Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I thank Senator Henry for sharing time. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Haughey, of whom we expect big things. We know that he will take action in respect of everything said during this debate.

I wish to focus on what I regard as the four big surprises in the new national development plan. The first of these is that the plan, which is far and away the largest ever contemplated in our nation's history, was developed without even the slightest pretence at public consultation. I recall a lovely seanfhocail that I learned in school, namely, "Éist le fuaim na habhann agus gheobhaidh tú bradán; listen to the sound of the river and you will catch a salmon." One of the things the Government is obliged to do is listen to what is happening in the world to ensure the fishing is good. I get the impression that it has not done so. The new national development plan was conceived — without public consultation — within the secret corridors of Government and then brought to the attention of an unsuspecting public at a glitzy launch. I read in the newspaper that the launch in question cost the taxpayer €340,000. However, I stand open to correction in this regard.

What does it say about the state of democracy in Ireland that this phenomenally important project, which will have an impact on the future of every man, woman and child, was not deemed worthy of any input whatever from the people who will be affected by it in the years ahead? Is the message being put across one which clearly states that the Government knows best and does not need to consult the people about its future?

That first surprise leads to the second, namely, that this is clearly a plan that is driven by the need to spend enormous sums of money rather than to achieve specific, clearly defined objectives. My experience of economics and business is that one sets out one's objectives and then decides how best to achieve them. If the people had been consulted, they would have been asked about the action they wanted the Government to take and about their priorities in respect of making Ireland a better place in which to live and for securing the country's economic future. Clearly these questions did not drive the formulation of this plan. Instead of starting out from a list of priorities and agreed national objectives, the starting point was an enormous pot of money and the challenge of how to allocate it. When one has such as a vast sum to spend and so many projects clamouring for a share, one is likely to end up pleasing many people. It is difficult to escape the suspicion that is the real point of the operation.

Another thing that is likely to happen, which leads me to my third surprise, is that one obtains very bad value for money. In view of our poor track record with previous national development plans, I would have expected that on this occasion a serious attempt would have been made to apply a sound cost benefit analysis to all the projects within the plan and that there would be a rigorous system of cost management to ensure a reasonable level of value would be delivered. As far as I can see, this has not happened. By all accounts, it appears that exactly the same kind of sloppy financial management that served us so badly in the past will again be employed on this occasion.

The fourth surprise, which is the most disappointing of all, revolves around the sheer lack of imagination that characterises the plan from start to finish. Despite all its expensive glitziness, this plan is really just more of the same. One is often minded to look for something different with plans of this nature. As far as this one goes, however, it appears that an approach has been adopted to the effect that because we are doing well, we should continue to do what we did in the past.

I was impressed by what Senator Brian Hayes said about the tax issue. The plan appears to assume that tax will continue to come in, despite the fact that it is very much dependent on the property and construction sector.

This plan is a programme for throwing even more money in the same direction as previously. It contains no new ideas. The Minister of State, Deputy Haughey, is leaving the Chamber. I thank him for what I gather was his second visit to the House. I suggest to the Minister that there are no new ideas in this plan or major goals to grasp the imagination. There is no underlying vision to this very expensive plan. This is a plan devised by people who, regrettably, have no clear idea of where they are going and even less idea of what is needed to bring them where they want to go.

Those are my four surprises and they add up to what I regard as a lost opportunity. Unfortunately, it will be many years before the full extent of the opportunities we have lost will become clear to us. When this plan fails to meet our needs in the years ahead — I hope I am wrong — we will only have ourselves to blame for the lack of foresight that allowed this poor excuse for a national development plan to see the light of day.

There are four unpleasant surprises in the plan that I did not anticipate. We should have listened to what is happening on the ground and identified the objective we wanted to achieve. Instead, we told ourselves we had a great deal of money and wondered about the way we would spend it. Had a cost benefit analysis been done on each of those, and perhaps the Minister will tell us there was and will explain that to us, we would know that our objective is likely to be achieved with value for money.