Matt Shanahan criticises Appropriations Bill and regional cuts

Thank you for remaining in the House to listen to the debate on the Appropriations Bill. You have highlighted that the purpose of the Appropriations Bill is to give statutory authority for the amounts voted by the Dáil during the year and provide for the definitive capital carryover from 2021 to 2022. Estimates aggregate to €73.1 billion and the comparable amount in the Appropriations Act 2020 was €69.7 billion. Therefore, it means that we must appropriate this year €3.4 billion or just under 5% of last year's net voted expenditure. As you have outlined, Minister, this represents substantial support to households, to businesses, to public services. Indeed, it continues to support many of these sectors. Indeed, you have also outlined the exceptional and much-needed funding that has been provided in business supports to our key SME sector and to our public services. I would highlight and thank you, Minister, for the extension of the PUP and the EWIS supports, which are critical at this time as continuing restrictions ensue. The second purpose of the Bill is to provide funding under a legal basis for expenditure into 2022 prior to voting on 2022 estimates. This money is needed, in effect, to keep the lights on in Ireland and keep our public services financed, including the regulated payments of social protection. In your speech, Minister, you mentioned this initial development plan, which sets out allocations for the next decade of €165 billion in the revised capital development plan. You also mentioned that this funding is predicted to generate in the construction sector alone over 80,000 direct and indirect jobs, which would be most welcome. I am not sure, Minister, if you were in the House earlier today to hear another speaker suggest job losses in excess of 40,000 in the coming year in the SME sector due to indebtedness and falling business margin. I am not aligning myself to those comments, Minister, but I can tell you that there is significant pressure on the SME sector in Ireland at the present time. We have spoken in the House many times about a lot of those problems that are ensuing, but I think, Minister, you will have to look at extending some supports to key business sectors that are affected. Also, as part of the shiny stars listed within the revised national development plan, you mentioned the N4 upgrade to Sligo, along with the runway project for Dublin Airport and the completion, on time and on budget, of the Cork runway. Significant investments indeed in aviation and transport. Can I highlight to you, Minister, the withdrawal of €350,000 annual support to Waterford Regional Airport, pending planning approval for a runway extension, and also the exclusion of that airport from a recent aviation package to support regional airports of €126 million. It is hard to understand this thinking, Minister, particularly in light of the carryover in the budget. I would also highlight to you again that Waterford Airport is the home of Rescue 117, and that airport and the regional activity around it is needed to support that service. No mention either in the National Development Plan of N25 or N24 road upgrades, not prioritised in the National Development Plan. The Dun Kettle interchange is there for sure, along with the proposed motorway development linking Cork and Limerick. Nothing announced beyond a review analysis of linking the south-east and mid-west transport corridors, which could do so much to activate economic activity across southern Ireland. You have mentioned carryover minister of €800 million into next year. Can I mention the Waterford Institute of Technology campus, which has not seen a new capital building or investment in teaching space in over 14 years? And indeed the present commitment to build a new engineering building under a PPP arrangement looks like not proceeding until probably 23 or 24 at the earliest. I have raised the issue in the House Minister a number of times of how capital is appropriated and directed in this country. I am cognisant that no capital budget has been announced for the new proposed technological university of the south-east. It is the only third-level sector driver of third level in the south-east minister and we are still yet waiting to hear the breadth of government ambition, more than a year after the amalgamation process has begun. I am also aware that a business case to fund 24 whole-time equivalents to the cardiology suite at University Hospital Waterford remains dormant and has still not been in action despite the significant promises of government. I would remind you again, Minister, University Hospital Waterford is one of nine model fours in the country and has the lowest number of staff per bed in the country, more than 700 less than its nearest peer, yet it is about the third busiest hospital in the country. Government have not yet decided or indicated how it will support future wind development either, Minister, and in recent days the regional group brought a maritime bill, an energy bill here which government kindly accepted, but within that there was nothing to suggest, Minister, when government will make a decision about funding of ports to enhance the offshore opportunity, particularly Rosler, Europort and Waterford, which lie on the east coast, Minister, where the next 10 years of activity is going to happen. Minister, I have questioned the ability of the system to treat regions equally and to try and develop individual regions on an equal and sustainable basis. The south east is in the programme for Government Minister. Waterford is at the heart of driving the south east region and yet we are still waiting on the capital commitments to show us that that endeavour is actually clear and accurate within the programme. I ask you also how are we going to challenge the climate crisis. We have certainly enhanced and brought in spending. We have certainly initiated taxation, but where is the planning, Minister, about sustainable and renewables in the country? What we spend is important. How we spend it, I would argue, is even more important. In your own programme for Government, Minister, you have highlighted that the house building programme is a key cornerstone of government policy. And yes, I think you are aware, and if you are not Minister, I am sure many of your department officials are, the increasing obstacles to construction in this country, the cost base is now. I spoke to a large developer in Waterford recently who was stopping building houses for the foreseeable year or 18 months simply because he cannot make any money out of it. So we have regulation and taxes, Minister, and we have to look at those. Otherwise, the house building programme that you envisage will not be happening or that your Government envisages will not be happening. I certainly will. I welcome better procurement, and I welcome better policy, and as I say, I look to see better oversight in terms of appropriation. I move for an adjournment. I'm going to come and court up.