to be welcomed as a critical part of Government policy. This will enhance the likelihood of success in this area.

The proposed investment in roads is long overdue. In the early 1980s the Irish Road Hauliers Association, of which I was then vice-president, held a conference at which it outlined a strategic policy on the transport sector. It advocated that the major population centres should be connected by roads of motorway and dual carriageway standard. Under the national development plan expenditure on national roads will increase by 180 per cent to £4.7 billion. Those who use the main arteries are conscious of the delays. On returning from Limerick yesterday I travelled at 40 mph for most of the journey on a main national artery. Apart from the increased agitation, this is not good for the economy. Transport goods, including trucks, spare parts and fuel, account for a major part of our imports. We must, therefore, have a road network of the required standard if we are to compete with other European countries. The national development plan is a major step in achieving that target.

Senator Doyle mentioned the transport problems being experienced in Dublin which are being addressed. I hope the provision of park and ride facilities which form part of Government policy will be accelerated. I do not agree, however, that this should be laid down as a condition in the improvement of national arteries. I am aware that many individuals from Wexford drive to Bray, park their cars and travel to the city by DART. There is no doubt that if the necessary public transport services are provided they will be utilised. Their planning will be critical to the success of the national development plan.

The proposed investment in water and sewerage schemes of £3.5 billion and in social housing of £6 billion shows tremendous vision. I have talked about some of the achievements of my party and the contribution it has made since the 1930s. Given that house ownership is now of out of reach of certain categories of income earner, it is essential that there is investment in social housing of the required standard in pursuit of a policy of social inclusion.

There is one aspect about which I am concerned. It is stated in the national development plan that the IDA will be asked to locate 50 per cent of new overseas industries in the Border, midlands and western regions. I am concerned about the south-east, particularly my county of Wexford, which has traditionally ranked at the top of the unemployment table. We have always been third or fourth on the unemployment list, behind Donegal in some instances and sometimes behind Louth. Given the propensity of overseas industries to invest in Dublin, as more than half of them do, we must ensure that under the plan we do not create new regions of disadvantage. I welcome the Minister's comments on ensuring that there will be balance in terms of regional development. The regional operations programme, in which there will be an investment of £5 billion, provides the scope for ensuring regional balance. That is an aspect about which I am concerned.

I welcome co-operation with Northern Ireland, as spelt out in the plan. Given the major, significant achievements that have been made in the past two years since this Government came to office, it behoves us to ensure that not only do they continue but that in future there will be a more cohesive arrangement until hopefully, one day, we will have a united Ireland. A commitment not only to the Border regions but to north-south and east-west investment is to be welcomed.

I refer to Senator Norris's comment that our investment in the computer and information technology industry has served us well and that 50% of the software in Europe comes from Ireland. Recently I heard comments, of which we can be tremendously proud, on this major new technology, which is now probably one of the biggest industries in the world, that we are the second largest exporter of software, second only to the United States. That achievement was predicated on the vision of a Fianna Fáil Government in the 1960s which invested heavily in education.

Mr. J. Doyle

The Senator is going a bit too far back now.

Mr. Walsh

In 2030 the people of that generation will look back on the vision in this plan which addresses the infrastructural needs of the nation and, please God, many of us will live to see that day when we can be really proud of the country that has been created in just over a century of independence.

Mrs. Jackman

I welcome to the House the Minister, who obviously had experience in many of the key areas of this plan when he was Minister for the Environment. Before I start on my presentation, Senator Walsh suggested that we are opposing the plan, but there has not been a word of opposition to the plan, there has been constructive criticism. I suggest that, in relation to widespread consultation, it would have been in the best interests of the plan if the Opposition had been consulted. We would not then have misrepresentation of Senator Doyle's very support ive comments. Of course things can be improved upon—

Mr. Walsh

I cannot lead the Senator by the hand all the time.

Mrs. Jackman

—and one can look at specific issues in a rather different light. My first comment is one of constructive criticism. In relation to vision, I have read through the plan and vision is referred to once in a sterile and specific way. The foreword of the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, states: "The vision of the National Development Plan is to ensure that Ireland will remain competitive in the global international marketplace and that the fruits of our economic success will be shared more equally at regional level and throughout society." The second part I like very much because this is what we want, an inclusive society. Like a mission statement, it is very narrow. A constructive criticism of the plan is that, rather than list the projects, the word "people" should have appeared more regularly. That should have been the vision, to see it in terms of people's needs, an inclusive society, the well-being and economic success of the country in relation to the less well-off members of society. It should be more people centred.

Throughout the plan – I have read it many times – there is little integration. There are many players in this field, and I know that committees were set up, a point I will develop in a few moments, but it is necessary to have more widespread integration. I would have liked more imagination and creativity. This has been a criticism, not just by the Fine Gael Party but also by analysts in the newspapers over the past few days, that the Government should have taken the bull by the horns and been more courageous in naming the six towns. Maybe it was for strategic regions, so as not to upset people whose towns may not have been selected or for other reasons, but if towns are to be viable and to grow, and existing cities, including Limerick where I come from, are not to be choked, the towns should have been referred to. There should have been more emphasis on them as new hubs or nodes etc.

In relation to the national spatial plan, as a geography teacher, the word "spatial" is the bottom line for everything. In all my teachings I consider matters in the spatial context. I would have liked the spatial plan to be worked on now, not just in 2002 because one can then develop on the wider canvas.

Before I come to roads, let me refer to rail. It must be emphasised that Iarnród Éireann should be more conscious of people. Going back to the "user friendly" term, there is no reference in the document as to how our rail service could be made more user friendly. The amount of money ear-marked for rail development is probably sufficient for only one project. I know that it is an area that has been left, as an infrastructural, transport issue, to the side for quite some time, that there is much catching up to do and a tremendous need for investment. The investment provided for in the plan is not sufficient if we are to see an alternative to the already choked national routeways, secondary routeways and even country roads which will take some time to bring up to relatively modest European standards.

Senator Doyle referred to park-and-ride. I visited two burgeoning towns in the United Kingdom in recent years and saw how they resolved their parking and public transport problems – Oxford and Chester. Oxford obviously has a significant student population. There are park-and-ride facilities there, with buses on the outskirts of the town and you can leave your car and get the bus into town. This is subsidised, and perhaps in some cases fully paid for, by the businesses in the town because they want people to come into the town. I would like that to be considered here. Perhaps people could look at how the local authorities in Oxford and Chester look after their business. I am nearly 100% sure that the buses going to and from the town regularly are subsidised by the main supermarkets or businesses in the town, which obviously benefit from this as they have to stave off competition from shopping centres that continue to be built on the outskirts.

As regards the national routeways, I had hoped that, when the Minister was Minister for the Environment, the mid-west would have exploded with considerable investment in improving our infrastructure, but I regret that did not happen.

Mr. M. Smith

Bunratty, Rathkeale, all those areas, including Limerick city?

Mrs. Jackman

Limerick city, certainly, I was not specifically talking about Limerick only, I mentioned the mid-west and I am glad to see that there will be a dual carriageway from Nenagh to Limerick—

Mr. M. Smith

Was nothing at all done in that area?

Mrs. Jackman

I am delighted because the Nenagh to Limerick road is absolutely, atrociously dangerous. I am glad that work will be undertaken early in the new millennium and I hope it will be completed within the specified time. In relation to the Limerick-Dublin route, work is under way and I hope it will be completed. I wonder, however, when we say there will be a dual carriageway right through, what has happened to bypasses? I am not sure there has been widespread co-ordination in relation to a Dublin-Limerick motorway. Does it mean that bypasses were premature? Will the dual carriageways integrate with the bypasses and motorways? I am not sure. That is what I mean when I talk about a lack of co-ordination. Will what is being done at the moment be part and parcel of the new dual carriageways or will we have spent money on by- passes that may not be part of the integrated programme?

I am glad to see reference to the N69. I am sure Senator John Cregan will refer to it over and over again because it comes up at every meeting of Limerick County Council. It is extraordinary that it is in such poor condition, considering it is the link to any estuarial developments in Limerick, Clare and Kerry. I mention Clare because of the need for a bridge over the Shannon to bring traffic that is choking up the city to the outskirts and make sure that heavy trucks going up and down to Foynes can do so without impeding the traffic in Limerick city.

For a number of years county managers have brought to our attention their concern that they will not have enough building materials, for example, tar and road metalling materials. They are also extremely concerned that they cannot attract engineers and planners and that, even though they have the money, they will not be able to spend it because they cannot get the show on the road if they do not have engineers and planners. It is important that there should be a mechanism of proactive economic partnership under which we could bring in local authority engineers from, perhaps, eastern European and other European countries which have engineers who know the infrastructural needs. That might help to fill the skills shortage and replace local authority staff who have been poached or who have been given better offers by the private sector as it speeds ahead to build these motorways.

I am also concerned about and seek a response in relation to the payment for projects, for example, the Portlaoise bypass which was built by a particular contractor. Apparently there is a six-month delay. I do not know whether it is because of insurance or legalities but the developer cannot move on to the next project because he has not been paid for the previous one. That may be part and parcel of local authority or Department of the Environment and Local Government bureaucracy. I am not sure. The Minister might enlighten me on this. Can anything be done to speed up payment so that a contractor can move on to the next project that has been earmarked within the tendering system? That might help in regard to the need to spend money.

I wish to refer to water and sewerage. Members of my local authority are glad to see £110 million for the Limerick main drainage system. We were very pleased about that, but it is at the expense of the other sewerage systems in the county and small schemes did not get an opportunity to develop. This is also a matter of co-ordination. If we want to build, if we want affordable social housing and private housing, if we want to keep our small towns and villages alive, we cannot always say no to what are called "high pressure zones" in many counties, where there is an almost complete embargo on development and tell people that they must go into the urban areas. This creates more congestion because we do not have public transport and all it does is to bring more and more cars into suburban areas. Neither can we tell people to live in a village or tell builders that they must build 20, 30 or 40 houses in a certain place because there is a demand if that cannot be done because there is resistance to sinking wells or to treatment plants. We need sewerage schemes and we are waiting for them. That is the big problem – there is a constant tension and a lack of co-ordination. These projects cannot go ahead because of the lack of sewerage schemes for small towns.

Much was said on social inclusion. I am concerned that although for once we have healthy capital expenditure it is pushed in under social and affordable housing. In a few lines it is stated that one of the investment priorities will be facilities for people with an intellectual disability. I hope we will be able to look at providing resource centres for sufferers of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism, etc. where they could come together and would not be just lumped together in the category of mental handicap, as they are at the moment, and as a result their needs are not met and there is no assessment or evaluation. In relation to these new centres I hope the Government, having talked about the infrastructural capital inputs, will concentrate on improving quality of life. That is mentioned only once or twice in the document. I would have expected given the size of that document that it would have been a constant refrain. The bottom line should be quality of life, not economic structures. Economic structures should be there to improve quality of life.

There is a debate taking place at present about Ireland becoming a country of extremes. I hope these capital investments will be followed up. For example, in the Regional Hospital in Limerick, the previous Minister for Health, Deputy Noonan, succeeded in developing wonderful infrastructure, but we are still waiting for activity because the resources and the personnel are not available. Once again, it is a problem of co-ordination. If we find resource centres for these groups who need them, I hope the necessary psychiatric and psychological personnel will be there to ensure the centres are used for assessment, evaluation and support for those groups, who have no support structure at the moment. A similar situation prevails in relation to facilities for the elderly.

I would have preferred to have the detail in this part of the plan rather than in the infrastructural part. The details on infrastructure can be addressed in the local authorities and at the regional assemblies. It is important to stress that major needs for the provision of modern accommodation for the mentally ill and the physically disabled which are not being met must be addressed. I look forward to the budget tackling that issue.

There are a few sentences here and there on child care. What is important about child care is not just improving provision to the disadvantaged and in relation to private providers. It is a question of looking at women not just from an economic viewpoint. There is an outcry about the skills shortage and we need women in the workplace, but there is little or no support for women to enable them to work without having to pay a huge percentage of their earnings on child care. It is a question of helping them to afford child care as well as providing for child care needs. I hope that will be the second part of the equation in the budget.

I hope the comments we have made are seen in a constructive way. I hope the plan will work and that we will not be here again wondering why projects have not been completed and looking at the same list of needs and priorities when we discuss the next national plan.

Mr. Finneran

I welcome the Minister to the House. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the national development plan. I was instrumental in having this debate arranged because I asked the Leader of the House to have it scheduled some time ago.

It is an extraordinary document in some ways, taken in the context of where we stand now and where we were ten or 12 years ago. It is no harm to reflect on where we were ten or 12 years ago. If we do that, we will be in a better position to put the documents before us in context. I remember the late 1980s. Most of the people who are Members now were also in the House at that time. The creditors were at the door as regards this nation. We were referred to as a Republic going down the tubes. The IMF people were going to come in and take over. There was much scaremongering at the time but some of it was fact because we were in a desperate situation. Inflation and unemployment were on the increase and the outlook was bleak in regard to our national finances. That was the negative aspect of our economy.

Tough decisions were taken, coupled with a number of other factors, and as a result we are now in the position we currently enjoy. I want to refer in particular to two of those factors. First, we entered into social partnership and we are now the envy of Europe and the world on this issue. A consensus was reached among all the social partners which allowed this State to progress and take its rightful place in the European Union. We are now at the top of the league in that regard. Second, even though we were experiencing severe economic difficulties, the Government at the time, which included my party, and indeed subsequent Governments invested in education, the most important element of society. We are now reaping the benefits of those decisions.

Independent of the £40 billion six year programme, I want to refer to next year's Book of Estimates, in which there is one glaring omission, social welfare. A total of £4 billion is being provided for health, a 17 per cent increase; £3 billion for education, a 16 per cent increase; £800 million for public housing; £350 million for public trans port; £622 million for roads; and £34.5 million for the Arts Council. Despite the fact that it is a major drain on the economy, social welfare is not listed in the main spending areas because 335,000 more people are in employment than in 1993. That did not happen by chance but as a result of the decisions taken, to which I referred earlier, which put us into this enviable position. We would not be outlining this new plan were it not for the collective decisions made over recent years.

If we examine the way the plan is put together, it is obvious that the Government had to make the major decision to divide the country into two regions. It could have taken the easy option by going into Objective One in transition, but it had the courage to take the necessary decision. I am sure that was not easy for Ministers who represented eastern or southern counties, but they did that in the national interest and we will reap the benefits because one half of the country will get Objective One moneys while the other is in transition. I listened to many people at that time, who are silent on the matter now, talk about the destruction of the poorer areas of cities in the east. Those people did not think about the national interest. They took a narrow approach but the Government took an overall view of the situation and made a decision in that light.

There is great potential for this country to become one of the top nations in the European Union. Hopefully we will have peace in Northern Ireland, although we should all keep our fingers crossed in that respect. The potential as a result of that peace is enormous, but we will talk about that another day. As a nation we are the envy of Europe because we can think for ourselves and do what is best for our people. We are an island nation of only five million people, but our potential is enormous. That is only possible because we were able to reach a consensus with the social partners.

The national development plan has the potential to deliver a standard of living that was unheard of in this country. It has the potential to reinvigorate and enhance all the areas we have spoken about over recent years. Those areas have been denuded of services and people. I will be parochial for a moment and talk about my own constituency. Prior to the Minister, who is in the House today, becoming Minister for the Environment, we could not get a sewerage or water scheme off the ground. From 1979 every meeting of Roscommon County Council was taken up with questions as to whether we had a reply from the Minister of the day. As a result of decisions taken by the Minister, Deputy Smith, schemes to the value of £25 million are currently in progress in my county. Other Members can speak for their own areas, but that is an indication of the activity taking place in my constituency.

Apart from the schemes in the major towns of Roscommon, Boyle, Castlerea and Strokestown, other schemes are being initiated in the small villages. That is an indication of how we are successfully dealing with the problems faced by people in rural areas over the years. We are attacking what was the destruction of rural Ireland. We addressed the water problem over the period I am talking about and we are now addressing the sewerage problem. When that is done it will enable the necessary housing to be provided which will encourage people to return to those small villages. Sewerage schemes are currently being established in six of those villages in my county and we will see the fruits of that work through the term of this plan and into the future.

Another important area is infrastructural development, road, rail and technology. That development must take place in every town, both large and small, and I am pleased that the infrastructure is being put in place. Crews are working six miles per night on the railway lines putting in a broadband telecommunications network. That is a far-seeing move on the part of the Government because if we are to modernise industry in the future, every town will have to have that type of infrastructure. It would be a mistake to exclude those areas not serviced by rail. A number of towns in the west centred around Ballaghaderreen are not served by rail. They were in the past but the service has been discontinued. We should not exclude such areas just because there is no rail line into them.

I wish to refer to the issue of energy. The Minister, Deputy Michael Smith, who is in the House, has a particular interest in this issue as he served in the relevant Department. I am not sure why, but we seem to have excluded from the plan the development of the peat industry. I do not know whether this is because of a long-term strategy whereby peat will not be used to generate energy. The jury is out on that issue, even in a European context, but we should think in terms of gas and peat.

Moneypoint is the only location for the generation of electricity in the west. There are reported gas finds off the west coast and this is an opportune time, in consultation with Bord Gáis and private industry, to consider peat and gas as a source of energy, and the construction of a generating station in the west and midlands region.

There is a proposal for peat in the midlands. This location is in Kildare, just outside Dublin, and I am concerned about the rest of the country. The Government should enter discussions and accommodate private partnerships for the development of an energy production facility in the midlands and west. We are producing just enough energy and a major problem at a power station could have disastrous consequences for supply. The Government should consider the whole issue of energy.

Rural Ireland is being reinvigorated, and that is the case in my county, involving schools and so on, which are no longer in danger. There has been a 14 per cent increase in population in my electoral area. However, this reinvigoration could result in our forgetting about farmers who have been the mainstay of rural society over the years. We could forget these people in our rush towards prosperity, and that would be a mistake. We should focus on those who held the fabric of rural Ireland together and I welcome the announcements made by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Deputy Joe Walsh, and the Government. We should also focus on employment as only about 60,000 or 70,000 farmers will be able to earn a living from full-time farming in the future. We should ensure that other people remain in part-time farming complementing their income by non-farm employment or by income from their spouses who are employed elsewhere. That is the basis on which we should try to maintain the fabric of rural Ireland and farming. I do not wish to see a situation in which farms get bigger while we denude rural areas of small farmers.

There are many other issues I would like to address but that is for another day. When the operational programmes are about to be put in place I hope the House will have a further opportunity before Easter to debate more parochial issues. This plan is a blueprint for the next six or seven years. Deputy McCreevy is the Santa Clause in November rather than December. Let us hope that both Houses as well as local and regional authorities can implement the plan for the betterment of the country for this and future generations.

Mr. Costello

I wish to share my time with Senator Ryan.

Acting Chairman (Mr. R. Kiely)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Costello

I am glad Santa Clause has come early to the BMW regions.

Mr. Finneran

The Senator is a prodigal son from the area.

Mr. Costello

They are great initials. BMW sounds more impressive than S&E, the south and east.

Mr. Finneran

The Senator has a good Fianna Fáil background so he cannot go wrong.

Mr. M. Smith

Senator Costello did go wrong.

Mr. Costello

I am delighted to see the BMW regions getting extra resources as there has always been an imbalance and it is important that we provide a plan which takes that into consideration. Many Senators have articulated this point so the BMW regions are well represented.

I welcome the Minister to the House. He will not be surprised that the Opposition's response is a curate's egg – there are good and not so good provisions in the plan. Two weeks ago the House debated the plan prior to its publication on the basis of what had been leaked to the media during the summer. It was suggested that the draft plan involved about £35 billion, with £1.95 billion coming from the private sector. The Minister indicated at that time that the new plan would be well in excess of £40.6 billion. He also indicated that he was taking on board the ESRI and other reports and the views of other economists, and that he would be more imaginative and radical in the extent of the plan. I am disappointed the figure is closer to the original leaked figure of £35 billion rather than the £50 billion which was the projected requirement of most economists. I am concerned about this issue because during 1998 and 1999 the public capital programme increased by 25% in each year. The country is booming. This means that we are adding £1 billion to our public capital programme each year – it is £4 billion at present so there should be an increase of £1 billion next year.

If we do that at a rate of 25 per cent over the next six years it will work out at exactly £50 billion. Therefore, without a national development plan and given the current rate of capital expenditure we would be spending well in excess of what is projected in the plan. There is a very disappointing under-spend in the plan and I have no doubt that by 2006 the national development plan will be considered entirely inadequate in terms of the capacity of the country to develop. In that context I am disappointed the plan is not more expansive and imaginative.

In terms of public-private partnerships a figure of £6.4 billion has been added to the £40.6 billion. I would like far more clarity as to how this will operate. What will be the nature of public private partnerships and in what areas will they operate? I have seen something similar to this operating in Dublin Corporation where one or two projects have been carried out in conjunction with the private sector. The East Link bridge, for example, was built by Cement Roadstone. The agreement with the local authority was that it would be built entirely by the private sector and operated privately for 25 years – from 1990 to 2015 – after which its operation would revert to the local authority. The agreement was that the local authority would get one sixth of the profits and that the private sector would receive the balance. Profits of between £4 million and £5 million are being made each year. The construction cost has been cleared long ago while its operation will remain in private hands for another 15 years over which time there will be increasing profits given that it is a very busy bridge. Refurbishment will be necessary by 2015 and new funding will be necessary for that. If this is the idea behind PPPs then it would have been well worth the while of the local authority to borrow the money and build themselves. If it had done so it would now have a very valuable resource which would be between £4 million and £5 million per year, a figure which will be well in excess of £10 million by 2015.

We must look in particular at shadow tolling. I am not against the concept of public-private partnerships, but I am against concepts which are not properly thought out and which do not provide a return for local authorities or the Government. Shadow tolling, which would involve assessing use and compiling an indexation of use, would be well worth examining. The one area the private sector has honed in on in terms of the plan is the tolling of roads and bridges – it focused on no other area as it knows that huge profit on an ongoing basis which will multiply over the years can be made in this area.

The introduction and much vaunted foreword by the Minister says the plan was framed after the most extensive consultation process. Many of us do not recollect being consulted and I do not think the Opposition, the social partners or the public in general would regard that statement as entirely accurate. The development of the plan was totally shrouded in secrecy. There was a leak in July which was denied by the Government and it was difficult enough to have that debated. We were relying on leaks to the media, which were subsequently denied, to find out what was happening. I certainly do not think the nurses who were on strike recently, community employment scheme workers who marched on the Dáil or the disabled who protested outside the House on a number of occasions were consulted.

My other great concern is that I do not know how the plan will be implemented. Will implementation be left to individual Departments or will the Minister do what we have requested, namely, give a Minister overall responsibility for the plan?

I wish to refer to the section on housing. I am very concerned about the inadequacy of the provision for housing requirements. Section 4 indicates that some 500,000 additional new homes will be built, but it shows we are at the bottom of the league in relation to the EU, including Britain, in terms of the number of housing units per 1,000 population. Currently we are nowhere near the proposed number – with the figure for last year being 42,000 units which gives a likely figure of 400,000 new homes over the next ten years rather than 500,000 over the next six years – but even if we reach it we would still be well behind the EU average or the UK figure of 435 units per 1,000 population. That means there will still be a shortfall and that the plan is not responding adequately to the crisis. According to yesterday's newspapers the national development plan goes some way towards dealing with the housing crisis but the industry recognises it as a desperate attempt to catch up on the Government's failure to recognise the housing crisis which has existed for the past three years. There is nothing in the plan which shows the Government is coming to terms with the crisis or that a sufficient supply of houses will be provided.

Mr. Ryan

The National Development Plan, 2000-2006, is a very interesting document and I said to Senator Costello on the way to the House that one of its most interesting aspects is not so much the projections but the assembly of an enormous amount of information about how things stand currently. Having the information in one document serves a very useful purpose. Let us put some of these issues in perspective. The Government seems to have a peculiar attitude to large sums of money. Last night the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development spoke about the Department receiving £20 billion from Europe over the past 25 years or so. He said the Department only had problems with 0.49 per cent of this funding, which means £100 million went astray. If they had problems of the same level with £40 billion then £200 million will go astray. We must ensure we know how to manage these large sums of money.

The investment in roads amounts to about £650 million per year. This sounds a huge sum, but the current investment in road development in Northern Ireland by the UK Government is £350 million per year for a population about half the size of this State. Northern Ireland already has a very well developed road infrastructure. Let us not exaggerate – we are beginning a process and the funding will not turn things around in terms of our road infrastructure. Relatively speaking it is not a huge investment.

No one would dispute that a lot of good things will come out of this plan. How could they not? There are many things on which the Government is to be commended, particularly the beginnings of a move towards public transport.

Twenty new carriages for Iarnród Éireann, which is what is mentioned here, is not a transformation of the rail service. Most of the money being spent on the railways is necessary money to prevent us from having a disaster on the Paddington scale. Only a little bit of it will improve things.

Mr. M. Smith

That is very important.

Mr. Ryan

Of course it is important but it is a bit like saying when a hole in the road has been filled that it is a development in infrastructure. The Government is getting back to ground zero with most of that money. Those of us who use the rail service regularly, who know it is overcrowded and its rolling stock is out of date, will know that 20 new carriages is a drop in the ocean.

One of the great disappointments in the plan is the section on health. With regard to people with intellectual disability and the elderly, the Minister for Finance used the phrase in his speech "to provide facilities for", not to guarantee everybody but to provide facilities, "to address major unmet needs", not to guarantee that anyone who needs basic services will have them in six years' time but to move in that direction. The phraseology is all about making things a little bit better. There are sections in our society who deserve guarantees.

Mr. Finneran

We do not have Utopia yet.

Mr. Ryan

My party wants guarantees in our Constitution of basic provision for people who have basic needs. That is the sort of thing that a plan with a real social vision would have in it. Unfortunately, the plan does not. It has worthy aspirations. I am sure services will be better at the end than they were at the beginning in terms of expenditure at least.

Senator Costello addressed the issue of housing so I will not bother with it. One area that is addressed in some detail on page 67 is that of telecommunications and e-commerce. One of the fundamental planks of that strategy has to be the construction of a good telecommunications infrastructure. A Government Bill has been on our Order Paper for six or nine months unmoved and undebated. I cannot get a reason for this. If we cannot put together the legislative framework within which telecommunications infrastructure can develop, then the aspiration of 100,000 new jobs by 2010 mentioned in the plan can be thrown out the window. There has to be an underlying structure.

Another area that ought to underlie all this is the concept of sustainability. The problem is that the Department of Finance has a different concept of sustainability from everyone else. It talks about it in terms of economic sustainability. It is interesting that that Department's strategy statement published in the past year and a half contains no reference to the concept of sustainable development as in the environmental understanding of it. This programme, while it does contain passing references to it, shows no signs of being infused with an understanding of what sustainability is all about. The Irish Scientist 1999 Year Book states: “In Ireland, concerning sustainable development there are policies but there is no action, there are plans but there is no implementation. Ireland is not doing much on sustainable development.”

Mr. Costello

Shame.

Mr. Ryan

That was the opinion of Professor Hans van Weenan of the United Nations Environment Programme Working Group on Sustainable Product Development, one of the most eminent authorities in the area of sustainable development. He was brought in by the State to evaluate and that is his conclusion. You would not pick that up from this report that that is what is being said about us and that we have a huge problem. If we do not build sustainability into our extraordinarily rapid economic growth we will build in an awful mess instead. Our waterways are already deteriorating and there is a considerable commitment given in the report. But if we build 500,000 new houses that will mean a population equivalent of 1.5 million given the size of an average household. That will place further demands on our water and sewerage systems. As Senator Costello has said, it is not even enough to meet our housing needs.

The fundamental flaw is the limited horizon of this Government and—

Mr. Finneran

We are ahead of the posse on it. Those schemes have already been put in place.

Mr. Ryan

—its extraordinary conservatism. It believes that a budget surplus of 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent is more important than the provision of sufficient houses for our people, the provision of decent roads for our industry, the provision of telecommunications infrastructure and the provision of social guarantees. Over this period the accumulated budget surplus will be between £10 billion and £20 billion and that will be used to pay off the national debt. This noble aspiration will appeal to every economist but to nobody else.

The fundamental problem is that this country, after a period of growth that no other country could imagine, cannot organise itself according to the rules of orthodox economics. If we had observed those rules, or if they worked, we could not have grown at the rate we have. No economist believed that it was possible for this country to grow at the rate that it has for the past six or seven years without running into problems of massive inflation. Those who preached the rules were wrong. It is, therefore, profoundly wrong for this Government to listen to them about what it should do with our wealth.

Mr. Finneran

The devil was caught.

Mr. M. Smith

We did not listen. That is how we got to where we are.

Mr. Ryan

Previous Governments did not listen to them. This Government is listening to them.

Mr. M. Smith

No.

Mr. Ryan

This is the most financially conservative Government this State has had in 25 years.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

Senator Ryan has missed the central point completely.

Mr. Ryan

The Government is doing the wrong things with our wealth. It has presided over the most unequal society in the OECD. Instead of using the resources to make this country what it should be the Government is using them to prove that it is full of financial rectitude. The Minister for Finance is fighting the battle that he was not allowed to fight back in the 1980s when he was on the margins. Now he is at the centre and he wants to prove how macho he is. He is doing it this way at the expense of the country.

Mr. Costello

Back to the future.

Mr. J. Cregan

I welcome the Minister for Defence to the House. I also welcome this national development plan.

The Minister for Finance said, in his opening remarks, that this plan was designed to improve the quality of life for all the people. I think it can do that. It is an opportunity to spread the benefits of our booming economy to the more extreme parts of the country, particularly to rural towns, villages and parishes. Members will have come across people in their everyday jobs telling us we have a Celtic tiger economy but that they have not experienced it. This will be the first opportunity for people in rural areas to experience the benefits of the Celtic tiger economy.

The sum of £1.6 billion will be spent on rural infrastructure and on rural and county roads. I welcome this allocation and the recognition of the upgrading of the N69 which has been a sore point for many of the people I have represented. The N69 serves the port of Foynes which is of economic importance to the area of west Limerick. I welcome the commitment outlined in this plan to the upgrading of that route.

I welcome the allocation of £420 million for the provision and improvement of rural water schemes. In many cases the quality of water is not up to standard in rural areas. This injection of funding will ensure the improvement of our water supplies.

I welcome the allocation of £103 million for village and urban renewal schemes. It is important to continue the good work that has been done in many of our villages. Much of this work has been done through community employment schemes and voluntary efforts. It is fantastic to see such schemes and projects being recognised by the provision of extra funding.

I also welcome the allocation of £973 million for the promotion of indigenous industries in small towns and villages. This is an important scheme. The sum of £126 million has also been allocated for the provision of small sewerage schemes. My colleague, Senator Finneran, has already referred to this scheme. This is the most important project for the people I represent. If we can have those schemes in towns and villages we can alleviate the planning difficulties we are experiencing at present. Since we cannot build in pressure areas or continue ribbon development, the obvious place to build houses is in towns and villages. This cannot be done without the provision of finance for sewerage schemes. If there are sewerage schemes, there can be houses. If there are houses, there will be people; and if the people are there, the post offices can remain open, school numbers can be maintained, Garda stations can be retained, the tourism industry can be improved and industry can be attracted. The most important aspect of the plan is the provision of this money.

The only problem I can envisage is putting all this development in place. Every week, engineers in Limerick County Council are leaving for the private sector. That is worrying. I welcome the statement by the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, that it will be necessary to attract skilled labour from other EU member states. There will be extreme difficulty putting the development plan's projects in place without the skilled workforce to do it.

I welcome the massive provision for social and voluntary housing. Voluntary housing can play a vital role in eliminating housing lists. County Limerick has an excellent record of voluntary housing and the provision in the plan will encourage more community groups to get involved and put more houses in place.

The other important aspect of this plan, particularly for people in rural areas, is the provision of health care services. We have an ageing population and medical theory in recent years has put emphasis on treating people, for as long as possible, in their own homes and environment. I agree with that approach, but to implement it the necessary services must be in place. I welcome the huge commitment to that in the plan. I particularly compliment the Minister for Health and Children on his achievement in securing £2 billion expenditure on the health services over the next six years.

We are trying to take care of the elderly and the less fortunate who might have various disabilities, physical or mental. Many lobby groups have made representations on this issue in recent weeks, including the Irish Wheelchair Association, the Centre for Independent Living and so forth. The Government has given a huge response to their needs and we look forward to their quality of life being improved as a result of the national development plan.

I welcome the plan. Members from different parts of the country, urban and rural, will see different priorities in the plan. Mine are the provision of local water and sewerage schemes and better health services for the more vulnerable members of society. A range of areas will be addressed in the health service. It is important to point this out because there has been severe criticism of the Government in this regard. Some of the criticism was justified because successive Governments did not have the resources to spend on the health services. Now that money is available, the problem is being recognised. However, I did not see much of a welcome for this massive injection of funding from the lobby groups which visited us in recent weeks. I welcome it since it must be good for all concerned.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

Before I address the plan, I wish to comment on the contributions of Senator Costello and Senator Jackman. Senator Jackman was at pains to point out that the word "vision" was sparsely used in the plan. She is surely aware that one need not constantly mention the word "vision" to illustrate or demonstrate a clear, coherent and integrated vision, which is what this plan is about. The plan is trenchantly founded on a vision of Ireland in 2006.

The Senator also expressed regret that the spatial development plan commencement date was 2002. The precursor to this plan, the Planning and Development Bill, clearly shows the macroeconomic vision this Government has in putting the structures in place to have a national, regional and local area integrated policy to enable the acceleration of various programmes throughout the economy in a way that was not achievable before. This is the first Planning and Development Bill to have such a wide ranging, integrated and clearly thought out programme to knit together the disparate elements of planning which have, over the years, led to so many undesirable developments and created roadblocks and barriers to progress when various Ministers wished to advance or accelerate laudable projects. The Bill is a crucial precursor to the national development plan, a plan that deserves a most enthusiastic welcome.

Senator Costello was concerned that we might discover in 2006 that the 25 per cent increase in the overall capital programme was inadequate. He should bear in mind that the national development plan warrants responsible planning based on the most accurate projections available to the Government. As for consultation, it is strange to hear a champion of trade unionism denouncing the plan as lacking consultation and deriding the use of the word "consultation" when, in fact, employers and trade unions have warmly and enthusiastically welcomed the plan. I am wondering if the Senator and I live on different planets.

Mr. Finneran

He is schizophrenic; he is probably caught up in his past.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

I welcome the plan. Its scale and magnitude and the multifaceted nature of the programmes are awesome and mind boggling. Those words have been used not just by me but by economic and political commentators. The ability to undertake the most ambitious seven year plan in the history of the State, funded overwhelmingly from domestic resources, is a direct consequence of the fruits accruing from the Celtic tiger economy. Some Members spoke earlier about sustainability and quoted from scientific magazines. We have enjoyed unprecedented and unrivalled sustained economic growth in an exceptionally low inflationary environment. That has rapidly accelerated the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs.

These conditions have also attracted shiploads of foreign investment and created surpluses of revenue over expenditure previously unimaginable, let alone achievable. Who would have thought, for instance, in 1987 that 12 years later this country would be experiencing huge net inflows of returning emigrants or that this small economy, because of the extent of the economic boom, would have to trawl foreign jurisdictions for workers to fill jobs in certain industries? The creation of jobs in some sectors is outstripping the availability of workers. It is not funny but serious and it demands the serious planning which is inherent to this seven year development plan.

Workers are needed to fill the new vacancies. Weekly we read in the print media of workers being recruited from abroad, even from the Far East. The most recent example was the recruitment of workers from Wales and the attempt to match the unemployment problem in Wales with our skills and labour shortage. That is to be commended. We need sustainability and to keep the momentum going. Given virtual full employment in this country, a laudable objective to have been achieved, if we must reach abroad for the means to sustain and promote that momentum, so be it.

Many economies have attempted to achieve the triple objectives of full employment, high growth and low inflation. The United States, Britain and other European countries tried to achieve those objectives in the post-war period. Those policies were pursued at a time when the term "social exclusion" had not been coined. It is of relatively recent vintage. Those three economic objectives were lauded by the economic experts of the time. The economies that pursued those policies without exception came to a point in the early stages of their plans where trade offs became inevitable and unavoidable. Their plans fell apart and resulted in accelerating unemployment, rapid inflation and stagnant or negative growth.

The question as to how our economy has risen from the ashes of near bankruptcy in 1987 can legitimately and will inevitably be asked. Perhaps some will come to the conclusion that we bought our way out of near bankruptcy by using the begging bowl in Europe to secure large amounts of EU capital, but such a conclusion is facile. Hitherto unimaginable amounts of capital were secured under the Structural and Cohesion Funds and other funds and without such funding our economy, for a number of reasons, would have been fundamentally incapable of surviving the tumultuous and painful transition towards a Single Market and the euro currency. Those reasons include our peripherality, our openness as an economy, our major dependence on Britain for trade, our lack of competitiveness and the servicing of our massive national debt, which involved a major burden in terms of interest payments. Yet the large amount of inflowing matching funds from the EU, if not extremely prudently managed, had the inherent potential to pump-prime our economy towards super inflation or even stagflation, continuous inflation with a stagnant rate of growth. If that had happened, the economic and social consequences of such a crisis would have been as spectacular in terms of its frightening prospect as the spectacular transformation in our economy in terms of the present sustainable economic boom.

Social partnership has been the key to prudent, sound and successful management of our economy over this period of transformation. I listened, with extreme regret, to the contributions of two prominent Labour Senators, neither of whom referred to the role of social partnership. That was a negative in terms of their contributions. I am sure Members on this side of the House will agree that social partnership has been at the core of Ireland's transformation. The four partnership agreements established and forged an institutional framework and process in and through which key, crucial economic and social decisions were taken by Government in consultation with the representatives of the employer organisations and the trade unions. That process copperfastened an unprecedented high degree of support, and support is the key word, from all the stakeholders in economy, including employers, unions and other partners. The country was governed by consensus. I am convinced the highly successful transition to our present economic prosperity would have been unattainable in the absence of such social partnership and national consensus. Without such support the process would have started to unravel under pressure of the first real strain encountered.

I want to compliment the architects of that process who introduced it back in 1987. While Charles Haughey is not spoken of in the highest terms today, I must compliment him and Ray MacSharry, his right hand man—

Mr. J. Doyle

There was also the Tallaght strategy.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

—and their colleagues in the then Cabinet who, individually and collectively, charted those waters from 1987 onwards.

For all those reasons I was shocked to hear Deputy Rabbitte, a newcomer to the Labour Party and a prominent politician, attempt to trivialise the importance and significance of social partnership on "Morning Ireland" a few weeks ago. A transcript of the interview will show I am speaking the truth. At a time of conflict between a group of trade unions and the Government, the Deputy used the opportunity to attempt to drive a wedge and to undermine the Government's serious and positive efforts a launch another national partnership agreement. I was equally disappointed and shocked that the interviewer made no attempt to follow up on Deputy Rabbitte's comments, given his trade union background, his political experience and national prominence. I condemn both in the circumstances.

We would not be implementing this plan but for the economic progress we have made over the past 12 years. Without such recent economic growth, we would not have the revenue to fund such a major and ambitious plan. Without such growth there would not be a need for such a plan to comprehensively confront the serious barriers to further growth in terms of infrastructure, transport, traffic, education, health and social cohesion. The magnitude of these problems in some though not in all cases has been spawned out of economic success. The problems confronting us are the fruits of our economic success over the past 12 years. In other cases, these problems have been brought into sharper focus as a result of our recent economic growth. In its recent report the ESRI forecast, with confidence, that our present rate of growth is sustainable into the future if the barriers I outlined are confronted and removed. The most fundamental recommendation in the more recently published NESC report is consistent with the main thrust of the Government's plan.

Past programmes were often merely a list of pious, if very laudable, aspirations. Some people have tried to denigrate this plan, to minimise the influence and its potentially major impact by describing it in the same way. The Minister present, his colleagues and all those who collaborated in drawing up this plan have put together an extremely impressive, integrated, holistic plan to chart the next seven years for this country. I have no doubt 2006 will mark the successful implementation of this plan.

Most speakers adverted to the provisions in the plan for investment in our roads. It is generally agreed that tackling infrastructural problems is a major priority in the plan. This is necessary to sustain and promote growth and to enhance the potential of less developed areas in order to establish regional balance. The investment targeted at transforming our road network has been referred to in detail. The plan also places strong emphasis on the need to develop and upgrade our public transport infrastructure.

In its analysis and commitment to resources, the plan sets out a radical blueprint to end gridlock in the greater Dublin area and to deliver a modern, public transport system. The plan not only acknowledges but warns that traffic congestion is a major threat to the economic life of the city and it provides for considerable investment to encourage people to move from private to public transport. We are all aware of the various problems in this area. The plan provides for Luas, the Dublin Port tunnel, major investment in our bus fleet, bus lanes and cycle lanes and the integration of the network, with upwards of £500 million being set aside for that. It contains specific details of the additions to be made to the various modes of public transport in the Dublin area. The plan also provides for a major investment in education, which will promote additional accessibility to second chance education and life long learning.

The full implementation of the proposals contained in this historic plan over the next seven years will further transform the country, which was transformed over the past 12 years. This plan is not merely a long list of projects lacking vision, as some speakers have described it. On the contrary it is the most ambitious national plan in the history of the State funded mainly from our own resources. It is coherent and integrated and it defines a clear vision of the country we will inhabit at the end of the 2006.

Sitting suspended at 1.40 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.