Mr. Robert Watt:

I will answer the last question regarding the capital investment plan first. The tradition has been to have five-year plans so a Government sets out an allocation for five years. Beneath that, Departments, commercial semi-State bodies and agencies would have longer-term plans. For example, ESB Networks will have a ten, 15 or 20-year plan for the development of the network and other sectors. We have never published something that went beyond that. What we are doing now in the two processes I discussed involves the Government deciding how to allocate this additional space available for the next term of years. There is also a commitment to have a longer-term plan - I think it is ten years but it might be more appropriate to have a 15 or 20-year plan - where we would set out in more detail the plans across the different sectors indicative allocations envelopes, but also to look at a capital plan in a different way. The concern in the past has been always been that the capital spending plans are divorced from spatial or land use plans. The Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government is developing a national planning framework and we are now working on this longer term plan. A really important issue that we will address over the next period is the extent to which those plans are actually linked and formalised and that spatial development drives the capital plan because in the past, we published them but they were not connected. We are committed to planning infrastructure and spending over a longer period than was the case previously, which was more medium term. We now have a much longer-term timeframe of between ten, 15 or 20 years.

We have no issue with the question of whether there is a role for an infrastructure commission but, ultimately, it is the Government that will decide the allocations. The Government is not in the business of outsourcing policy responsibility to other bodies. Ultimately, that body will be subject to enormous pressure from every vested interest in the country whose sole objective is to get more money for capital projects at the expense of the taxpayer so the extent to which that would be useful is something we are considering. Within our Department and the system across all the different Departments and the different bodies and agencies that support those Departments, we are happy we have the capacity and expertise to be much better at longer-term planning for infrastructure provision. As we develop the current plan, it is something we will come back to and are happy to do that.

In respect of the Acting Chairman's comments about working together, we are here to help members and facilitate the committee in any way possible and we have said so. We have engaged with the committee and provided vast amounts of information. There is no comparison between the amount of information that is now available in terms of the budget process and what we had five, ten, 15 or 20 years ago. It should be acknowledged that the way we budget is much more open, transparent and accountable than it ever was. The engagement with Oireachtas committees is much more extensive, as is the amount of information provided. This should be acknowledged by the committee. On the basis of us working together, we are very happy to engage with the committee in terms of how it discharges its mandate. Officials from my Department have provided an incredible amount of information and will make themselves available to deal with the team that is there in supporting the committee. We are happy to continue that in any way the committee thinks appropriate.