Noel Coonan
Ceist:6 Deputy Noel J. Coonan asked the Minister for Finance the selection process which he plans to put in place for prioritising projects for approval within the national development plan. [31468/08]
Amharc ar fhreagraThursday, 25 September 2008
Ceisteanna (6, 7, 8)
Damien English
Ceist:35 Deputy Damien English asked the Minister for Finance if he plans to review the national development plan to identify priority elements. [31485/08]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Ciaran Lynch
Ceist:67 Deputy Ciarán Lynch asked the Minister for Finance if he proposes to publish a revised statement of the capital expenditure programme for the next five years; the proposals under consideration by his Department to cut, postpone or cancel elements of the national development plan; if so, the elements of same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31322/08]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí ó Béal (49 píosaí cainte)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6, 35 and 67 together.
The questions relate to the publication of a revised statement on the capital expenditure programme. I am currently considering the issues relating to capital investment under the national development plan, NDP, in the context of the forthcoming budget. The question of publishing revised multi-annual capital envelopes will also be considered in that context.
Will the Minister publish cost-benefit analyses on the projects selected to proceed so that we can have confidence that robust projects are being selected? Will the cost-benefit analysis include some form of independent auditing to ensure we do not end up with the type of rose-tinted analysis often produced by parent Departments and will we have an opportunity to debate these in the House?
Is the national development plan dead in terms of the capital projections committed to when it was published? Are the projections which represented approximately €184 billion overall now gone?
The national development plan stands. The Government has made clear that implementation of the plan must be phased over a longer period. It will not be possible to implement the plan within the original envisaged timescale. Therefore, it will be necessary to extend the period during which it will be implemented.
It is important in that context to identify which elements of the plan should be prioritised. In regard to the request from Deputy Bruton for a debate in the House on that matter, such debate can take place in the context of the budgetary debate.
That is not what I asked the Minister. I want protection from the Chair to ensure the questions I ask are answered.
The Chair has no control over the answers given.
I asked if a cost-benefit analysis will be undertaken and if it will be published. It is only then that I will be interested in a debate. I do not want a free rolling debate with backbenchers being rolled in to read out speeches off a word processor.
Deputy Bruton is being rather unfair to the Fianna Fáil backbenchers.
The Minister should answer the question.
We have backbenchers from all parties who work off word processors and, happily, many who do not.
On the specific question, the Government will examine the capital priorities for next year and ensuing years and will determine priorities in relation to them. There has been considerable analyses and cost-benefit exercises in respect of many of these projects. As regards projects which are off balance in strict capital expenditure terms and are subject to the public private partnership system——
The Minister stated on radio that he is open to publishing them, yet he will not say so in the House.
Please allow the Minister to continue.
Deputy Bruton is well aware those particular projects are subject to rigorous economic analysis——
I am not aware of that at all, although I would like to believe it.
——whatever the merits or demerits of the particular financing mechanism involved. On projects which come strictly within the public capital programme, my predecessor introduced many cost-benefit measures to ensure greater value for money in relation to these projects.
The Minister is reneging on what he said on radio, namely, that he is open to publishing these reports. He is foot stepping the issue.
I am not.
I call Deputy Joan Burton.
I would like an opportunity to reply to Deputy Bruton.
The Minister will have plenty of time later to reply. I call Deputy Joan Burton.
Has the Minister decided what will be the total spend on the national development plan? Does he, unlike former Fianna Fáil Governments which, in the late 1970s, borrowed for consumption and led us on the road of economic ruin, propose to borrow to invest in the national development plan?
Will public transport and education issues be prioritised in the national development plan if revised? Is the Minister proposing to axe metro west and to downsize metro north? Will he agree that both decisions would be incredibly foolish and short term if the objective is to return us to competitiveness and economic growth?
I must confess that like former Deputy Charlie McCreevy, I am only a bean counter; I am not an economist or senior counsel. Multinational companies around the world carry out a rating score in regard to investment. What does that type of score do for Ireland's competitiveness and employment? Also, what is the cost of the project and the borrowing requirements in that regard?
The Minister spoke earlier about public private partnerships. The problem with PPPs, as the Minister should know from his earlier reply about banks, is that the cost to private investors of raising finance, owing to the absence of liquidity, has risen significantly. The Minister's comments leave me, a mere bean counter, with some degree of fear and trepidation. The Minister should forget about fancy words like "cost-benefit analysis" and set out, in language that those of us who are not economists or senior counsel can understand, how he is rating the proposed investments in the national development plan.
As I understand it, the Deputy is far from being a humble bean counter; she is a qualified accountant, which is a qualification of some repute.
On the national development plan, the Government must make decisions as part of the budgetary process. Deputy Burton will appreciate such decisions are confidential. The Government will be informed by the considerations available to it in that regard. I have stated, prior to any consideration of these matters by Government, that the question of stimulating productive investment in the economy must be fundamental in assessing the priorities for this year.
Could the Minister answer my question?
I will come back to Deputy Burton. I call Deputy Kieran O'Donnell.
The Minister has not answered the questions asked. He is dealing with taxpayers' money, a scarce resource.
Yes.
Will the Minister state in simple layman's terms what type of cost-benefit analysis is provided within the various Departments in regard to NDP projects? There is a lack of transparency on the part of the Government in this regard. The Minister for Finance is guardian of the public purse. People are entitled to know how their money is being spent. We need the Minister to tell us today how that is being done. As stated earlier by Deputy Bruton, the Minister appears to be reneging on the commitment he gave on the national airwaves in respect of the publication of the cost-benefit analysis. What procedures are in place to ensure this information is put into the public domain and will the Minister give a commitment today that this analysis will be brought before the House?
There are extensive procedures in operation throughout the public administration of this State for the cost-benefit——
The Minister is waffling. He should answer the question.
The Deputy has not given me an opportunity to complete my answer.
The Minister is waffling.
Please allow the Minister to continue without interruption.
I made it clear that there are ample procedures within the public administration of this State for the cost-benefit analysis of many different projects. For example, for educational investment at primary or second level, the specifications for buildings of that type have been established by long tradition. With regard to cost-benefit analysis, as Deputies from all sides of the House know, the demand for particular schools becomes visible, and then with regard to the actual cost of the project, tenders are invited and a proper procedure is followed. There may be some projects of a wider character, to which I assume Deputy Bruton was referring in our recent discussion on the subject, on whose cost-benefit analyses he believes he does not have adequate information. I made it clear that if there was such information I would of course make it available. It is important that we have a detailed consideration of the costs and benefits of any project in which taxpayers' money is an issue. However, I emphasise that the projects within the capital development plans of the Government, or of any government, are subject to rigorous cost-benefit analysis within the public administration.
I will repeat my question to the Minister.
I wish to ask a question.
I am sorry, Deputy Burton; I did not call you yet.
I am sorry. I thought you were calling me.
Deputy Bruton had a question.
I looked to see whether Deputy Bruton was indicating and he was not, but he now is, so I will allow him a question after Deputy Burton.
Does the Minister propose to borrow for the national development plan, and what scale of borrowing does he envisage? I refer to borrowing for investment as opposed to borrowing for current consumption.
How does he propose to rate the different proposals in the national development plan? I have likened these before to a big soufflé. Now the oven door is open and soufflé is sinking rapidly. The Minister must decide which are the priority areas. How will he rate them? Will it be on the basis of the employment they create or the increase in competitiveness that results from them? Will he prioritise projects that help the economy to grow, or will it be based on their overall cost and their implications for borrowing? I have said before and I will say again that I am quite concerned about the Minister's comments on PPPs. Due to the lack of liquidity in the banking system, the cost of borrowing for private equity institutions has risen astronomically, while Ireland, as a country, can borrow much more cheaply, even though our rating is going down after today. Can the Minister say what he is planning to do? These are strategically important decisions.
I agree with Deputy Burton that these are very important strategic decisions, and they will be announced in the budget. The overall amount of borrowing that can be engaged in by the State will also be announced in the budget. It will not be announced in the House this afternoon. It is clear from the figures disclosed to date that borrowing will have to take place for investment in capital programme next year.
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle will share my scepticism at the Minister's silky assurances that everything in the Department of Finance is carefully assessed.
The Deputy cannot attribute any attitude to the Chair.
I will not do so. I ask the Minister whether the €900 million for the decentralisation programme was carefully assessed in the Department. Was the €52 million spent on e-voting carefully assessed in the Department, or the €160 million on PPARS? I could go on and list all the projects we see year in, year out in the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Let us be honest with ourselves; the robust assessment that the Minister talks about does not occur. We need to make it happen, and this House is charged with that duty. The sooner these assessments are published and held up to public scrutiny, so that people are held accountable, the better for this country.
With regard to decentralisation, a political decision was announced by a previous Minister for Finance after being arrived at by the Government, which the Deputy's party——
What assessment was done before the politicians took the decision?
The Deputy's party agreed that a certain designated number of personnel and bodies should be decentralised to particular locations.
We expected that a business case would be made or an assessment carried out.
I have never heard that the Deputy's party opposed that particular Government decision unequivocally or opposed the locations selected by the then Government for decentralisation. Value for money then enters the equation, on foot of the political decision, in assessing the buildings at the proposed locations.
That is the sort of answer the Minister would get away with in the Dáil bar, but not here. Unfortunately, we are time-constrained.