Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)

As mentioned by the Minister of State, this motion addresses what is primarily a technical issue to do with the carryover of unspent moneys. I will discuss that point but, given the fact that he referred to the capital programme, I will make an equally brief comment.

According to the Minister of State, the capital investment programme remains substantial at €17 billion, but it is important to state that the significant cuts in capital investment are particularly disastrous in the current economic climate. Investment is desperately required, but these cuts come at a time when private sector sources of investment have collapsed. As such, any cut in the capital programme is disproportionately damaging to the possibility of economic growth.

A significant amount of money was poured into Europe's private banking system, supposedly in an effort to get banks lending to and investing in the economy. According to announcements made this week, however, there has been no investment and the banks are hoarding money in the vaults of the European Central Bank, ECB. This situation makes the cut in Ireland's public expenditure on capital investment all the more depressing and damaging. We need a significant increase in that expenditure if we are to have any chance of restarting economic growth and returning people to work.

As Deputies have stated, it is quite sensible that last year's unspent moneys be carried over as opposed to having them surrendered to the Central Fund. I agree with the Minister of State that multi-annual budgeting makes sense. Many projects roll over several years and restricting planning to an annual budget framework would be foolish. That said, €114 million is a significant sum in the current economic climate. As Deputies and public representatives, we must scrutinise how every cent and euro of public money is being spent or unspent if we are to know it is being spent well, efficiently and to maximum effect and advantage for the public and the economic and common good.

In this context, it is a matter of concern that the only information we are given is a list of Departments and headings and a bald figure.

There is no explanation for why the underspend occurred and, more specifically, the areas or projects affected. There is no information in either the original note on the deferred surrender or in the Minister of State's speech on whether the money carried over will be spent under different headings and, if so, the original headings. The Government owes it to the House and, more importantly, the public to explain fully the underspends, the headings under which the money will be spent and the reason for any changes that might have been made.

As the biggest single issue facing the country is the employment crisis, it is critical that we spend money to maximum effect in creating jobs. In that context I note that part of the €15.8 million carried over by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources is to be spent on retrofitting. Does this mean the retrofitting programme had an underspend last year or is the money being moved from elsewhere? Targeted expenditure in this area could create tens of thousands of jobs and the measures could be self-financing in that the State would make significant savings in energy efficiency. Is there a problem with investing in an expansion of the retrofitting programme?

I cannot tell from the figures whether there was an underspend in micro-finance last year or if we are shifting money from other areas. If there was an underspend in this area can the Minister of State explain the reason for it?

See this speech in context