John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 40, line 8, to delete “Ireland Strategic Investment Fund” and substitute “National Strategic Investment Fund”.

Deputy Pearse Doherty said yesterday that no amendment was being accepted by the Government. Strictly, that is correct, but it is fair to state the Government has redrafted some of the amendments I proposed in a Government amendment, amendment No. 23, the one to which I will be speaking.

When the Irish Strategic Investment Fund was announced, I felt there was a major shortcoming in the plan for it. The fund has the potential to amount to €15 billion, but no effort or thought was put into where the money might end up. It is important because the section dealing with the fund is about commercial investment in parts of the country that have been subject to no foreign direct investment in the past 30 years. Some 80% to 85% of foreign direct investment in the recent past has been in Cork, Dublin and Galway. IDA Ireland's efforts to attract a certain percentage of foreign direct investment to parts outside these urban areas have failed badly. It is clear and has now being admitted by IDA Ireland that regional aid incentives have also failed.

The Ireland Strategic Investment Fund is probably the only stimulus package the country will see for years and the way it has been put together is such that potentially 90% of the money could end up going to Dublin. The fund was formerly called the National Pensions Reserve Fund. When one considers that ownership of the pensions reserve fund was intended to be held the entire country, what has been happening seems unwise and unfair. We could have circumstances in which 90% of Ireland Strategic Investment Fund moneys could end up in Dublin. There is some evidence to suggest this might be the case because of investment trends in the past 30 years.

The Government's amendment involves a reporting requirement which is necessary to remind the administrators of the fund and relevant Ministers that an account of where the money ends up is as important as the investment. There is no earmarking of specific amounts for Waterford, in my case, or County Donegal. At the very least, the question of where the money does not go needs to be a policy consideration. That is what the reporting requirement will achieve. It is the first time that an assessment of regional investment, or the lack thereof, has been required in law in a major financial measure. That is very important.

If one were coming at this legislation cold or reading the reporting provision for the first time, one might say the amendment, as drafted, was fairly standard. It is not. If one examines fairly major financial measures, one will find that there is no similar provision. This is extraordinary in itself when one considers what has happened in the past 20 or 30 years in respect of investment. It actually amounts to a tacit acknowledgement by the Government that there is a regional imbalance. In fairness, there is a certain honesty associated with the amendment. The critical point is that the Department of Finance has actually put it in black and white. That was the point of it. I appreciate the meetings and time made available, but, more than anything else, I appreciate the acknowledgement that there is an issue. When I spoke to others, including Ministers and secretaries general, they all agreed with me, but the reality was that nothing ever happened. For this to be put in writing is the significant point. Perhaps this is down to the way the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, operates. It probably has something to do with the fact that he is from Limerick also. I believe he agrees with the points I have been making in recent months on what has been occurring economically in a few urban areas and what has not been occurring almost everywhere else.

The significant parts of amendment No. 23 are paragraphs (f) and (g). Paragraph (a) refers to “an assessment on a regional basis of the impact of the Fund’s investments on economic activity and employment”, while paragraph (g) refers to “an assessment on a regional basis of the distribution of the investments made by the Fund”. These two measures should probably be standard in every significant expenditure measure from now on. With every big ticket measure, we need to consider where the money is and is not being invested. At the very least, there should be a requirement for an assessment of where money ends up being allocated to and the impact it has, or otherwise.

The Government needs to compensate across the board for the fact that there has been no appreciable recovery in parts of the country. I hear about national recovery, but there has been no recovery in some parts. There has been a general improvement across the country, but certain local economies are still stagnating, at best. That is why amendment No. 23 is significant. It acknowledges that there is a regional imbalance and that more attention needs to be paid to efforts to track and spread investment around the country.

See this speech in context