asked the Minister for Finance if he will indicate the volume increase in (1) total and (2) Government investment in the years 1982, 1983 and 1984; and if he will state whether this trend is consistent with the objective of a continuing high level of investment contained in the joint Programme for Government.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Volume Increase in Investment.
19.
The volume of total gross fixed capital formation declined by 6.1 per cent in 1982 and by 7.7 per cent in 1983. It is estimated that there was a further, but much smaller, decline last year.
The volume of public capital programme expenditure rose by about 2¼ per cent in 1982 and fell by almost 14 per cent in 1983 and by about 4½ per cent in 1984.
The declines in total and public investment reflect both the impact of the recession and the completion of a number of productive infrastructural projects in the public sector. Nevertheless, the share of total fixed investment in GNP at almost one-quarter in 1984 remains well in excess of the average for the EC and the OECD areas as a whole. Furthermore, the ratio of PCP expenditure to total fixed investment is substantial and averaged about 53½ per cent of total fixed investment between 1982 and 1984.
I would not accept that the trends to date are inconsistent with the objective of securing the highest possible level of worthwhile investment.
Do those trends not clearly indicate a continuing drop in the level of investment? Surely, in the light of that, the Minister will have to acknowledge that it cannot be consistent with any high level of investment, either in the Joint Programme for Government or anywhere else?
No. As I pointed out in my reply, part of the run-down in the level of investment over the last two years reflects the completion of two major areas of infrastructural investment. For example, part of the run-down reflects the fact that expenditure on the Money-point project is coming to a close and that we have now broadly completed the accelerated capital investment programme in the telecommunications side.
Will the Minister acknowledge that the decision of the Government to reduce the public capital programme in 1983 by about £200 million is a much bigger factor in the run down in total investment than the completion of any specific project which was launched in any event by a previous Government?
I am bound to say that the Deputy's last reflection is irrelevant. It does not matter who launched the project; the fact that it is coming to an end is bound to affect the level of the public capital programme. I do not accept that the trends to date are inconsistent with the objective of securing the highest possible level of worthwhile investment. I should like to remind the Deputy of a discussion we had in the House some time ago about his apparent objections to the Government taking action to ensure that we get a decent return for public investment.
Is the Minister not aware in talking about a decent return for public investment that on that occasion I was clearly signalling——
The Deputy should not resurrect an old argument.
If the Minister does, I should be allowed put a question to him. Is the Minister not able to distinguish between investment for productive infrastructural purposes, which I was arguing for then and am now, and wasteful current expenditure which the Minister has not yet done anything effective to control?
I have no difficulty whatever in distinguishing between productive investment for productive purposes and wasteful current expenditure. The Member who has difficulty in doing that is Deputy O'Kennedy because he waffled on for a long time in 1983, 1984 and 1985 about reducing current expenditure and, with the exception of one silly little proposal about consultancy services, the Deputy has never said how current expenditure should be reduced. On the other hand Deputy O'Kennedy and his colleagues have resisted every proposal brought forward by the Government to make sure that we make better choices in public investment programmes and that we put taxpayers money and borrowed money into projects that are going to pay off a return.
I should like to ask the Minister, who has displayed today an unprecedented capacity to ignore reality, if he is ignoring the fact that on many occasions I pointed out specifically where savings could be effected in the current programme. I am not going to have the Minister misrepresent me.
If I allow an argument to start, it will not end.
I pointed to such areas as the growth areas of the Department of Labour, the Department of the Public Service and all the areas that have grown under the Government. Is the Minister closing his ears to those suggestions which I made many times here? The Minister should not misrepresent me in this regard.
It has been my experience that the Deputy and his colleagues in his party have consistently refused to say where they would reduce public expenditure in the manner which they say would need to be done.
I have said it again now.
They have consistently refused to support proposals to reduce current expenditure.
Food subsidies?
They have consistently refused to point out what criteria they would apply to public investment projects in order to ensure that the taxpayer gets a better return and have opposed attempts to do so.