Pat Rabbitte
Question:1 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet sub-committee on social inclusion and drugs last met; and when the next meeting is scheduled. [21336/04]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Cabinet Sub-committees.
Trevor Sargent
Question:2 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the Cabinet sub-committees which are currently established under the auspices of his Department; and when each last met. [22463/04]
Enda Kenny
Question:3 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the Cabinet sub-committees which have been established under the aegis of his Department; and the number of meetings held by each sub-committee. [24033/04]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:4 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet sub-committee on social inclusion and drugs last met; and the date of its next meeting. [24123/04]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:5 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet sub-committee on housing, infrastructure and PPPs last met; and its planned meetings for 2004. [24124/04]
Tony Gregory
Question:6 Mr. Gregory asked the Taoiseach the dates on which the Cabinet sub-committee on social inclusion and drugs met to date in 2004; and when its next meeting is scheduled. [24374/04]
Trevor Sargent
Question:7 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet sub-committee on social inclusion on drugs last met. [26385/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 7, inclusive, together.
I am circulating in the Official Report a table for the information of Deputies detailing the Cabinet sub-committees established by the Government, the dates they last met, the number of occasions they have met since 6 June 2002, the dates of the next meeting in respect of the Cabinet sub-committees on social inclusion, drugs and rural development; housing, infrastructure and public private partnerships; and the dates of the meetings held in 2004 for the Cabinet sub-committee on social inclusion, drugs and rural development.
|
Name of Committee |
Date of last meeting |
Number of meetings since 6 June 2002 |
Date of next meeting(s) |
|
Social Inclusion, Drugs and Rural Development* |
20/10/2004 |
21 |
17/11/2004 |
|
Housing, Infrastructure and Public Private Partnerships |
20/10/2004 |
20 |
17/11/2004 and 08/12/2004 |
|
Children |
30/06/2004 |
7 |
— |
|
Health Strategy |
27/10/2004 |
6 |
— |
|
European Affairs |
03/11/2004 |
30 |
— |
|
Information Society |
26/11/2003 |
4 |
— |
|
Asylum, Immigration and Refugee matters |
10/03/2004 |
4 |
— |
|
Decentralisation |
29/03/2004 |
2 |
— |
|
Aer Lingus |
14/07/2004 |
1 |
— |
|
Science, Technology & Innovation |
Recently established |
Will have its first meeting shortly |
— |
*Meetings held in 2004: 28/01/2004; 12/02/2004; 25/02/2004; 26/05/2004; 30/06/2004 and 20/10/2004.
In this area we tend to focus on the drugs issue.
These are statistical questions which refer to Cabinet sub-committees. We do not go into detail on questions on specific subjects.
I want to ask the Taoiseach a question on that issue. In terms of the Cabinet sub-committee on social inclusion and drugs, has the Cabinet taken any measures or focused on the social inclusion aspect?
That does not arise under these seven questions. If the Deputy has a question, it should be submitted to the line Minister.
The only question I have put to the Taoiseach is whether the Cabinet sub-committee on drugs and social inclusion has discussed social inclusion. I submit, with respect, that this is an entirely reasonable question.
All seven of these questions are purely statistical. Deputies cannot ask questions of the Taoiseach which should properly be addressed to line Ministers.
In Question Time for the past month we dealt with precisely the kind of territory in respect of the drugs aspect that the Chair is now ruling out.
Where we have statistical questions, the Chair has continued to rule out supplementary questions, as have my predecessors. This relates to a Cabinet sub-committee.
It is getting even worse.
I appreciate that. The purpose of us putting in a question like that is to use it as a peg upon which to hang questions regarding the substance of the sub-committee.
That is correct. However, questions that relate to Cabinet business have never been allowed in this House and questions that are more appropriate to the line Minister responsible are not appropriate at this Question Time. The Chair has ruled on this many times.
To the best of my knowledge, the Taoiseach is Chairman of this sub-committee. Although I dispute your ruling, with respect, the only question I asked does not impinge on your ruling. I merely asked the Taoiseach whether the Cabinet is focused on the social inclusion aspect of the sub-committee and whether any decisions have been taken in that regard. I find it very difficult, even taking the narrowest view you are taking today on this issue, how you can rule out a question that says, "to ask the Taoiseach when the Cabinet sub-committee on drugs and social inclusion last met", and so on. I am merely asking him whether the sub-committee concerned addresses the question of social inclusion separately from the issue of drugs.
The Deputy will accept that the business of Cabinet is confidential and it is not acceptable to ask supplementary questions about what goes on at a Cabinet sub-committee.
I must submit, with great respect, that if you are saying that Cabinet confidentiality inhibits me or any Opposition Deputy asking whether a Cabinet sub-committee designated to deal with social inclusion does in fact do so, then it is time we all went home.
The answer to the question is "yes". Most of the issues in this sub-committee are based around social exclusion and finding means and ways of helping to alleviate the problems that are created in areas where there are difficulties and hardship and where social inclusion means can assist. There is a number of Ministers involved in the Cabinet sub-committee.
In connection with the area we pursued at the last Question Time, is the Taoiseach concerned, as Chairman of this Cabinet sub-committee, about the incidence of drug misuse and abuse outside Dublin? The Taoiseach may recall that at the time the sub-committee was set up, I was the Minister responsible for its establishment and there was no opiates abuse outside the Dublin area——
Again, the Deputy is going outside the scope of the question.
The extent of abuse outside Dublin has trebled since 1998.
That question is more appropriately addressed to the line Minister.
All I am asking the Taoiseach is whether, as Chairman of the sub-committee and as Taoiseach, he is concerned that opiates abuse and drug abuse in general——
This does not arise.
——outside Dublin is on the increase and whether this is a matter that is the focus of the sub-committee about which I am attempting to ask questions.
The answer to that question is "Yes". Over the past year many measures and discussions have taken place in this regard. We considerably extended the programme. I am sure the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, would be glad to the give the details of that. While hard drugs such as heroin may not be the drugs in question, the efforts, procedures and processes being put in place in the regions are now almost mirroring what is happening in the city.
I will endeavour to abide by the Ceann Comhairle's ruling. The Taoiseach informed the House on 18 May that the Cabinet sub-committee on social inclusion and drugs had met ten times in the previous 12 months. On the basis that the drugs problem has worsened, as has been widely acknowledged, and that the European Commission's joint report on social inclusion ranks Ireland very low in terms of its success in this area, at least in regard to social inclusion, can the Taoiseach indicate whether there has been an increase in the frequency of the meetings of the sub-committee, or whether it has met as often as ten times in the past 12 months? What is the frequency of its meetings? Given that there is an air of confidentiality surrounding the workings of the sub-committee, to which the Ceann Comhairle referred, does the Taoiseach consider there may be a case for the sub-committee not to be within Cabinet, which would enable us to discuss what it deals with given that the issues concerned are of such critical importance?
In all these areas we are dealing with critical issues, particularly in the case of drug abuse. Without going outside the Chair's ruling, I point out that practically all the efforts, resources, commitments, expenditures in respect of this area with which the line Minister is dealing, in this case, the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, have been proactively moved to the regions. He has plans to deal with specific problem areas. I am sure he would be glad to answers questions on this matter. Practically all our work has been to move the focus to the difficult areas and to link them with a specific plan to deal with these difficulties.
The Taoiseach did not indicate the frequency of the sub-committee's meetings.
They are held monthly.
The mid-term review of the 2001-08 national drugs strategy is under way. Is the Cabinet sub-committee on social inclusion and drugs involved in this process, or does the Taoiseach, as chairman of that sub-committee, delegate responsibility to somebody to attend the national drugs strategy review? What is the position on that?
Does the remit of the sub-committee which he chairs extend to dealing with the consequences of driving while under the influence of a substance? Recently there was a horrific case where this happened and which was reported widely in the national newspapers. Does the remit of the sub-committee extend to deal with or make recommendations on the consequences of such behaviour?
On the Deputy's second question, the answer is "No". That matter is under the remit of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and comes under the laws of that Department.
For the information of the House, the terms of reference of the Cabinet sub-committee on social inclusion are to provide strategic focus in tackling the problems of social exclusion, disadvantage and alienation. The work of the sub-committee encompasses issues ranging from drugs to issues throughout the country. Its agenda ranges across the responsibilities of a large number of Ministers, as guided by the provisions of the programme for Government, Sustaining Progress, the national development plan, the national drugs strategy, to which the Deputy referred, and the national anti-poverty strategy. All the relevant Ministers with responsibility for those areas are involved. Therefore, in reply to the Deputy's first question, the sub-committee monitors and reports on the national drugs strategy.
While I am aware the Taoiseach will not discuss the details of the discussions of the sub-committee, will he indicate whether the alarming rise in the prevalence of cocaine is being addressed by the sub-committee and advise if it will bring forward proposals in that regard?
That is a matter for a line Minister.
If the Taoiseach is disposed to answer, his response will be welcome.
Will the Taoiseach confirm the correct title of the sub-committee on housing, infrastructure and PPP? Sometimes in official notices the housing element of the title is missing. Does this sub-committee have a responsibility in delivering the 10,000 so-called affordable houses promised under the Sustaining Progress agreement? Will the sub-committee address the need to increase the output of social housing to meet the urgent need of the 48,000 household units currently on housing waiting lists throughout the State?
The information requested by Deputy Ó Caoláin will be contained in the answer to the next group of questions. The sub-committee deals with the issues referred to in Questions Nos. 8 to 10, inclusive.
I refer to Question No. 5 which is grouped, for whatever reason, with Questions Nos. 1 to 7, inclusive.
The details are given in the answer to Question No. 8. Deputy Ó Caoláin referred to the spread of all drugs. All issues related to this area are discussed by the sub-committee. Housing matters, which are the responsibility of the cross-departmental infrastructure team, will be dealt with in the answer to the next question.
Will the Taoiseach answer Question No. 5?
Deputy Gregory has submitted a question to the Taoiseach.
Is it the Taoiseach's intention, at a future meeting of this committee, to discuss the recent emergence of the use of crack cocaine in his constituency and in one or two other areas of Dublin? Given the extreme nature of this drug and the huge impact it is likely to have——
Deputy, you may ask a supplementary question on the issues covered by Questions Nos. 1 to 7, inclusive.
Is it the Taoiseach's intention to deal with this issue? Although there have been only one of two instances of the use of this drug the gardaí have made a number of seizures——
These are purely statistical questions.
I accept that, a Cheann Comhairle, but maybe the Taoiseach——
It is not appropriate to have a discussion on the issue.
Does the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform attend meetings of the Cabinet sub-committee? There have been recent differences of opinion between him and the Minister of State with responsibility for drugs. Does the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform keep abreast of policy on the drugs issue? Given, as Deputy Rabbitte has said, that the use of heroin is spreading in urban areas outside Dublin, is the under-resourcing of Garda drugs units in these areas addressed by the sub-committee?
The answer to Deputy Gregory's first question is yes. The committee has discussed recent developments in the use of drugs and will continue to do so. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform or one of his Ministers for State always attends meetings of the sub-committee.
There are now Garda drugs teams in every areas. They are no longer only in a limited number of areas. These teams are not part of the committee's work, however. They have been extended by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to all regions. There is a Garda drugs task force in each of the regions.
Has the sub-committee on drugs and social inclusion examined the submissions made to the mid-term review of the national drugs strategy? Will the Taoiseach confirm that the vast majority of those submissions took a negative view of the performance of the strategy to date? Will he indicate the committee's current thinking on this matter?
When two Ministers publicly express opposing opinions on a drug treatment process, as happened recently with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, who decides the Government position or is that resolved by the Cabinet sub-committee on drugs and social inclusion? It is unfortunate to have two polarised positions abroad.
Has the sub-committee discussed the fact that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with the lack of stability in funding, resources, personnel and the ability to progress projects for the local drugs task force——
The Deputy has made his point. These questions are statistical.
——particularly because of the absence of RAPID funding? Are any steps being taken to ensure the local drugs task force can operate effectively?
As regards the first question, obviously the national drugs strategy is monitored. The Deputy should table a question to the Minister. It is not the case that there is a poor return in that area. An enormous amount has been achieved in this regard. The strategy has been extended beyond the original 13 regions to include many others, the details of which are available. The Cabinet cleared the national drugs strategy, so the stated policy in that regard is Government policy.
Not alone are resources available for the 13 original regions but resources are also being extended. The capital resources, which include most of the capital building programme, are also being rolled out. The next wave of proposals is currently before the Minister who will provide details when answering questions that have been tabled on that matter.
Will the Taoiseach give an undertaking to the House that at the next meeting of this sub-committee, or such a meeting in the near future, he will have discussed the absence of any harm-reduction programmes to deal with this issue outside Dublin? In that context, the health research board has recently made certain startling findings.
Did I hear the Taoiseach say that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is always in attendance at these meetings? Does the Taoiseach not agree that the issue raised by Deputy Costello goes to the heart of this matter in the minds of many experts, in other words, the question of needle exchange that was the subject of difference between both Ministers?
I will raise with both Ministers the issue the Deputy referred to about putting it on the agenda for the next or a future meeting of the sub-committee. I have no difficulty in doing so.
I stated that either the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform or one of his Ministers of State attends those meetings. The issue of policy is outlined in the drugs strategy, which includes the issues referred to by Deputy Rabbitte. They are an accepted part of the programme that works at least as effectively as is possible in this area.
Will the Taoiseach advise the House whether or not the equal opportunities child care programme falls within the remit of the Cabinet sub-committee on social inclusion and drugs? Given the sub-committee's focus on social inclusion, is there such a dimension?
No, it is not within the sub-committee's remit.
Public Private Partnerships.
Pat Rabbitte
Question:8 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public private partnership; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21337/04]
Enda Kenny
Question:9 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public private partnerships will next meet; the number of meetings of the team planned for 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21435/04]
Joe Higgins
Question:10 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the progress made by the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public private partnerships; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22391/04]
Trevor Sargent
Question:11 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public private partnerships; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22474/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 to 11, inclusive, together.
Can Question No. 5 also be taken now, a Cheann Comhairle? Will the Taoiseach clarify that?
Question No. 5 is to ask the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on housing, infrastructure and PPPs last met and its planned meetings for 2004. It is purely a statistical question. We will now hear the Taoiseach's reply to Questions Nos. 8 to 11, inclusive.
I will try to cover it anyway, a Cheann Comhairle. There have been four meetings of the cross-departmental team on housing, infrastructure and PPPs since I last reported to the House. They took place on 9 June, 7 July, 7 September and 13 October. The next meeting will take place tomorrow, and one further meeting is planned before the end of the year.
The discussions at the June meeting focused on major developments relating to infrastructure issues, including progress on key projects and proposals for legislative change. The team also agreed its work programme for the remainder of the year.
The July meeting centred on a report prepared by a legal issues sub-group, assessing the effectiveness of measures taken in recent times to improve infrastructure and highlighting the remaining obstacles. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government also made a presentation on the regional planning guidelines.
The September meeting focused on progress in addressing the issues raised by the legal issues group report. The team also discussed the infrastructure-related recommendations in the report of the enterprise strategy group. The main theme of the most recent meeting was housing. The topics for discussion at tomorrow's meeting of the team are broadband and public private partnerships.
Overall, the cross-departmental team plays a valuable role in prioritising infrastructure issues to be addressed and, where necessary, proposing possible solutions for consideration by the Cabinet committee specifically and Government generally.
What is the Taoiseach's reaction to the extraordinary revelations made by the Minister of State with responsibility for housing when he told Deputy Gilmore that since enactment of the Planning and Development Act 2000, 196,000 houses had been built? However, under Part V of that Act relating to social and affordable housing only 350 houses have been built, 209 affordable units and 106 social units. For all the brouhaha we had about this tremendous social dimension to the legislation, introduced by the then Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, the net outcome is 350 social and affordable houses.
A question, please, Deputy.
Does the Taoiseach recall his Government effectively abolishing that measure in favour of the builders and imposing a levy? In terms of the levy on the housing output to which I referred, 80,000 houses were exempted from social and affordable provisions under the 2000 Act and the levy has been paid only in respect of 400 such houses. Is it not fair for any average person or any citizen awaiting housing to conclude that the Government is more concerned about protecting builders than it is about protecting people looking for social and affordable housing?
Deputy Rabbitte is correct in saying that the number of house completions in the State have reached a record high. Last year was again a record year with almost 69,000 houses built, almost 15,000 of which were in the Dublin area. House completions for the first six months of this year were again up by 21.5% on last year's figure. Indications for the year is for record completions of up to 80,000 more units, which clearly demonstrates that the measures we had to implement a few years ago to boost supply to deal with the unprecedented demand were successful.
The Deputy is also correct in pointing to the scale of activity on new houses. While I cannot recall the figure in the past six years, 350,000 houses were built, which is probably close to one third of the houses in the Republic. From 2002 to June of this year approximately 209 affordable units and 106 social units were completed under Part V of the Planning and Development Act. However, more than 1,000 houses are in progress with a further 1,400 proposed, and this figure is increasing all the time.
When Part V was introduced, people who already had planning permission argued that they should not be subject to its provisions and it created enormous difficulty throughout the country. I cannot recall the number of times I and other Ministers answered questions in the House on this matter proposing that we should allow those with planning permission to proceed and that only new submissions should be subject to Part V. Effectively Part V applies to more recently granted permissions than was originally intended. To help increase supply, which is obviously worthwhile, the Government made the decision to allow people with pre-existing permissions to proceed and Part V applies to any new permissions granted since the effective date.
Part V did not apply as intended, otherwise 40,000 houses would have been provided under the social and affordable provisions and that did not happen. Instead of 40,000 houses, the Taoiseach's own figures refer to 315 houses. Why has the levy that was to apply to 80,000 houses only been applied to 400 houses to date?
Did the Taoiseach tell the social partners, particularly the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, which promoted the issue of affordable housing during the negotiations for Sustaining Progress, that when he said he would build 10,000 additional social and affordable houses, he meant additional to damn all? Did he tell them that no houses were being built under Part V and, as of now, no houses are being built under the commitment to build an additional 10,000? Will the Taoiseach say when the first houses to be built under Sustaining Progress will be ready for occupation?
Part V started to take effect at the end of 2002 and the beginning of 2003 because there was a real fear that the housing supply would cease. Builders and developers played a part in that but they had permissions for these developments and were allowed to finish them. Part V takes effect for new planning permissions — that was the concession we made to deal with the housing supply. If we had not done that there would not be as many houses being built. It was the only way to deal with this issue, other than in Dublin, where there is a better balance between supply and demand and, although the Dublin area has improved, it is still not in equilibrium.
What about the people who cannot afford to buy a private home?
Most of the houses are being bought by first-time buyers. The Deputy saw the recent CSO figures on the issue.
I also saw the number of second houses being bought. What about the people who cannot afford to buy a private home?
We are spending almost €2 billion a year on social and affordable housing. Last year 13,000 units were available to people on social housing lists, the highest figure since 1986. This year's figure will be the same or higher. In recent years we have spent well over €5 billion under the national development plan on social housing, an enormous sum. Under a range of social and affordable housing measures, people's housing needs are being met. There are waiting lists but we are building and allocating more houses and we are also helping in terms of voluntary bodies.
Deputy Rabbitte asked about social and affordable housing. We attempted to designate the land, do the planning, build the houses and make them available in a short time but none of the social partners believed they would be available very soon. The State has identified land in Clare, Cork, Dublin, Galway, Kerry, Kildare, Meath, Sligo, Waterford, Wexford and Wicklow owned by the State or local authorities for the initiative agreed with the social partners. It was not agreed on the basis that the land would be supplied and the houses would be built. As I stated previously, I would like to see it done quickly because it is a year and a half since we made the arrangements. We had to work through the arrangements with the local authorities, the State and the trade union movement on how that could be done. I wish they moved more quickly on these issues.
The exact number of units will have to be determined in planning the projects and it will invariably depend on the need to incorporate a mix of housing and other facilities, but the estimated figure is that there will be 8,891 units. That will leave a shortfall of approximately 1,000. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is engaged in discussions with a number of Departments and agencies with a view to securing further lands to meet the shortfall and it is hoped that can be done. The Department of Health and Children and health boards have been asked to identify lands that would have a potential yield to ensure we not only bridge the shortfall but go beyond the expected number. Once the initial planning phase is over and planning permissions for these projects is obtained, perhaps we will be able to move more quickly.
As I said on the previous occasion this issue was addressed, there have also been discussions with builders about land swaps, an idea the Construction Industry Federation came up with in the context of social partnership. That is being examined. If that happened, it could speed up the construction of these houses because, in many cases, going through the planning process with its associated difficulties and arrangements takes a considerable amount of time. The private sector builders state — this was a reason for the change to Part V — that from the time they start the process, as we are doing with these lands, it can take three to four years before they can get through the planning process, the agreements with local authorities about roads, sewerage and drainage works and get the planning permission. That is the point they have made to us and I can see that is the case in some of these areas. Dublin City Council has been very helpful in some of the areas in which it has moved quickly to make progress, as has Fingal County Council. In other areas, the process has been extremely slow but no matter how slow it is, the lands are available and it is a matter of trying to process them as quickly as possible. The State has given the lands and it should supply affordable housing to at least 10,000 people.
On the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public private partnerships, has the Taoiseach had an opportunity to reflect on the Comptroller and Auditor General's report in this regard which concluded that the five schools built by Jarvis could end up costing up to 13% more than if built by the State? The Department of Education and Science believed it would save the State 6%. Is there not a case to look very closely at the road the Government seems determined to go down in depending more on public private partnerships, particularly when such revelations indicate the figures are wrong and have show them to be bad for the Exchequer and for education?
There are questions hanging over the future of the Cork School of Music and the involvement of Jarvis which, I understand, has had number of contracts axed in the UK on the basis of its status. It is quite a beleaguered company. Is the Government reconsidering public private partnerships and reviewing the situation, particularly in the area of education where they have been found not to be good value and not good for education?
I have addressed some of these issues before. As I said previously, the public private partnership process, not only for this country but for other countries, is a learning one about how one spreads and shares the risk with the private sector. Some countries have embraced the process comprehensively. Spain and Portugal, which are probably leaders in the field, attempt to undertake all capital projects through PPP. We are not using it to anything like the extent envisaged in the National Development Plan 2000-2006 and there are many reasons for this. People will argue that the schools project was a good deal which was completed quickly and efficiently, a design and build financed undertaking and that we should do more. Others argue——
It was not.
It is a point strongly contested by people in education. The other point is that the Department of Finance is correct in its view that the cheapest way to finance a project is for the State to borrow the money. No one can fund a project more cheaply. The whole argument last year was that earmarking the proportion of the capital envelope for PPP would assist in speeding up many projects. We had a long argument concerning the figures used by EUROSTAT and how it dealt with them. That argument changed when it was no longer necessary to put the full cost of a project up front. In a PPP undertaking, only the proportion of the project affecting the year in question is dealt with. It is spread like a mortgage, over 20 years. That makes PPP far more satisfactory. However, it still does not make it more economic than the rate at which the Department of Finance can borrow and that is the central issue. Nonetheless, it enables projects to be moved more speedily, in many areas.
There are different models and it is not always PPP. The Monasterevin road, which was opened yesterday, was not a PPP, but it was a design and build project. In the recent case of the Cork treatment plant, an incentive penalty mechanism was inserted to encourage delivery of infrastructure within set timeframes. In that case, the PPP arranged a structure so that the local authority would only take over a facility when it is satisfied it is operating properly. Until then the developer carries the cost of the operation. While the PPP heading encompasses a broad array of issues, in Europe it is defined in terms of whether there is a spreading or loading of the risk where the private sector may take a share of it. Now we see a number of PPP projects coming on stream, but not many. They are far fewer than envisaged under the national development plan. I do not believe there are any more in the field of education, except the Cork School of Music, which is still having difficulties with the PPP company involved. People are looking at different methods, such as incentive penalties. The Ringsend water plant is a former PPP as well and there are a number of other projects that have been undertaken in this way.
I understand both sides of the argument well. We are doing some and not others, because of the cost issue. However, there is no doubt that it enables a project to be designed, built, financed and become operational far quicker than the other methods. It enables infrastructural projects to be moved with enormous speed. The Monasterevin road was not a PPP, but one should look at the speed at which this project was carried out as well as the Dublin water plant and the five schools. A great amount of time was gained.
The Taoiseach is missing the point. Monasterevin was not a PPP.
The Deputy must allow the Taoiseach to speak, without interruption.
The public sector should not cave in.
It should not be rejected as a concept. In some areas it works very effectively. Eventually, some of these projects must be undertaken, in any event and they could ultimately end up costing much more. I have argued these points with the Department of Finance and it is not a simple area as regards forecasting outcomes, say, over a ten-year period.
Will the Taoiseach say whether the interdepartmental group discussed the proposed M3 motorway the projected delays and the possible damage it will do to the whole Tara-Skryne valley? What is his view on this and has he spoken to all the parties concerned? Why are we pursuing the building of a motorway and the compulsory purchase of land for it without giving thought to the provision of a rail line alongside it? In most European states, railway provision is also considered in the context of buying land to accommodate motorways.
That question may be more appropriate to the Minister for Transport.
I disagree. The Taoiseach is the leader of the country and this issue is one of our most important.
A detailed question should go to the line Minister.
The past leaders of the country met at Tara.
The Deputy should not give him ideas.
The Deputy has been allowed to ask the Taoiseach a question.
The High King.
Is the Taoiseach for Tara?
A Cheann Comhairle, I would like to answer the Deputy's question. I have listened to some of those involved, though not all. I have listened to those who say the motorway will do major damage to the Hill of Tara and I have listened to those who say it has nothing to do with it. The argument common to both sides is that the development will affect the Skryne valley. I have asked archaeologists, who are members of the country's fastest growing profession, and they differ in their views, as the Deputy knows. The NRA and the Department have asked them to come forward with a conclusive answer. As archaeologists, that is their job and it is not for the local authority, Deputy English or me to answer that. I will be very interested to see their conclusions.
The position should be based on facts. I do not agree with having someone stand on the Hill of Tara with a camera and telling people that the motorway will go through it. As the Deputy and I know, it will not. I went down to see how far away the proposed motorway was from the hill.
It is 784 steps.
While I do not know the exact distance, it is certainly further than the existing road. There is an argument to be made about the Skryne valley, but there is none to be made about the hill of Tara which could not be seen from where I stood on the road. I do not see that argument.
While I do not think there is a plan to provide a railway line, it would make sense to place a new line on the existing route. Of course, the matter can be discussed.
It is the NRA——
Deputy, we are concluding Taoiseach's questions.
It is not a matter for the NRA but for Iarnród Éireann. Whether right, wrong or indifferent, for the past six or seven years I moved this country from having a handful of archaeologists to having a posse of them. It will be interesting to see if we will get a conclusive answer.
Posses always follow behind.
Is that the collective noun for archaeologists?
I am sure archaeologists are not like politicians, that they reach decisions quickly. There are enough of them to do so.