Derek McDowell (Labour)

The problem with the plan is that it includes much that we have heard before. One example is the provisions in regard to the health service, an area with which the Minister is particularly familiar. I have read the full section on health and find it deliberately dodges the two major issues in health, both of which require significant additional infrastructural investment.

It dodges the issue of bed capacity by simply saying that two studies are being conducted, as there have been many before. This means we do not know whether there will be additional investment in acute bed capacity because we do not know whether the Government believes it is required. This is despite the fact that the health plan produced by the then Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, in 2001, indicated that 3,000 extra beds are needed. Six years later, however, the jury is still out on this issue.

The section on the health services also dodges the issue of the Hanly report. Not only do we not know whether additional investment will be made, we also do not know how it will be structured, as the Acting Chairman observed during her contribution. To muddy the waters even further, as the Department of Finance likes to do, the plan states that any implications for current expenditure must be within the scope of the multi-annual arrangements the Department of Finance chooses to make. Moreover, any implications it might have in terms of public sector numbers must also conform with Government policy in this regard. Reading the section on health, I do not see beyond some generalities with which nobody could possibly disagree. It does not add anything new to our knowledge and gives no specific or meaningful commitments on the issues that matter.

Both the Minister and Senator Brian Hayes referred to the fact that the entire plan is contingent on economic growth and tax revenues into the future. It is not reasonable to say that it should be so. Net debt is now down to 15% or 16% of GNP. We are in a position where we have effectively been putting money aside for years by running down debt. This allows us to give a commitment that is not contingent, in the way the plan seeks to make it, on tax revenues and economic growth of 4% or 4.5% per annum in the next six or seven years. We must be clear that this is more than merely a wish list that is contingent on the fiscal prudence which the Department of Finance will dictate from year to year. We must be able to say with clarity that the resources are there and will be utilised. We are in a position to do so.

I ask the Minister to respond to my next point if he is still here at 7 p.m. I understand he has said, as Dr. Michael Somers has done, that the way has been cleared for the national pension reserve fund to invest in infrastructural projects. We know, however, that there is virtually no such investment. What is the cause of this blockage? Is it a lack of political will or capacity? Have the trustees of the fund decided they do not want to make such investment? Despite the political commitment in this regard, there is clearly no delivery.

The Dublin gateway proposals are also decidedly lacking in specifics. Most of the commitments were made long since, and we are also committed to an entire series of studies. One study, for example, is considering whether the eastern bypass is appropriate, while another is examining the proposed orbital route. There is also an interesting one-sentence commitment to invest further in Dublin Port, "with due regard to locational issues into the future, taking into consideration the all-Ireland dimension of Dublin Port". I have a constituency interest in this issue. We must make a policy decision as to whether we will continue to invest in Dublin Port where it is currently located or invest in locations closer to Dublin which would, in effect, primarily serve the city. Dublin Port currently serves virtually the entire country.

There are many good proposals in this plan, the Towards 2016 agreement and the various other plans being produced. There is a lack of belief, which is not confined to these benches, that it will be delivered. I hope we have learned the lessons over the past six years or more which will allow us to better deliver in the future but I am far from convinced that is the case.