I would like to say, lest there be any misunderstanding, that we welcome entirely the provision of £175 million, and would take the view that, over the next five years— and this is in accord with what the Minister said in his opening speech— it may be inadequate by reason of inflationary developments. The Minister has given us an assurance that he will go back to the Minister for Finance. My only remark in my Second Stage speech was that he may find this difficult as time goes on. Certainly, as far as investment is concerned, our approach is that we want more of this. In my view the presentation has been inadequate. I would regard the negotiations which have taken place heretofore between the Government and the European Investment Bank as being highly inadequate in regard to planning ahead for five-year development. It was in that context and in no sense meaning any reflection on the European Investment Bank that I made the statement. I would regard it from the point of view of proper budget and financial planning. It is highly inadequate—and to realise this does not require any engineering or technological expertise—that there should be presented here an enabling Bill providing £175 million over the next five years—and in all probability the cost will be much more by way of capital injection into the very desirable improvement in telephone services—without any forward planning other than a bald statement that it has gone to the European Investment Bank and that £7.5 million has been got for the current year that will end on 31st March. Here we are, at the end of December, and there is no indication as to how the £175 million will be spent over the four succeeding years after next March, which is only three months away. There is no indication of what type of upward progression the contribution from the European Investment Bank will take. In other works, there is no planning indication here from the Minister either in his Second Reading presentation or in his reply to the debate. There are no broad guidelines indicating the type of planning related to the capital expenditure that will take place over the next five years. All we have is a global statement that the £175 million, which we all agree should be allocated, may be inadequate over the next five years and that for this year, which will be ending on 31st March, we are getting a loan of £7.5 million from the European Bank. The Minister said that he has no information on the point I made that there is provision for a rebate of 3 per cent from the Regional Development Fund if such a fund emerges. There does not appear to have been any thought given to that aspect either.
If this is the sort of attitude involved generally in regard to our capital programme planning in the future and in regard to our applications to European institutions be they bank, loan or grant institutions, I can assure the Minister this country will not be taken very seriously. It is totally wrong to work, in serious matters of this kind, on an ad hoc basis. It should certainly appeal to the Minister, as an alleged socialist, that there should be proper forward planning in regard to capital financial investment. The Minister complained about a stop-go approach in the past but this is certainly the essence of a stop-go approach because we have no indication here whatever, in either of the Minister's two statements, as to how over the next five years the £175 million will be expended and we have no indication from 31st March of what kind of rise or progressive rise in contribution from the European Investment Bank will take place.
I know the European Investment Bank will be tied percentage-wise to what we vote. Indeed, we have a strong case by reason of our special regional position, already agreed and under the criteria already adopted, where we do not have the internal resources to finance the infrastructural investment of the magnitude involved here and in other areas, for that percentage not being adhered to in our position. There is no indication here from the Minister as to what kind of forward planning is being engaged in by his Department. It is very easy to throw out figures of £175 million and of five years—we have often been accused of doing this in the past— but there is no point, if there is to be any real socialist planning in a major public sector area, in coming into this House and telling us that £175 million will be provided and spent over the next five years; that we have £7.5 million from the European Bank until 31st March next year; that we have no indication how we are to get the money for the four ensuing years. That is not forward planning and that is not the way this House should be treated. I can understand the Bill being an enabling Bill but we might have received some indication, in either the Minister's first presentation or in his reply, about this very important aspect.
