The ESRI's review recommends that economic development be attracted to the regions so they may share more fully in the prosperity coming from the current economic boom, and indeed so that the boom itself can be maintained.

While the review is critical of our past history in terms of town planning, it has affirmed proposals broadly similar to those first put forward by the Buchanan Report in 1966 for the development of growth centres in selected locations throughout the State. The review mentions Cork, Limerick, Waterford and Galway as places suitable for expansion and encourages cross-Border development through suggestions for the expansion of a Letterkenny/Derry centre to serve the north-west.

That the expansion of these cities and some towns is being put forward in tandem with an extension of the strategic planning guidelines, the development of public transport systems and measures to protect the environment is welcome.

The measures to protect the environment include support for the "polluter pays" principal, and investment in waste water systems to protect our rivers and lakes. Social, cultural and recreational infrastructure - as yet loosely defined by the ESRI - should all merit investment, says the review.

In assessing our current prosperity the ESRI concludes that three decades of investment in education have begun to pay off for the State. A highly mobile, educated workforce has now been created with experience of the job market on a worldwide basis.

In ascribing our current prosperity to the availability of this workforce, the ESRI notes that much of that workforce has travelled worldwide and now knows its own worth. It is because of the exacting demands made by the workforce - which is aware that it can have its lifestyle ambitions fulfilled elsewhere - that much attention is being paid to developing the regional growth centres as desirable places to live.

It argues that commercial infrastructure should only be given State or EU assistance when the market has failed to provide it, and where there are positive benefits to be drawn from such investment. In this respect it is hard to understand the ESRI attitude to the development of the State's regional airports.

As Knock Airport has aptly demonstrated, and Dr Cormac McCarthy of Waterford Regional Airport has tirelessly pointed out, a regional airport can be a regional catalyst, driving development of the surrounding counties. The ESRI seems to argue that if necessary, the airports will be funded by commercial activity, but there is a chicken-and-egg situation affecting most of them in that they need investment in runways capable of landing the commercial jets which bring in the business.

There is still little information from the Government, in particular from the Minister for Finance, Mr McCreevy, on how this desirable environment is to be achieved, or what are the role and powers of the regional assemblies which met for the first time in Waterford and Roscommon last week.

At the Berlin summit, during the negotiations for EU funding over the next seven years, the State successfully argued that it should be classified as two separate regions. These are the Border, Midlands and Western Region which will continue to qualify for Objective 1 status, and the Southern and Eastern Region which will qualify for Objective 1 in transition.

Part of the bargaining was a commitment that the State would set up administrative assemblies, but even though they are now set up, it is unclear whether they will be simply advisory bodies or have real funding powers and teeth. The Fitzpatrick Report on Regional Development Strategy 2000-2006 clearly saw the regional assemblies having a funding and administrative role, and indeed other NUTS II regions in Europe - as they are classified - have considerable powers devolved to them.

The report was commissioned by the existing eight regional authorities as a blueprint for the development of the State's proposed two super-regions - the Border Midlands and Western Region, and the Southern and Eastern Region. It outlined a £22 billion budget for the development of infrastructure - £7.4 billion in the Border Midlands and Western Region, and £14.6 billion in the Southern and Eastern Region. It was presented to Mr McCreevy in March.

Yet, since the Berlin summit, Mr McCreevy has been largely silent on the subject. The commitment to publish the National Development Plan by July was stretched to October at least.

But perhaps the most worrying aspect is the comment from the Minister, reported in The Irish Times in the summer, to the effect that the regional assemblies will oversee spending of just 10 per cent - £3.5 billion - of total National Development Plan funding of around £35 billion.

Such a scenario would seem to imply that the Minister views the regional assemblies as being there simply to gather the maximum EU funds - "a temporary little arrangement", to borrow a phrase.

There is concern in the assemblies that in seven years' time when no part of the State is likely to qualify for Objective 1 status, they may be in danger of being ignored or shut down.

Another worrying indication that the Government may be less than enthusiastic to devolve money and power to the regions is its enthusiasm for Public/Private/Partnerships (PPPs). While these are welcomed by the ESRI which acknowledges they have their place after simple test on efficiency grounds, the review warns that "if an infrastructural project is worth doing it is worth using taxpayers' money to do it".

It also notes that the Government does not have a shortage of cash and asks why it should not pay for its own infrastructure. "The rate of return is, by definition greater than the cost of finance to the State," it points out.

That the National Development Plan (NDP) 2000-2006 has already been sent to Brussels is not of any great significance. As long ago as last March the ESRI identified the key priorities for spending during the term - infrastructure being pre-eminent.

The Department of Finance too, has organised seminars on the NDP at which the social partners all made their opinions known. Writing in this newspaper, representatives of IBEC, the voluntary sector, the unions and the ESRI have outlined their version of what needs to be done. The importance for the regions of the latest ESRI report is to confirm to the Government that regional development should be accompanied by regional devolution. Whether that message has been received - and if it has, how it will be implemented - remains to be revealed.