Vol. 530 No. 1
3 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the number of occasions on which the Cabinet Committee on Infrastructure including Public Private Partnership met during the year 2000; when the committee last met; when the committee is next due to meet; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1597/01]
4 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the meetings of the Cabinet Committee on Infrastructure held during 2000. [3072/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 and 4 together.
The Cabinet Committee on Infrastructure and Public Private Partnerships met 11 times during the year 2000. The last meeting took place on 14 December 2000 and the next meeting has been scheduled for this evening.
The Cabinet Committee on Infrastructure and PPPs is an integral part of Government and its meetings, as with any Cabinet committee, are an integral part of the business of Government. The practice has grown up over time of allowing questions in the House as to the date and number of meetings of such committees. Questions as to the business conducted at Cabinet committee meetings have never been allowed in the House on the grounds that they are internal to Government. The reasons for this approach are founded on sound policy principles and the need to avoid infringing the constitutional protection of Cabinet confidentiality.
A great deal of work is being done on all aspects of the infrastructure agenda. Questions on particular aspects should be put down to the relevant Minister.
What specific support staff does the Cabinet sub-committee have? How many officials are engaged full-time in co-ordinating the work of this sub-committee, which has met 11 times in the last calendar year and whose expenditure over the seven years, including last year, including that on PPPs, is of the order of £48 billion? Are they all full-time staff? What additional work was done by them on the 356 days the Cabinet sub-committee did not meet?
A number of people on the economic side in my Department spend a great deal of time co-ordinating work with the relevant Departments and agencies. Most of the key Ministers, such as the Tánaiste and the Ministers for Finance and the Environment and Local Government, are on the sub-committee and other Ministers are involved as issues arise, along with all the senior staff in the key Departments. We also link in with the agencies, especially the National Roads Authority, CIE in all its aspects, the ESB, Bord Gáis and any other semi-State bodies where infrastructural matters are ongoing. A large number of civil servants and staff spend a great deal of their time working on the infrastructural committee. The monitoring section for the national development plan is located in the Department of Finance. I am unsure as to the number of staff involved but a number work full-time on it.
Is there one person in the Taoiseach's Department whose full-time responsibility is to monitor, assist and aid this sub-committee? If so, who is it?
It is Mary Doyle.
Is she the assistant secretary?
Yes. She works almost all the time—
That is her full-time post?
She has some other responsibilities but almost all her time is spent on this issue. Also, a number of senior people in the Department of Public Enterprise spend an enormous amount of time driving the national development plan.
(Dublin West): In the framework for action on infrastructural development, including public-private partnerships, which was prepared for the Cabinet sub-committee more than a year ago, particular emphasis is laid on addressing bottlenecks and constraints, including capacity, skills and institutional barriers, where the national development plan is concerned. As the person with overall responsibility for the Cabinet sub-committee, does the Taoiseach find it incredible that, only a month ago, two Departments showed absolute ineptitude in overcoming institutional barriers when 19 workers were led in shackles from Dublin Airport to prison although they came here with a licence to be immigrant workers? Is the Taoiseach confident that such outrages will not happen again and that the Tánaiste and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will finally clear the lines so they are going in the same direction?
In the context of the emphasis laid by the Cabinet sub-committee on public-private partnerships in electricity supply and other projects, does the Taoiseach agree the one major example of a public-private partnership, the bridge over the Liffey at the M50, is not a model or an encouragement to people to have hope or to look with confidence towards the idea of public-private partnerships because it is the major obstacle to traffic in north Dublin, with traffic stretching from the Liffey back to Finglas on an afternoon as workers try to go home?
Specific problems relating to traffic are a matter for the particular Minister.
(Dublin West): Yes, but if the obscene levels of profit garnered by National Toll Roads relative to the investment is to be the model by which the national development plan is underpinned, the Taoiseach had better think again.
The first question is important and the Deputy should table a question to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform about the Moldovans held at Dublin Airport.
They were imprisoned.
On the broader question the Deputy raised, to develop a seven year plan such as this and to expend the money efficiently requires a substantial number of public-private partnership projects. I hope that, when the bridge to which the Deputy referred is doubled in size, it will help and will link in with the enormous amount of construction work taking place across the M50. The motorway from Firhouse will open in a few months, construction of the south-eastern motorway will commence shortly and the airport bypass to Lissenhall is already under construction. I accept the bridge referred to creates tailbacks but there is a plan to double its size. There is a need to have public-private partnerships involved in these types of construction projects.
Does the Taoiseach accept there is a high degree of scepticism and no confidence among IBEC and other business organisations and people in general that the Government can deliver on the public-private partnership concept to fulfil the objectives in the national development plan? Does the Taoiseach accept it is the secrecy of the Cabinet sub-committee on infra structure which leads to this scepticism? Will he examine structures whereby he could answer questions in the House to show what work is being done? This scepticism exists and nothing the Taoiseach has said removes my concern that the Government is not delivering on the public-private partnership projects.
Any of the matters discussed concerning infrastructural projects with agencies such as the NRA, ESB or Bord Gáis can be the subject of questions tabled which will be answered by the relevant Ministers.
We are asking the Taoiseach.
I am not the Minister responsible. That is the point. I am chair of the sub-committee but, under long fixed practices, that does not mean I answer for the Departments of Public Enterprise, the Environment and Local Government, Agriculture, Food and Rural Development and Education and Science. That is not what happens, as the Deputy knows well. As I have said before, and I have answered questions on this, IBEC and ICTU and the other organisations have attended meetings of the group and I do not believe there is any scepticism.
There is.
They have attended meetings and I will meet representatives of IBEC later. I will ask them if there is any scepticism but there certainly was not any at the meeting of 14 December, which is not that long ago.
I will watch with interest the development of public-private partnerships on large projects, for example, the remainder of the eastern bypass route, which is a public-private partnership. Financial institutions and others say they need and have more interest in large rather than small projects. The eastern bypass is a £1 billion project and I look forward to their positive response to taking up that large project. We will see how that progresses, and a number of other projects have been taken up in Waterford and elsewhere.
I appreciate the Taoiseach is the chairperson of the sub-committee and, as such, will he tell me if it has expressed concern that, while £6.3 billion is earmarked in the national development plan for road development, only £2.2 billion is to be spent on public transport? Has that issue come to light? Is he aware, as chairperson of the sub-committee—
That matter was not discussed and is not in order.
I will not talk about anything other than the—
It is not in order.
—Taoiseach and the committee, which is what we are discussing.
It is not what was discussed.
I appreciate that, but I would like to know, for the working of the sub-committee, if the Taoiseach is aware that, over the next 15 years, 450% is the predicted increase in the demand for public transport and that gridlock costs us £2 billion? Has that come to light in the sub-committee? Has consideration been given to the plans needed to address that?
I have pointed out to the Deputy that those matters were not discussed.
The Taoiseach mentioned sustainability. I want to know if he knows the meaning of the word.
Traffic matters are the responsibility of a different Minister.
A large amount of the work of the sub-committee relates to the Luas project which will be completed in two years' time. Work has already begun on the metro lines. All the lines except Cherrywood and Shanganagh are to be developed in the next 15 years. Much of this work will involve long-term and detailed planning. There are also issues concerning mainline rail and the use of some of the network currently not in use. All those matters are discussed with the relevant parties.
I am not saying it is enough.
My question relates specifically and explicitly to public-private partnerships. What is the number of potential public-private partnership infrastructural projects identified and the number agreed to date? In other words, what is the range of potential PPP projects – the Taoiseach referred to one such project – and how many have been initialled and agreed to in principle to date in respect of which there has been an exchange of documents constituting a draft contract? Does the Taoiseach have that information to hand in the accompanying brief?
I do not have a list of projects, but I can obtain a copy for the Deputy. About ten major projects have been identified, of which three or four are under way.
When the Taoiseach says "under way", does he mean that there has been an exchange of documents constituting an agreement in principle or that planning of the project is under way?
About £1 billion has been identified—
I do not want to mislead the Taoiseach or allow him to mislead the House inadvertently. Has the Government initialled an agreement in principle relating to a single public-private partnership infrastructural project anywhere in the State?
Yes, there are a number of such projects.
Already under way.
That is not what the Deputy asked. There are a number of such projects which have been agreed to and in respect of which the paperwork is under way, but I would need to give him a list.
While I am sure the Taoiseach has information to hand in the accompanying brief on many matters – he is due to attend a meeting tonight in respect of which I have no doubt he has an extensive brief – my one question relates to a single project in respect of which there has been an exchange of documents constituting a preliminary legal undertaking between the State on the one hand and a set of private contractors on the other, not the number of potential PPP projects identified. In other words, is there a single project which has reached the point where there is agreement in principle on foot of an exchange of letters which are binding by way of a quasi-contract?
There is.
Does the Taoiseach know what it is?
I am trying to find out whether an agreement has been signed in respect of the Waterford project.
Waterford bridge.
The project has been developed a long way. There are two other road projects. I have a list of road projects—
Let me assist the Taoiseach. It is reported in the newspapers today that the ring road around Limerick has been identified as a suitable project—
But it has not been signed.
Does the Taoiseach have information on items which are signed and irrevocable?
To the best of my knowledge, there are three such projects. There are seven others, in respect of which agreements have not been signed. I do not have a breakdown of the figure of £1 billion in respect of PPP projects.
As the chairperson of the sub-committee, is the Taoiseach confident that the major infrastructural projects identified will be delivered on time in the light of the fact that there are huge bottlenecks in the construction industry? There will be huge difficulties in securing engineering and other skilled staff for these new projects. What measures are being taken in this regard? Is the Taoiseach not concerned about the CPO procedures involved which are delaying the implementation of the national development plan? Will we witness reform?
That has already happened in the Planning and Development Act. For example, one year ago the Waterford road project involved 11 separate contracts which have now been reduced to two as a result of the new CPO procedure in the negotiation of contracts. As a consequence, the project will be completed by 2007, instead of 2017 or 2018 as originally envisaged. The same applies to the Galway, Limerick, Cork and Belfast projects which have been allowed to move apace because of the new streamlined procedure in the Planning and Development Act which is working well so far. By the end of the year most of the bottlenecks had been removed.
(Dublin West): Does the Taoiseach share my incredulity that in the second year of the national development plan on which, apparently, £45 billion is to be spent, a detailed national spatial plan has still to be produced by the Government? Does the Taoiseach agree that it would be logical to debate and agree such a spatial plan first in the light of the fact that it should form the basis of the development of the national development plan in terms of the allocation of resources and the policies which should determine where populations should be developed, etc? What has the Cabinet sub-committee on infrastructure done in this regard? Has a final decision been made on a national spatial plan and, if so, when will it be brought forward?
The draft national spatial plan is before the Government.
As chairman of the Cabinet sub-committee on infrastructure, does the Taoiseach accept that land acquisition presents one of the biggest difficulties in advancing the national development plan? Has the Taoiseach looked at the submission from the IFA in which it seeks to address the matter in a fair way? Will he acknowledge that a number of significant infrastructural projects are being held up by landowners who are refusing to engage with local authorities and allow them access to their land on the advice of the IFA until the matter is resolved?
I have met and received the proposals of the IFA on the issue which presents a very big problem in certain areas. It all comes down to compensation and how the issue is hand led in terms of the value of the land in question and the speed with which payment can be made. From the Government's point of view, the best course of action is to try to reach a clear understanding with the IFA on a procedure which would be applicable throughout the country as, otherwise, time will be lost. While there are some delays in the implementation of the national development plan, they are not occurring on the road plans side. Last year, about 96% of the NDP infrastructure funds allocated was drawn down. If there is a reluctance, as there is, on the part of some IFA members, we could run into great difficulties on some of the major projects. It is in the interests of the Government, therefore, to come to an understanding on a proper and fair, but simple procedure for land acquisition acceptable both to landowners and the State.
Does the Taoiseach accept, in principle, that a fair approach would be to have sufficient compensation to replace land with similar land in the same area, rather than a net figure which would be applicable throughout the country?
This is a complex matter, which has yet to be worked out. It has been outlined in the representations from and the meetings I have had with the IFA that it would like to see uniform procedures in place. While land in one area would not be worth the same as land in another, it wants to do its best for its members.
Replacement land varies.
It is not always a question of replacement land. Many members of the IFA want compensation. This is understandable as land is a valuable asset. Among many other issues, their farming activities are being disrupted and their farms split. It is in the interests of the State to get as near as we can to a system which would avoid the same arguments being made in every part of the country.
People in the west would be quite happy to get Wexford prices for land in compensation.
Unfortunately, people in Wexford are getting west of Ireland prices.
The Taoiseach said the Waterford route is not expected to be completed until 2007. Is he confident projects will be completed on time given that there are not enough construction staff or engineers to ensure they are delivered on time? What measures are being taken to ensure skilled staff are in place to deliver on time these projects which are fundamentally important to the NDP?
The position has improved dramatically. The NRA in the early part of last year was given the go-ahead to recruit new project teams and senior engineering staff. The authority has recruited the necessary senior staff for all its teams since Christmas. As the Deputy will be aware, there has been an extensive, successful international campaign to attract large contractors to take up recent major contracts. An enormous number of the largest contractors in Europe have specified an interest. It has improved to a point, which we discussed previously on Question Time, where there seems to be a figure below which people will not go to tender. If the project is valued at more than £100 million, there is not a problem but if it is under that figure, there is. It is quite clear where the line is drawn by the major contractors.
It was clear three years ago.
We could not do that until we got all the contracts together.
That problem was identified three years ago.
Yes, but all the blocks offered by the NRA now are substantial contracts. The Deputy is aware of what happened in regard to the south eastern motorway the first time it went to tender as opposed to the second time.
It was too small.
