Vol. 545 No. 2
25 Mr. McDowell asked the Minister for Finance if he will elaborate on the comments he made on RTE radio on 9 November 2001 suggesting that the Government may not have the money to carry out some of the infrastructural plans contained in the national development plan; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30116/01]
The Deputy knows that the interview to which he refers was wide ranging, covering the spectrum of national and international economic developments. When questioned on the implications of the budgetary arithmetic for the national development plan, I did not state that projects would be delayed. I said that my goal as regards the infrastructure programme of the NDP is to enable the key elements of the plan to proceed with the pace with which they have been put forward.
The NDP is a seven year programme, which provides that year on year allocations may need to be modified in the context of budgetary parameters and available resources. The economic and social infrastructure part of the NDP sets down in current prices the indicative allocation of resources for each of the seven years of the plan, provided there is total Exchequer and EU investment of 7.95 billion between 2000 and 2002. Based on the recent abridged Estimates and the latest estimated outturns for 2000 and 2001, there will be a total Exchequer investment of around 8 billion over the first three years of the infrastructure programme, which is fully in line with that promised in the published operational programme. The Exchequer is, therefore, honouring its funding obligations in respect of the infrastructure operational programme under the plan. This reflects the importance attached by the Government to tackling the country's infrastructure deficit through the ambitious programme set out in the plan.
As Deputy Jim Mitchell rightly pointed out, this year's Estimates do not include three year projections, although the Minister will be aware that such projections were in last year's Estimates. The capital projections for the Exchequer contribution in terms of capital funding in last year's Estimates was around £4.476 billion, but the outturn in the Estimates published last week was £3.9 billion.
Just to correct that, I do not think the figure of £4.476 billion was in the Estimates but was mentioned in last year's budget.
The Minister is correct to say that it was not an Estimate.
We must be technically correct as I do not want the Deputy to be upset.
The projection for 2002 was published on budget day 2000.
The same procedure will apply this year.
The projection last year was £4.476 billion. The actual figure published in the abridged Estimates last week was £3.9 billion, which represented a shortfall of £500 million. Can the Minister tell us for what the £500 million has been earmarked and where the cuts will fall?
No cuts were outlined in the Exchequer funding contribution to the national development plan.
Those were Exchequer figures.
The total figure expended by the Exchequer on the plan for 2000, 2001 and 2002 was planned to be 7.95 billion. The actual outturn will be in the order of about 8 billion, so there have been no cutbacks. Returning to the original question and my comments in the RTE interview, it should be borne in mind that the plan lasts for seven years. It is sufficiently flexible to accommodate changes, such as delays in some infrastructural projects for reasons unconnected with money. Other projects have proceeded a little more speedily than intended. Members will recall that the plan clearly sets out that it is dependent on economic growth and the budgetary position going forward. Targets for Exchequer funding during the first three years of the plan are being met.
I repeat my point that estimated Exchequer capital spending for 2002 is £500 million more than the Minister said last year that it would be. Can the Minister confirm that the allocation to the National Roads Authority is £400 million less than the amount the authority has contracted to spend during 2002? Will the NRA have to delay or postpone projects?
As I pointed out at the press conference for the publication of the abridged Estimates, I am considering allocating additional funding for infrastructural projects in the budget. Such allocations are contingent on competing priorities and Deputies will have to wait until next Wednesday to discover the extent of such funds.
I appreciate the opportunity to ask a second supplementary question. The Minister's comments confirm Deputy Jim Mitchell's point that the abridged Estimates have been devalued. They have become a small part of the budgetary story and tell us virtually nothing about Government spending plans. IBEC, the social partners and other independent commentators have said that cutbacks in infrastructural spending at this stage of the national development plan would constitute short-term thinking and would be short-sighted.
The Deputy knows that no Minister for Finance has been more inclined than I to listen to advice.
Can I put my view that cutbacks would represent short-term thinking?
The Deputy is entitled to put across his opinion, which is more welcome than the woolly thinking I have heard over the years. My comments at the press conference, regarding the Deputy's first question about the devaluing of the abridged Estimates, were not picked up by the media. I said there is a good case for a single budgetary process, as is the case in other countries, and that we should review our process of declaring Estimates three or four weeks before the budget, which deals with taxation and some items of expenditure, is announced. I have strong views on the matter and I hope to be in a position to do something about it in the future.
