Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I do not think Deputy Higgins and I will ever agree on issues such as this, but we might. A number of Deputies on the opposite side of the House have acknowledged the principle that if we have money to put into developing our economy, it is a big plus. This is money that is not in the country at the moment but will be brought back here and used in the way the legislation allows. The key point is that if it is €6.8 billion, and if by involving partners in PPPs we can leverage that fund to get double the money, it will double the impact. Some of the money has already been used in just that way. We have already put in €1.2 billion, and matching funds have been found to support SMEs. Funds to support SMEs are very welcome indeed, so it is working.

It is also true that the economy is definitely improving significantly. I do not have the unemployment figures for Deputy Pearse Doherty's constituency - I have no doubt that he does - but I do know that unemployment nationally has decreased from a high of 15% three years ago to about 11.6% now, which is below the European average. It is still exceptionally high and there are significant issues relating to youth unemployment and so on, but the trend is in the right direction. Unemployment is falling and more jobs are being created. When we got into power, we were losing something like 7,000 jobs per month - 7,000 people were losing their jobs every month. Now, approximately 5,000 people are becoming gainfully employed in our economy. These are the significant areas that have improved.

Deputy Deasy's point is very important. His amendment clearly directs our attention to the issue of balanced regional development. He is absolutely right about the unemployment situation in Waterford. We have read about and seen what happened down there. Clearly it happened in other parts of the country as well. The regions need more investment. The Minister for Finance is very conscious of the need to ensure that economic development is not concentrated in a few areas. Therefore, the Minister proposes to insert the new section 49 into the Bill, which will require the agency in its national report to provide an assessment of the regional distribution of the investments of the strategic investment fund and the economic and employment impact of these investments. This will enable the Government and the Oireachtas to understand the overall impact of reorienting the National Pensions Reserve Fund into the Ireland strategic investment fund. The fund is intended to benefit the entire country and to boost economic development and employment. It will be important to have data on the fund's investments in order to measure that impact. Deputy Deasy has submitted an amendment to the same effect. As the Government is proposing a different wording, I hope Deputy Deasy can support it in terms of what we are doing.

The legislation as currently drafted provides that the NTMA must consult with the Ministers for Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform and have regard to the views expressed by them. The Minister may consider regional views without the need to prescribe this in legislation. This provides the maximum level of flexibility. Our approach is to be less prescriptive in legislation in order to have flexibility in the strategic investment fund. If the strategic investment fund looks like a public policy tool, it may compromise its ability to attract private sector co-investment. By leveraging the funds, the strategic investment fund will be able to make a bigger impact on economic activity and employment in Ireland.

The Deputy said earlier that he wanted schools in his constituency. This is already happening under the schools bundle 3 PPP. Over €110 million has been invested into a project with a vision of more than 7,500 school places in eight schools around the country. This means that the funds that can be used productively with PPP investment produce a very positive result in terms of facilities in schools. There was a large conference recently in Dublin which was addressed by the Minister for Finance and people from the Ireland strategic investment fund. The conference was extremely well attended by businesspeople, be they from Waterford, Drogheda, Cork or Dublin, and looked at methods and packages of proposals for business. We are actively seeking partners out there. The fact that the State is prepared to play a core role in that investment strategy will strengthen the deal we are asking private enterprise to get involved in.

Many of the arguments the Deputies made will produce half the benefit of what we propose. What we propose via the fund will double what the Opposition proposes, which is the key issue.

It is not possible in advance to assess the level of commercial opportunities that will present on a regional basis, but we want them to happen. We are actively pushing for them and meeting people who are interested and who have proposals. Changing the name of the ISIF is not realistic.

I refer to the question of the directions to invest in banks. As I said previously in the debate, acceptance of amendment No. 19, tabled by Deputy Doherty, would involve the deletion of section 42. I can only repeat that the section has been included as a precautionary measure. There is no wish ever to see it used. The section makes it clear that it can be used only in exceptional circumstances. That goes to the heart of the matter. While I welcome the recognition of Deputies opposite of the principle underpinning the fund, I ask them, notwithstanding the ideological problems they have with it, if the fund can be doubled, why not do it? Why not have private enterprise come along in partnership with the State to provide social housing and so on? If a voluntary housing agency such as Respond! can go to the market to raise funds, theoretically, if it meets all the requirements and all the detail is signed off, that does not have to be, from the point of the view of the Deputies opposite, commercial in that context if it a registered voluntary agency. If it could raise funds, the State could work with the agency. Deputy Coppinger and others are correct that there is a deficit in investment, but if the State steps up to the mark and puts forward its tranche of cash, then private enterprise will be more likely to get involved. Companies obviously need a commercial return. This is probably the best news we have had in this country for many years because all this money up to now has been invested in other countries. It is now coming home to create jobs and infrastructure on a commercial basis.

On that basis, I hope Deputy Deasy accepts the explanation I have given. I acknowledge the issues he has raised and this is an attempt to acknowledge and address them and the issues raised by Opposition Members. Notwithstanding their arguments, the welcome they have given to the principle underpinning the fund is welcome. If we can go forward together and build on this, we can help to transform our economy in these difficult times.

See this speech in context