Michael Noonan
Question:1 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach his views on the recent progress report of the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public-private partnerships; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14123/01]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Public-Private Partnerships.
Michael Noonan
Question:2 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach the number of officials of his Department who are members of the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public-private partnerships; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14124/01]
Michael Noonan
Question:3 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach the role of his Department in the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public-private partnerships; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14125/01]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:4 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the progress made to date in the work of the interdepartmental team on infrastructure and public-private partnerships; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14791/01]
Joe Higgins
Question:5 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the role of his Department in the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public-private partnerships. [16005/01]
Jim Higgins
Question:6 Mr. Higgins (Mayo) asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the progress of the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public-private partnerships; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17011/01]
Olivia Mitchell
Question:7 Ms O. Mitchell asked the Taoiseach his views on the progress report of the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public-private partnerships; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17012/01]
Olivia Mitchell
Question:8 Ms O. Mitchell asked the Taoiseach the role and composition of the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public-private partnerships; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17027/01]
Jim Higgins
Question:9 Mr. Higgins (Mayo) asked the Taoiseach the number of occasions on which the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public-private partnerships has met; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17028/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 9, inclusive, together.
In June 1999 the Government established a Cabinet committee on infrastructure and public-private partnerships. The Cabinet committee is supported by a cross-departmental team of senior officials. The cross-departmental team is chaired by an official from my Department and includes representatives of the Departments of Finance, Environment and Local Government, Public Enterprise, Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Attorney General's office.
The primary role of the cross-departmental team is to support the Cabinet committee in its task of providing a strong central focus for delivery of key infrastructure and to ensure any obstacles to delivery are tackled in an effective and co-ordinated fashion across all Departments and agencies. The team meets at least once, and sometimes twice, each month. I wish to emphasise that responsibility for infrastructural projects under the national development plan still rests with the relevant line Departments while the Department of Finance is responsible for co-ordinating the plan as a whole.
A progress report prepared by the cross-departmental team was published in April following its submission to the Cabinet committee and Government. Copies of the report have been laid in the Oireachtas Library. The progress report summarises the very good progress to date in implementing priority infrastructure elements identified by the team. It also identifies some key challenges which will be addressed by the team in the period ahead.
Is the Taoiseach aware of the Department of Finance estimate that the cost of infrastructural projects under the national development plan will increase by 50%? Against this background, is he of the opinion that certain key projects will have to be dropped, or will additional finance be provided to complete the programme? How does he propose to solve the dilemma?
Regarding the figure of 50%, I recently described the effect of inflation and construction inflation on a number of projects and that was not the figure I outlined. In the first expenditure and infrastructure programme, this year there will be an increase of almost 30% on last year's out turn and, while there was considerable inflation in construction projects last year and this year, we believe the programme will stay on course. Most inter-urban roads, except the Waterford road, should be completed by 2006. The Waterford bridge and road will be completed in 2007. Last year 95% of the expenditure on projects was reached on target and that will also hopefully be the case this year. It is too early to say to what extent that will happen over a seven year period, though there is no doubt price inflation and construction inflation will eat into the overall costs of the projects. The national development plan is on target, however, and if we can maintain the 95% figure over this year it will remain so. Some areas may require additional finance but it is too early to indicate that.
The Department of Finance has estimated that the cost of key projects over the first four years of the plan will increase by 50% and that leaves the Taoiseach with the dilemma of either dropping projects or increasing funding. Obviously he does not have information on that in his brief and I will return to it on another day.
Is the Taoiseach aware that the advice coming from the Department of Finance and the National Treasury Management Agency is that public private partnerships could be financed more cheaply by the State than by the private sector? The NTMA can borrow money 2% cheaper than proposed by the typical public private partnership. Is the Government now disposed to amending public private partnership proposals whereby, instead of looking for proposals to finance, design, construct and manage, the State will take over financing?
There is ongoing debate on this issue. I know the view of the Department of Finance and of the National Treasury Management Agency is that the State always borrows cheaper than anyone else and all programmes should be under the capital programme. Discussions with the social partners and public private partnerships are just completed and agreement has been reached on that.
The private sector working with the State can often do a job far quicker. We have already seen a number of the projects in education and the first two road projects, the Waterford road and the Kilcock to Kinnegad road, are at tendering stage. The PPP element of the Limerick ring road will go to tender shortly and construction of the second West Link bridge commences this month. Most elements of the national development plan are public private partnerships, worth £1.6 billion, and some would argue it should be more. The design, construct and management function is not relevant for all projects but PPP is quicker for some schemes. The National Treasury Management Agency would be the first to admit that putting all this into capital programmes when trying to do so much work will not construct these any quicker than the normal, traditional way.
While an argument could be made that PPPs would be quicker, in respect of roads we do not have any evidence of this. Even though the Taoiseach is leading his Government into a fifth year in office, not a single road has yet gone through the PPP route. Is he aware that 11 major road projects under the national development plan are to proceed by way of PPP and that the National Roads Authority is committed to applying tolls to these roads? How can he justify tolling some roads, especially when many of them serve the more disadvantaged areas, and not others? In view of the present financial situation and the large budgetary surplus there is no necessity to toll roads. Will the Taoiseach announce that PPP roads will not be tolled and that the 11 roads in question will continue to progress by way of PPP but that tolls will not apply? It is blindingly unfair that certain towns will be served by toll roads and others will not. This will grossly disadvantage towns which seek to establish industry if every tonne of product coming out of a factory has to pay a toll on the way out and every tonne of raw material must pay a toll on the way in.
On the issue of tolls, it is estimated that the private sector will invest about £1 billion through PPPs. I have already mentioned the areas concerned: the inter-urban routes such as the Waterford, Limerick and Kinnegad routes which are at the tendering stage. The national development plan sets a target of providing motorways or high quality dual carriageways between Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway, Waterford and the Border. Finance raised through the PPPs is an essential part of the programme which would not work otherwise. Shadow tolls would require the Government to pay a toll for every motorist who used the roads or bridges. This would not raise any revenue for the State or fund any road construction in the future. While the use of shadow tolls has not been ruled out, it is not in prospect in the short-term, though I have heard arguments that they are widely used in other countries. Motorists who choose to pay tolls will receive a higher level of road service while there will also be the option of using older, untolled roads for those unwilling to pay the toll. We will not see the development of modern roads everywhere if there is not at least some tolling. The power to levy tolls is vested in the NRA and the level of toll is set on the basis of detailed research by that body. Deputy Noonan's point is that the NRA will start hitting small towns or small roads which will not be economic but will look after the likes of Kinnegad or Limerick. It will not start with bypasses and short roads; the whole object is to get the interurban network throughout the country up to a state-of-the-art level after years of neglect. Public-private partnerships are part of this process.
I hear what the Taoiseach is saying. Is it the policy position that the Government is committed to applying tolls to the 11 major roads in the country which in the national development plan are planned to proceed by way of PPP? Is that the policy position? Will he toll the 11 major roads?
I have just spoken about the level of investment. As the Deputy said, there are not 11. There are only two at present.
Only two what?
There are only two roads in the PPP system at this stage.
There are 11 in the plan.
Yes, but there are only two at this stage.
There is none at this stage.
There are two at this stage, the Waterford road, the Kinnegad road and the Limerick bypass. In fact, there are three.
They are gone to tender.
The PPP element of the first two projects – the Waterford road the Kilcock to Kinnegad road – are at the tender stage. The PPP element of the Limerick road will go to tender this month. The West Link bridge commences this month. They are all PPP issues.
Does the Taoiseach plan to toll these roads?
There has to be a return where there is public private partnership involvement. Otherwise, it would not be possible to continue road-building. That is the policy.
I have two questions arising from the Taoiseach's contradictory replies. How can he say the programme is on target while conceding that there has been substantial inflation in construction costs? The last two years saw construction inflation of close to 25%. This is five times the national average rate of inflation. If the programme is on target, something has to give if the inflation rate is of that order. Either the number of construction projects or the amount of money to be added must change.
My second question arises from discussions I had yesterday with a group that met the Taoiseach and Deputy Noonan – the N8 Action Group. There were representatives of another action group on the radio this morning in relation to Fermoy. Is the Taoiseach aware of the massive democratic deficit that has emerged in our society? The NRA has responsibility for road projects but it cannot be questioned. If a Deputy puts down a question to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government in the House, he or she is told quite properly by the Ceann Comhairle's office that the Minister has no responsibility for the NRA. However, if the NRA is contacted directly, it will state it is implementing Government policy.
Will the Taoiseach indicate how he proposes to communicate with the communities directly affected by these road proposals, in respect of the preferred routes and in relation to either hard or soft tolls? Is the Taoiseach aware of the problem? What does he propose to do about it?
I said that very good progress was made last year, the first year of the seven year programme. It was 95% on target. There is price inflation and the Minister for the Environment and Local Government has acknowledged that. He has published material on a number of issues, including the action plan on construction capacity published on 5 June 2001. That includes 50 measures to expand capacity. There have been visits to France, Germany and the US to promote opportunities for foreign contractors. Large numbers of inward delegations and contractors are here working on a number of the roads.
FÁS has been recruiting planners and construction staff through its Jobs Ireland Roadshow. Town planners have been brought in and their numbers are increasing through training at third level institutions. Building procedures are being reviewed and large projects are attracting outside contractors. A range of issues needs to be considered. I accept there has been price inflation but it is not eating into the programme.
How are we on target?
We are 95% on target for the first year. Most road projects, including the NRA road projects, are on target. Sewerage and water schemes are also on target. The prices are higher than visualised.
Will there be a higher spend?
There is already a 30% increase over last year on the national development programmes.
Will the overall national development plan cost more?
Yes, that seems likely. The Department of Finance has rolling figures for the three year plan. No policy change has been worked out, but it is to cost 30% more this year than last year. That is the projected figure to complete the programme. More activity in the market and tendering process will help. I met a number of the groups and I am aware of the issues, although it would be more proper if the Minister for the Environment and Local Government dealt with this. At local level I have seen the NRA and local groups working together.
Is the Taoiseach aware that the NRA sometimes refuses to meet local groups?
I am. A fortnight ago I saw groups working hand in hand with the NRA in Donegal. I cannot answer for their procedures or how they follow them. It seems, in some cases, they are working together but in other areas they are not. I have met some of those groups. There is a conflict on the issue of acquiring land. Discussions are ongoing between the Department of the Environment and Local Government and the NRA about obtaining land for major projects. It is important that these issues are resolved otherwise the CPO process on major roads, not to mention the difficulties of residents will not be satisfactorily dealt with.
Does the Taoiseach share my concern that the programme to which he is committed, and to which the taxpayer will contribute millions if not billions of pounds, will inevitably be delayed if there is not proper consultation and dialogue with communities directly affected? There is a democratic deficit between the accountability of the NRA to elected members in this House or to county councils. The Minister with responsibility for voting moneys through here says he has no responsibility for the day to day consultation in which the NRA may engage with local communities. Does the Taoiseach agree that court actions taken by groups of concerned citizens who feel they have not been properly consulted, exercising their rights on the N11 in the Glen of the Downs or elsewhere, will seriously delay projects? Does he accept what the NH action group have said about what is happening in Fermoy and what many other groups around the country have said, that there is a gap, which if not filled by democratic politics involving local representatives and communities, will occupy the space and time of the courts with consequent delay? Surely it is the responsibility of this House and the Government to avoid such unnecessary delays.
I agree it is much better to have consultation rather than court action and the ensuing delays. In many of the major projects the consultation with the design teams, consultants, the NRA and local authorities is extremely good. I admit that it is not the same everywhere. We are now trying to take far bigger blocks and it is important that those involved work together to resolve the issues. Many colleagues in the House have told me that consultations work extremely well. Some of the farming lobby and Members want the CPO process in particular to be dealt with. There are consultations going on. It is far better that consultations take place on road lines and the processes and that the organisations work together to achieve this. It is a much quicker and more efficient way than going through the courts.
(Dublin West): Does the Taoiseach agree that the research published today by the Fermoy bypass group on the tolling of national roads complements what I have said here before? Does he agree that public private partnership is nothing more than a transparent scam to divert large amounts of money from ordinary people into the coffers of major construction companies and big business interests – West Link is a prime example – which make astronomical profits from deals of the kind to which I refer? Is the Taoiseach aware that the figures and projections published today by the Fermoy group relating to the proposed bypass in question and covering a 30 year period show that £821 million will be collected in tolls on foot of an input of approximately £63 million? If these figures were extended to include the 11 other road projects which may come under these schemes, approximately £13 billion would be collected on foot of an input of £1 billion.
Does the Taoiseach agree that he might as well give big business and construction companies their own private diamond mines? In this instance, it is the coffers belonging to the people that are being robbed in order to allow the people concerned make bloated profits. Will the Taoiseach indicate the reason the Government does not intend to have these projects undertaken by public sector interests? Why, for example, will it not sponsor the establishment of properly financed, regulated and monitored local authority direct construction units which, for a fraction of what big business would charge, would provide good value for taxpayer's money in terms of completing these infrastructural projects? This would ensure the bloated profits of the companies to which I refer and those of the banks which will make a killing on the lending side would not be swelled further.
Is it not the case that, in terms of house building, the construction industry is utterly irresponsible when it comes to the public good and puts its own profits above it?
The Deputy should confine himself to questions.
(Dublin West): These are fundamental questions regarding the philosophy and practice of public-private partnerships and I would like the Taoiseach to provide specific answers.
I should point out that only a small element of the entire national development plan will be tied up in public-private partnerships. In addition, West Link, East Link and other infrastructural projects in this city would probably never have been put in place without the involvement of the private sector. These projects were neither conceived of nor put forward in the 1970s or 1980s by local authorities because of the risk element involved. The Deputy will be aware that even in the first two years after its opening it did not appear that the West Link would be the sort of gravy train which had been predicted. I accept, however, that it has become extremely successful and the construction of the new bridge will help ease traffic problems on the M50.
I do not believe we should exclude the involvement of public-private partnerships in projects. The capital programme for infrastructure is already carrying enormous volumes of expenditure relating to a huge number of projects and this will continue in the future. The concept of public-private partnerships as they are intended, with the agreement of the social partners, to work in this country and as they work in other countries – admittedly incorporating different designs – is extremely useful. Extensive consultation has taken place in respect of the process and a framework, which takes account of people's concerns and will ensure no one is allowed to engage in the type of rip-off to which the Deputy referred, has been agreed. This will provide Ireland with new infrastructure in years to come. To exclude public-private partnerships from projects of all kinds would be a mistake and delay the provision of necessary developments in road, water, drainage and other forms of infrastructure.
(Dublin West): A Cheann Comhairle—
I call Deputy Jim Higgins. I will return to Deputy Joe Higgins if time permits.
(Mayo): I wish to ask a question about the long awaited and long-fingered Luas. The Taoiseach will recall that when I asked him a question about Dublin traffic two weeks he replied in his own snide way that I knew little about Dublin or its traffic. In view of the fact that I spend three days a week here, which is a hell of a lot longer than he spends in the provinces, I believe I know a good deal about it. With regard to Luas—
Luas is the responsibility of a particular Minister.
(Mayo): I agree. However, in view of the fact that he presided over a press conference about this recently, the Taoiseach will have the figures at his fingertips. The press conference to which I refer related to another relaunch of the Dublin Transportation Initiative.
The Deputy is wrong again.
(Mayo): What was the initial estimated cost of Luas and what is the current—
The Deputy is straying from the central point of these questions and is getting into specific proposals. There is no reference to the cost of Luas in any of the questions.
(Mayo): It is the single largest project—
That may be so but that does not make it—
On a point of order—
What is the point of order?
This Cabinet sub-committee is the only body that deals with all these projects and is the only mechanism we have to ask questions. Deputy Higgins is in order.
Yes, but it is the responsibility of the various Departments to carry out the projects under the plan.
To illustrate our difficulty so that we comply with your orders, Sir, if Deputy Higgins or I were to ask questions about the National Roads Authority of the Minister who spends the money, your office would say those questions were not in order. This is the only device we have.
The Deputy is asking a question about the cost of Luas and that has no connection with any of the questions.
(Mayo): I remind the Ceann Comhairle that the Taoiseach has the figures.
The Deputy should not argue with the Chair. The Chair has shown a great deal of latitude on these questions.
(Mayo): You, Sir, have not shown me any latitude.
That is because, as I pointed out, the Deputy is out of order.
(Mayo): I am asking a question about the largest infrastructural project to try to untangle the mess and jungle that is Dublin traffic. The Taoiseach has the figures.
The Deputy should frame his question in a general way. It is not appropriate to ask questions on specific projects which are the responsibility of a Minister.
(Mayo): I will ask the questions and, if the Taoiseach disregards them, that is good and well. What were the initial estimated costs and completion date of Luas and what are its current estimated costs and completion date?
If the Deputy wants that information he should table a parliamentary question.
(Mayo): The Taoiseach presides over this body. It is too bad if he does not know the answer.
The Deputy is free to table a parliamentary question on the matter.
(Mayo): I am asking the Taoiseach, who prides himself on being a Dub, who, as Taoiseach, presides over this committee and who should have the answers at his fingertips about the largest project—
I have pointed out—
(Mayo): I am entitled to ask the question and to receive an answer.
The Deputy is entitled to ask any parliamentary question providing he goes about it in the right way. He is, however, being disorderly.
(Mayo): I will frame the question in a general way. Is the project over target in terms of time and cost and, if so, why? Is that good enough for you?
I still do not understand why the Deputy does not table a parliamentary question.
That is because people from Mayo are in the Gallery.
If I was sharp with Deputy Higgins, it was only because he had a dig at me that day. I would not like the good people from Mayo who have accompanied him to the House to think I am normally sharp.
I assure the Deputy that Luas is on target to commence operation in 2003. The first tram is set for delivery in October.
(Mayo): I thought it was delivered three weeks ago at the photocall.
The Taoiseach without interruption.
I was not present at it. I was not even invited.
(Mayo): The Taoiseach should have a word with his Deputy Leader.
The first tram is set for delivery in October and the contract for operating the Luas franchise is also due to be awarded in October. The Ceann Comhairle has ruled on questions about costs.
I wish to clarify that, while Deputies are entitled to ask questions about costings or any such matters, the fact that the Taoiseach or a Minister chairs an interdepartmental group does not mean he or she is responsible to answer the type of questions that have been raised on these issues. That has always been the practice. There is also a rule regarding questions about State companies which has applied for as long as I have been a Member. It should not be put forward that this is something new.
I have a related question on Dublin transport. The sub-committee report states that significant improvements and extensions to bus services have been provided by Dublin Bus. The Taoiseach is aware that the subsidy to Dublin Bus has long been the explanation for the inadequate bus service in Dublin. Is he aware that Dublin Bus this year failed to spend the subsidy allocated to it to the tune of £7 million? This amount was returned.
The Deputy must ask a relevant question. She is making a statement.
I am asking a question. Is the Taoiseach aware that this money was returned to Government coffers? Does he draw the conclusion, as I do, that Dublin Bus regards the level of service as satisfactory, assumes that the people of Dublin are content with the level of service and that the company does not require the subvention? Are the Taoiseach and his Cabinet sub-committee content with the level of Dublin Bus service?
That matter could be pursued by way of a parliamentary question to the relevant Minister.
(Mayo): That is ridiculous.
The question refers to the spending of Government money.
That is exactly what the sub-committee is responsible for.
Questions Nos. 1 to 9, inclusive, make no reference to Dublin Bus. We must have an orderly Question Time.
The Cabinet sub-commitee is responsible for this matter.
(Mayo): What can we talk about?
Deputies may talk about the questions on the Order Paper. They may not bring in other matters which are the responsibility of other Ministers. The Deputy must accept the ruling of the Chair.
The matter before the House—
The Deputy may not argue with the Chair. The Chair is making a ruling on these matters which the Deputy should accept. She may put a relevant question to the Taoiseach on Government policy in relation to public-private partnerships.
This is not a difficult question. The Taoiseach does not have to be prepared to answer it. Is he happy with the level of Dublin Bus service? Is he happy that the company sent back its subsidy?
If Dublin Bus did not spend its full allocation, I am sure there was a reason for it. I can give information of a general nature about Dublin Bus but I believe that would also be out of order. I have a difficulty in answering these questions because they are the responsibility of other Ministers.
Surely the Taoiseach has an opinion.
Of course I have an opinion.
Is the Taoiseach satisfied with the level of service?
The Taoiseach to continue without interruption. If the Deputy wishes to ask a supplementary question, he may do so in turn.
In the last short period Dublin Bus has acquired almost 300 additional buses. This represents a 20% increase on the number three years ago. One hundred buses were purchased.
Not one extra bus is being purchased this year.
This year 56 new buses are being purchased—
Not extra ones.
—to replace older buses in the existing fleet, improving quality.
(Mayo): They are all replacements.
All the buses delivered last year and this year are wheelchair accessible. The service is improving.
In reply to an earlier supplementary question the Taoiseach said it was not the intention of the NRA to toll ring roads around small towns. This is not correct. Tolling is not being confined to Kinnegad or Carlow-Waterford, as the Taoiseach said. Is he aware that the proposal for Fermoy will mean that if someone drives a lorry through the town, he or she will go through free but if he or she takes the proposed ring road, he or she will pay £2.85? Is the Taoiseach aware that if someone drives a truck through Limerick, he or she will go through free but if he or she takes the tunnel, he or she will pay a toll? Is he aware of the issues that arise from this? For example, one will drive through the Jack Lynch tunnel in Cork free but will pay a toll in the Dublin port tunnel or the proposed Limerick tunnel. Is the Taoiseach further aware—
I hope the Deputy does not go through every tunnel in the country.
A Cheann Comhairle, you will never make it in the Gaiety Theatre.
I am merely advising the Deputy that he should not go through every tunnel in the country.
You are a chairman whom we like to obey but not when you depart into the area of witty interruptions which are not helpful to a person asking a supplementary question and do not entertain the House either. I would prefer if you confined yourself to keeping order, a Cheann Comhairle.
That is what I am endeavouring to do.
The proposals for tolling envisage a toll on the road from Mountrath to Limerick but no toll on the road from Mountrath to Dublin. Does the Taoiseach not realise that this is invidious and unfair and changes the terms of trade between individual towns in the country? Eleven major road tolling projects are planned under the proposals for public private partnerships contained in the national development plan. Will the Taoiseach confirm that the Government is absolutely committed to tolling and that these 11 projects will be tolled in the invidious manner described? Or, is the Taoiseach now saying that only three projects will be tolled: Kinnegad, Carlow-Waterford, and the Limerick tunnel?
In reply to an earlier supplementary question, the Taoiseach said the structure and outline for public private partnerships had been signed off "with the agreement of the social partners". Can Members who went to the trouble of getting elected to this House obtain a copy of that agreement? Will the Taoiseach say whether that agreement addresses the pertinent questions posed by Deputy Noonan concerning the nature and extent of the tolls and tolling policy in general?
On the first issue, I have already said finance raised though PPPs is an essential part of the programme of tolling. It follows, therefore, that where there are PPPs, revenue must be raised for the State to fund road construction.
As regards the tunnels and the Deputy's point concerning traffic, I am sure what will happen in Limerick, Waterford and elsewhere is what will happen also with the port tunnel. Bylaws will be amended so that people have to use the tunnels. That is what is envisaged in all the projects so that traffic will not be allowed to go through towns.
No, that is not true.
The Taoiseach without interruption.
That is certainly what will happen with the port tunnel. As regards the point raised by Deputy Quinn, I do not believe the organisational process of these roads has been agreed with the social partners. Details of what tolls will be levied on them is not the issue that is being debated.
So what have they agreed to?
They have agreed that the process of public private partnerships being used in capital infrastructure projects can be dealt with. The arrangements for dealing with that have been set down in a Department of Finance document which is available.
Time is running out so I will call for brief supplementary questions from Deputies Joe Higgins and Olivia Mitchell.
(Dublin West): Would the Taoiseach agree that we can interpret the Fine Gael Leader's remarks as a commitment to abolish all tolls if he is in the next Government? That is certainly my reading of the matter.
Questions to the Taoiseach, not to Deputy Noonan.
(Dublin West): It is a rather lame excuse for the public private partnerships – rubbish, in fact – to say that projects such as the West Link and others that are envisaged would not have been conceived if left to the public sector. Has the Taoiseach not made enough trips to Europe and elsewhere to be able to come up with some ideas in this regard? If we need ideas from elsewhere, the private sector is not the only place in which to find them.
Please be brief.
(Dublin West): Would the Taoiseach agree that the public private philosophy being pursued by the Government will penalise communities quite badly? Tolling, in particular, is hugely disruptive to traffic flow, as I know only too well in my own constituency, where traffic jams occur from the West Link back up to Finglas. This is happening because drivers must stop to pay money at a toll bridge – what an outdated and ridiculous system. Does the Taoiseach agree that tolling to facilitate a public private partnership drives traffic through residential communities to avoid toll costs and, there fore, inflicts a heavy environmental burden on such communities through traffic congestion and additional air pollution?
Since the Taoiseach did not answer my earlier question, would he agree it would be best for the public sector to undertake these projects?
A very brief question from Deputy Olivia Mitchell.
As brief as that?
As brief as that, I trust.
Would the Taoiseach accept that one can have public private partnerships without tolling and vice versa? Nobody can borrow money or provide national roads more cheaply than the Government. If tolls are necessary they should be Government ones so that we will retain some control over their location and the amount of money collected. We should maintain control over our national road network instead of handing it over to multinational bankers and accountants.
(Dublin West): Fine Gael is on the road to Damascus.
The Deputy has been there twice.
(Dublin West): Fine Gael fell off the horse on the road to Damascus.
The Taoiseach indicated there must be a return by way of charging from public-private partnerships. As PPPs are proposed for elements of the water supply programme, is it the Government's intention to reintroduce water charges for water supply provided through PPPs?
(Mayo): Why did the Taoiseach not bring to the attention of the House the increase in the cost of Luas from an initial estimate of £250 million to £500 million? Does he acknowledge that the roll-out of broadband services is happening much too slowly and that local authorities often do not recognise the importance and benefit of this technology in terms of dealing with the planning process? Local authorities administrate their planning responsibilities individually. Does the Taoiseach agree a national co-ordinating body comprising representatives of relevant Departments and local authorities is needed to attain conformity, uniformity and a speedy roll-out of broadband technology via the planning process?
Given that Luas is exclusive to the south side of Dublin currently, is there a possibility of construction going ahead on a Luas line on the north side of the city? The people of Drumcondra are quickly giving up hope that a decision will be taken as they have been promised a Luas line for the past six or seven years.
A parliamentary question would be the most appropriate way to deal with that issue.
When will a decision be taken on the proposed north side Luas lines?
I have been asking the Taoiseach for the past three quarters of an hour to give us a clear statement on Government policy on tolling and he has danced, dodged and played the whistle as only he can. Will he make such a statement in his final reply? What is the Government's policy on the tolling of national roads, in particular the 11 major roads designated to be built through PPPs in the national development plan?
Is it Government policy to introduce by-laws to force people to use toll roads?
I will address the latter two questions first. It is estimated in the national development plan that the private sector will invest approximately £1 billion in PPP projects related to national roads. There is a significant number of projects which are listed in the plan. The NDP sets a target for the provision of these roads and finance raised through PPPs is an essential part of the programme. Shadow tolls and other alternatives would require the Government to pay a toll for almost every motorist who used the roads and would not raise revenue for the State or fund road construction into the future. Motorists who choose to pay tolls will receive a higher level of road service. The policy clearly is there must be a payment for the use of these roads which the NRA is examining. A process has been set down, which is vested in the NRA, and it will be followed.
By-laws should be laid down in regard to all roads projects, not just those undertaken through PPPs. It is a nonsense, as Deputy Joe Higgins correctly said, that people can drive through estates and cause environmental damage to dodge paying a toll. This happens in many parts of Dublin and throughout the country. Such motorists should not be allowed to do so, particularly truck drivers. By-laws have forced many issues and they could be used to force motorists to use toll roads.
The broadband programme is very good. Resources have been invested but I am aware the roll-out of the service has been slow in some areas and that the advantage of using this infrastructure and its relationship with investment and jobs has not been recognised. As regards trying to move any of the jobs, most of them have an ICT element and broadband is essential.
As regards the Luas line, the Luas contract has increased substantially since it was started. The two south side legs will be started by 2003. The planning of the other lines is going ahead but that will take a longer period.
A decision has not been made.
The decision was made last July and is linked with the decisions on the metro.
The decision on what? The line has not been agreed.
The line has not been agreed, but the decision to proceed with it—
The Taoiseach should not answer interruptions. Disorderly interruptions should not be recognised.
I apologise, a Cheann Comhairle.
As regards Deputy Gilmore's point, there are many projects where the State must pay for PPPs. The Minister for Education and Science has four or five projects for which he cannot charge, so the State must pick up the tab over a period. I presume the project to which the Deputy referred is the Ballymore-Eustace PPP where the State must pick up the tab. However, it does not apply to them all. There should be a reinvestment of that return in the future. Admittedly, there are different ways and concepts in relation to tolls. I have seen a presentation which was made to the committee on seven or eight different ways to organise tolls. They do not all have to queue.
The public sector would not have thought or dreamt of the west or east link at that time, so the private sector involvement was beneficial. I disagree with Deputy Higgins about the private sector. It has an understanding of the local communities it serves and it tries to assist them. It has done that for 20 years. I do not agree with his view that private sector involvement is wrong and that it is only about profiteering.