Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)

I understand the launch of the national development programme cost in the region of €300,000 for the brochures and leaflets accompanying the plan. At the staging of the launch, we saw the ambassadors to Ireland, the social partners, the great and the good lined up. It reminded me of the politburo in the 1950s when they lined up to listen to the next great five year plan. If there was an official artist to the Government, as in Stalin's day, the artist would paint the event in all its glory.

The national development plan is a collection of party political election promises dressed up in the language of national rather than party targets. At 400 pages, it is probably the longest election leaflet in the history of the democratic world. As election leaflets go it is pricey, at €300,000, but despite containing 400 pages of electioneering, surprisingly, it has less than ten pages of costings. In that context it should be judged as a political document because its motivation and timing is entirely political.

We should bear in mind that if the previous national development plans and the proposals of Ministers opposite had been believable in terms of the rhetoric delivered, we would have a functioning metro serving the airport, which was announced for 2007 by the then Minister, Deputy Brennan. We would have the longed-for reorganised functioning hospital system. We would have a decentralised public administration in addition to the hubs, the gateways and so on, all of which were promised for 2007. The guarantee given for the 90th anniversary of the rising that all children under nine would be in classes of 20 or fewer would be implemented. That was another target for 2007. Our young people would have the reasonable expectation that they could aspire to buying a home of their own. After nine and a half years of Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government, much of the nation's infrastructure, to quote the letter the Taoiseach wrote to Brussels on the Civil Service, is not fit for purpose.

On the costing and funding of the programme, we debated the Moriarty report yesterday. Do the Taoiseach and Fianna Fáil operate in a world of blank cheques? The crucial difference between this plan and others is that it is the taxpayer who will foot almost the entire bill. I note the Minister acknowledged that today when he stated the plan does not have to be approved by Brussels. There has been no external evaluation of the costings and the reasonableness of what is contained in the plan. The plans in 1989, 1994 and 2000 were effectively submissions to the European Union on the way Ireland planned to spend EU money within a Community support framework. That does not apply now.

There are no seven year tax projections in the plan. I asked the Minister about that and he gave me tax projections for the next two years. I was delighted to find they were largely in line with the projections the Labour Party used at the conference at the weekend about which the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, appeared to have a problem on "Questions and Answers". An inflation impact study should have been done because Ireland now has the highest cost of living and we are joint second in the euro inflation league with Slovenia, behind Greece and drifting upwards.

Neither were there carbon costings to the plan. Ireland faces a serious challenge with carbon costings. In 2013, at the end of this plan, the full impact of our Kyoto agreements will kick in. The €270 million set aside in the plan will be peanuts compared to the penalties we will incur unless we get our act together. Before the budget, I put forward a proposal that all public spending should be carbon-costed for its carbon imprint. The Minister will be aware of the notion of examining the carbon footprint. He is Minister Bigfoot when it comes to the size of the carbon footprint he is leaving. Ultimately, the taxpayer foots the bill for Kyoto fines. If the Kyoto process is expanded, Ireland may face charges that could well constitute a new and severe national debt on our children and grandchildren. This is not included in the plan.

Who is Mr. National Development Plan? Is there a plaque in the Department of the Taoiseach, the Department of Finance or the other various Departments which states the responsibility for the national development plan stops here? Are there rewards if matters go well or punishment and change if not? There is no evidence of who has ultimate responsibility for the plan.

Of the €184 billion proposed spending over the next seven years, some €78 billion or 42% of the total expenditure, is capital spend on infrastructure, the real meat in the sandwich. That is what will allow us to buy and spend on a functioning public transport system, improving the hospital infrastructure and addressing the carbon fund issues. It will allow us to address issues such as ensuring a couple or single person, working and paying tax, can look forward to purchasing a home.

Social housing, public health and education all feature in the plan but after ten years of a Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government, we now have the first well-educated and hard-working young generation, on modest and moderate incomes, who cannot purchase a home. This generation are up at six o'clock in the morning and returning home at seven in the evening. That generation's work ethic leaves that of many Members in the shade. Although they belong to a hard-work culture, where does the plan state young people can reasonably expect to have a home while the builders and developers are coining it? What about those parents of children of four years of age in west Dublin, Meath and Kildare who ask me where will their children go to school?

What is the Minister's response to the recent report published by Urban Forum? It correctly stated that a series of high speed rail links between Dublin, Cork, Galway and Limerick are needed. Where is the visionary thinking that will stabilise the growth of the Dublin region and improve the growth of other major cities? The plan implies that the decentralisation programme announced by the former Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, is dead. There is a proposal for renewed centres and gateways but the flesh on the bones of the proposals is weak.

Labour, as part of an alternative incoming Government, will go through the plan to determine what is in the public interest and what is socially just and equitable. The plan will need dramatic revision to develop the country to the standards our young people deserve.

See this speech in context