Michael Noonan
Question:1 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent work of the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public private partnerships; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20936/01]
Ceisteanna – Questions. - Cabinet Committee on Infrastructure.
Joe Higgins
Question:2 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public private partnerships; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22973/01]
Joe Higgins
Question:3 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if he will attend the second annual public private partnerships-private finance initiative global summit on 10 October 2001; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22974/01]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:4 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the progress to date of the interdepartmental committee on infrastructure and public private partnerships. [23718/01]
Trevor Sargent
Question:5 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the current situation regarding the work of the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public private partnerships; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24217/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, 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 comprising senior officials from relevant Departments.
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 that any obstacles to delivery are tackled in an effective and co-ordinated fashion across all Departments and agencies.
I 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 last April following its submission to the Cabinet committee and to Government. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library. The team continues to support the delivery of priority national infrastructure and to focus on the priorities identified in that progress report.
I accepted an invitation to address the PPP-PFI Global Summit on 10 October. A copy of my speech has been placed in the Library.
In the programme for Government, the Taoiseach may recall that this Administration promised to re-energise the Luas project. Does he believe putting a carriage on tracks which come from nowhere and go nowhere – a carriage which was taken away this morning – is a re-energising of the Luas project? He has presided over this committee. Does he agree that if he had proceeded with the Luas project in 1997, passengers would have been travelling on the Luas for the past 12 months? Does he further agree it is the Government's incompetent handling of the Luas project that has led to such delays and such capital overruns?
I welcome the light rail project launching the Luas carriages. There will be 25 of them over the next period in the Red Cow station. It will be opened in the next few weeks. I also welcome the ongoing work on the Luas project. There is great interest in the city in seeing the Luas project up and running as soon as possible. I have no doubt it will help substantially in fighting the traffic problems in Dublin. The trams are 30 metres and hold 235 people. The work has moved on apace over the summer months. It will be two years before the full project is completed but it will be of enormous assistance to the people in the west, particularly in the Tallaght-Clondalkin area, and in the south of the city. I look forward to the day when it is up and running. At the consultation process, one of the major issues was that the citizens on the routes wanted to see the process work, its administration and the carriages. It is only right that people see the carriages early on.
Is there any word in the dictionary other than "incompetence" to describe a situation where eight years after the Taoiseach took over as Taoiseach he promises there will be a Luas light rail system running in Dublin? Is the Taoiseach not embarrassed that this was ready to go in 1997, that a project which was at an equivalent stage of advance in Montpellier in France is now up and running and carrying passengers and that he is still promising the people of Dublin that they will have a light rail system in three years time?
I am not sure from those comments whether Deputy Noonan is for or against the Luas project, but I am for it. I am glad to see the construction of the light rail project throughout the city, although it gives rise to some inconvenience I admit. This will be a great advantage to the people in the future. Many people regret that we removed trams from the city in June 1959 but this gives the city an electronic means of transport with no fumes or pollution. Work is progressing apace in different parts of the city. It is on schedule from the plan launched a number of years ago. I am delighted to see it happening. The depot near the Red Cow Inn will be finalised in the next few weeks. This will have maintenance facilities to hold 40 trams which will be used on both the Tallaght and Sandyford lines. The competition for the award of the operating franchise for Luas is well advanced. It is expected that the preferred bidder will be selected before the Christmas period. It is expected that the project will be on target and that passenger services will begin to both Tallaght and Sandyford in late 2003.
(Dublin West): A number of multinational water companies are anxious to get their hands on our publicly owned water services. This is similar to the experience in England where there have been disastrous consequences for householders such as rising prices and poor service. With regard to any future public private partnerships, will the Taoiseach rule out handing over water provision services in the State to private corporations? Will he commit the Government to keeping our water in public ownership and to investing in it as a service to the people rather than as a method of creating profits for multinationals?
With regard to the public private finance initiative global summit on 10 October 2001, the Taoiseach did not give a report on its proceedings. He said only that he had attended. Will the Taoiseach outline in detail what he was doing at the summit and what happened at it? Does he not think it tawdry that the leader of the Government should attend a conference involving transnational corporations which want to get their hands on the most profitable sectors of the public service in Ireland and wring as much profit as they can from them? These sectors belong to the people.
There is £3 billion available through the national development plan, three times the amount in the previous plan, to keep water infrastructure and quality at an unprecedented high level. There is no question of private involvement in that process – if there is, I have not heard of it.
I gave the opening address at the 10 October summit and that speech is in the Dáil Library. A number of the other speeches made on that occasion are in the public domain. The summit concerned public private partnerships. The previous conference was held in Cape Town in South Africa last year. Some 40 countries were represented along with the European Investment Bank and other European agencies. I am not sure what difficulty the Deputy has with the holding of an international conference in Dublin. While I was at the conference, the subjects under discussion were public private partnerships in Europe and around the world and the benefits of those partnerships. There was no mention of asset-stripping. Instead, co-operation and the progress of public private partnerships around the globe were discussed. I heard no other issues discussed.
Why is there a delay in approving spending plans, as part of the national development plan, in the areas of agriculture, tourism and waste management as reported from Tullamore on 27 October?
I do not have details on all the issues involved. The national development plan is a seven-year plan. The proportions of the estimate for each year are being allocated.
The report carried in The Irish Times of 27 October from the regional assembly in Tullamore, which the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be familiar with, states that the European Commission has failed to sign off spending approval for a number of plans. Who is responsible for ensuring that these projects work? In the Taoiseach's original reply, he indicated that the Department of Finance has the responsibility to make the funding available but the line Departments have responsibility to implement projects. What is the inter-departmental committee doing? What is the Cabinet sub-committee doing if it is not co-ordinating these matters? Why is there a delay?
I have answered these questions several times. The Cabinet sub-committee comprises representatives of the various Departments and agencies in order to efficiently progress projects that require interdepartmental work. As the Deputy knows, however, individual Ministers are responsible. The sub-committee and the interdepartmental team have introduced the national development plan's strategy as well as a programme to track that plan. It has also introduced an action plan to overcome construction capacity constraints. There is a code of practice between Dúchas and the NRA concerning archaeological interests, and legal reforms have been introduced through the planning Acts. The sub-committee and the interdepartmental team have prepared guidelines for best practice in programme management and have introduced insti tutional reforms for the greater Dublin authority. They have been involved in all those issues but the details of these questions are to be found in the line Departments. The Department of Finance is dealing not only with the Estimates but also the public via the partnerships.
That is very interesting—
It is also true.
—but what is the Taoiseach's role in all of this?
I chair the interdepartmental committee, as I do several other committees.
If a Department fails to meet its spending commitments or fails to meet the deadlines agreed at the committee, does the Taoiseach's Department have a role in finding out why there is a delay in waste management spending approval from the European Commission, or in agriculture or tourism? Other than the photo opportunities associated with these events, does the Taoiseach's Department have a monitoring role to ensure—
Other than the Deputy's party blocking everything at local level.
Is Deputy Cowen the Taoiseach, now?
Please allow the Taoiseach to reply.
Deputy Quinn is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I am trying to ask a question. The Taoiseach has talked about how he chairs an interdepartmental committee. In the light of reported delays from the town of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I am trying to ascertain what role, if any, the Taoiseach has in finding out why there are delays and in ensuring the time lost is recovered.
The Cabinet sub-committee deals with all issues that come before it – mainly trying to ensure the national development plan is moved forward on time. The interdepartmental committee and the cross-departmental team deal with the details where difficulties arise. Such difficulties are brought to our attention if we are required to deal with them and the relevant line Ministers deal with the details on a day-to-day basis. The Cabinet sub-committee is bound by the rules of Cabinet confidentiality. We deal with any major problems, and there are quite a number of them.
The Taoiseach referred to the global summit conference which was held in Dublin on 10 October. Is it fair to say the public-private partnership process sees quite a number of areas – not just transport and water, but also education, hospitals, broadcasting, museums and waste – as fair game? Those areas include a range of what we take for granted as public utilities. Were they discussed? Will the Taoiseach indicate what discussions took place at that conference? If he does not know, will he find out what took place? Can the Taoiseach be clear with the Dáil and with the people about the benefits of public private partnerships to private investors? The national development plan refers to £1 billion of private financing of NDP projects. Would it be more accurate to call that a loan to the Government with a large interest repayment in the form of tolls which will be levelled mainly on rural communities which are being dissected by motorways? Does the Taoiseach consider it more accurate to call it a loan rather than a financing of the national development plan? There is nothing free or generous about this financing which has much to do with profiteering. Will the Taoiseach be clear about that?
Public private partnerships are very much part of what is happening the world over. The conference was about experiences of them. The European Investment Bank which chairs the conference brought the benefits of public private partnership to a global audience, not just to the EU but to accession countries and other countries.
To whom was it of benefit?
It is of benefit to individual countries. Most countries now use public private partnerships. Almost all OECD countries use public private partnerships on one scale or another. Practically the whole capital programme of Spain and Portugal is now public private partnership. Other countries use it less and it is new for us. A sum of £1 billion is mentioned in our roads programme and other smaller amounts are involved in education and water projects.
The view is that public private partnerships can make a significant contribution to delivery of priority, economic, infrastructural projects and the national development plan spells out how that can be done for a range of public services. Delivering the national development plan programmes within the required time frame and the achievement of value for money for the taxpayer are part of the strategy of implementation. Many aspects of that have been pointed out already and rather than go through them all I refer the Deputy to the framework document for public private partnerships which was published last week. It has been agreed between the Government and the social partners and in it there is a broad consensus on the scope of PPPs. There is a broader scope than I said and it describes the process through which the projects can be developed and the benefits that can arise from them. The document spells out the detail and most people have now signed up to it.
Does the Taoiseach feel it is dishonest of the Government to persist in spinning the story that the Luas project will be operational in two years' time? The public can see freely on the Government website the report of the advisory committee set up to advise the Government of progress on the Luas project which clearly shows that the contractor reported that it would be almost impossible to complete it in that time and that construction could not be envisaged until the end of 2004. That only concerns the construction and assuming no further hiccups after that, all of the testing of the system and the trams, and driver training and emergency services training, and safety checks, have to be done and that will take at least another 18 months. In view of the length of time this project has taken will the Taoiseach hazard a guess on how long it will take to provide a metro system and if any progress has been made on any aspect of that plan?
I had the opportunity to talk to the light rail people recently at a meeting of the Cabinet committee and again on Sunday and they are confident that we will have it in two years time. There was a great deal of scepticism about the progress the project would make this summer but through Inchicore, Kilmainham, the quays and through many parts of the city the project is well ahead. The Red Cow section is completed. The trams that are here now are here for the very reasons mentioned by the Deputy – to start staff training, testing, safety tests etc.
We have nothing to test.
Should they not be tested in the factory?
They are tested there but they can be tested on lines.
Matters of detail are more appropriate to the Minister for Public Enterprise.
That type of work is well ahead. It does not start at the end of the project and my understanding is that the trams are here so that the work can be done now. The Deputy may have information which I do not have but the Department and the light rail office have stated that they believe the project will be completed by the autumn of 2003. The work is approximately six months ahead of schedule. I know about this because it is going through my constituency.
I come back to the issue of responsibility for co-ordination and the meeting of deadlines. The Taoiseach has said the pro vision of money is the responsibility of the Department of Finance, the implementation of any project is the responsibility of the line Department and the Cabinet sub-committee co-ordinates all of this. There are substantial delays in a number of areas and I have given three instances. If there is a delay does the Taoiseach's Department have a role in discovering the reason for the delay and in taking action to recover lost time? Can the Taoiseach confirm that the person appointed to chair the cross-departmental support committee to the Cabinet sub-committee is the person originally appointed in June when the Taoiseach answered a similar question, or is a new person now chairing the committee?
The same person has chaired the committee since the start of the project. There are two committees. There is the Cabinet committee which deals with the national plan and endeavours to move the plan forward. It listens to reports from Ministers and, where necessary, from the agencies which are required to move things on. The Cabinet committee meets monthly, hears reports and keeps an overall watch on what is happening. It is the line Minister's responsibility to deal with the detail, and issues which arise are, of course, discussed at Cabinet. I chair those monthly meetings. The cross-departmental team deals with more detail. It deals with issues – legal, planning and otherwise – which affect all the Departments. By working together the Departments can deal with a range of issues. I have listed a number of the issues with which the team has dealt.
The main public private partnership unit is in the Department of Finance. All relevant Departments have one or more individuals dealing with public private partnership projects. They work to the Department of Finance on these issues because projects must be processed to make sure they give value for money, as Deputy Sargent mentioned earlier.
The status of the Cabinet sub-committee is the same as that of any other Cabinet sub-committee. It is part of the Cabinet process. Strictly speaking, I should not answer questions on these issues but I do so because they are important matters.
Six months ago one of the difficulties attached to the national development plan was the shortage of labour, particularly for physical infrastructural developments such as water schemes and roads. Matters have changed rapidly in the past six months and there is now significant spare capacity in these areas. A difficulty now arises from the lack of activity on the part of the Government in ensuring that aspects of the plan come on stream.
Has a final decision been made regarding the tolling of the major road developments between Dublin and Cork and Dublin and Limerick? If so, why has the decision not been announced and why are members of the Taoiseach's party at local level saying that tolling is not an option?
The Government now faces the major obstacle of the lack of action on regional development. The mission statement of the national development plan encourages greater equity between the regions but a fundamental blockage is caused by the inability of the Taoiseach and his Government to reach a conclusive decision on the national spatial strategy. The national development plan cannot proceed because of a lack of action on the national spatial strategy which has been kicked into touch to ensure that no decisions will be made until after the next election. We are seeing an unravelling of the entire process—
The Deputy is making statements.
Does the Taoiseach accept that this process is unravelling? Does he accept that the national development plan is completely off the rails and is on a track similar to the phantom one which was outside his office for the past two days?
I do not accept any of that because it is all wrong.
Unfortunately it is not.
It is. The national spatial strategy is nearing completion and the national development plan has not caught up. The national spatial strategy will indicate where we are going over the next 20 years.
When will it be implemented?
Over the next 20 years. The national development plan is based on reports which outline what is immediately necessary. Deputy Flanagan's first point is correct, circumstances have changed significantly over the past six months. Data released last week show price inflation in the construction industry and the rates per hour are still higher than in any other sector of the economy. It is felt that will be brought down which means that a lot of the value eroded in construction price inflation will be given back. That some of the contracts have been awarded to outside interests is also helping. It is expected that a sharp fall off in construction price inflation will be seen. That will give a greater return on national development plan investment.
An enormous amount of work has taken place on the six major roads. The issue of staff shortages in the areas of planning and design has been overcome by the NRA and most of the planning work is going ahead. There are some difficulties arising from the IFA dispute which has created delays in recent months, but I hope that can be resolved in the short term. Offers have been made which I hope will lead to a satisfactory conclusion.
As regards tolls, our position remains the same. I have told Deputy Noonan that a number of times.
Leaving aside the large profits to be made by private investors in public private partnerships, what is the logic of assigning £500 million to the railways while assigning £4.4 billion to roads under the NDP? Will the Taoiseach look again at the imbalance in investment between road and rail? The 1998 national road needs study shows that although motorways will have a capacity of 55,000 vehicles per day, the daily Dublin-Cork vehicle number is 1,700 and Dublin-Limerick is 1,450. Given that level of over-capacity, does the Taoiseach think that building such motorways while effectively starving other modes of transport, such as railways, of investment is good value for money?
I did not answer one of Deputy Mitchell's questions on the initial design work on the metro which is under way. The PPP procurement is to start either just before or just after Christmas.
The investment figures are more or less as Deputy Sargent has outlined. An enormous amount of money has gone into the rail programme but the roads have got more. There have been 57 major improvement projects involving 380 km of roads under the national plan.
As well as 25 km of railway.
That is not altogether correct. Some 26 new DART carriages have been procured in the past 12 months and 12 more are expected in the new year. The Maynooth service line has been in operation since August. We have Monasterevin Rail Station, the Grand Canal Docks DART Station and the upgrading of Heuston Station, all of which are under way or finished. There is, however, more capacity for rail and the Minister has made clear that rail transport—
Why is Irish Rail getting rid of freight?
I do not know the reason. Freight was a very profitable business for some years.
It is crazy.
Was the Taoiseach informed?
I was not informed, but I am sure the Minister—
Did the Minister for Public Enterprise know about the decision?
She did not know. She told the House she was not aware of the decision until it was announced.
That explains a lot. We will quote the Taoiseach.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister stated she was not told about it.
The Taoiseach without interruption.
There is more capacity in the rail network, which was totally starved of investment until three years ago.
It is still starved of investment.
Does the Taoiseach agree that, to have a successful public private partnership, a strong person is needed to drive it and as leader of the Government he has failed miserably to do so? I remind the Taoiseach that his party has been in power for 12 of the past 14 years. We still do not have a national conference centre, which the Fianna Fáil Party promised four years ago when it returned to office.
It can still take up to three years to receive planning permission for a major development involving the public and private sectors and it takes years to process compensation claims, which would allow the development of roads to proceed. Does the Taoiseach agree that, as the political leader, it is his job to drive his Ministers to change legislation and implement new regulations to allow development to take place and stop the current nonsense by which delays in various projects eventually result in the taxpayer having to pay four times the original cost?
Under the last and the next national development plans we will have substantially improved infrastructure. Deputy Barrett has a point about planning delays caused by the need to go through various schemes and systems. However, that is the law. People have the right to object, to seek environmental impact studies or geologists' reports, to refer projects to Europe or to seek a judicial review or legal redress through the courts.
What about the overall good?
I agree with the Deputy.
What about the rest of society?
If I was to railroad these things through, I would spend my life—
No one is arguing he should. How can we explain to the ordinary citizen, however, that it takes three years to deal with a planning application and a year and a half to deal with an extension?
The Taoiseach without interruption. He is replying to the question. We should not conduct questions by way of interruptions.
(Interruptions.)
The national development plan is not building bedrooms. I am aware of the Deputy's frustrations concerning the planning laws. Unfortunately, people's rights have to be considered.
They are taking 12 months.
Order, please.
Deputy Barrett knows that if I was to involve myself directly in these matters, I would spend the rest of my career in Dublin Castle answering questions about it. On the roll out of the national development plan across a range of areas, the Government not alone funds, but implements project after project improving infrastructure and the capacity of the public transport system, whether DART, Luas, the planning of the metro or roads systems or helping Irish Rail or Dublin Bus. This is happening day in day out. I recall answering questions a few years ago asking when we would have new buses. We now have more than 275 additional buses, a further 1,000 buses have been replaced and there has been an enormous investment in the national road and rail networks.
(Dublin West): Does the Taoiseach acknowledge that his statement to the Dáil in which he said the European Investment Bank played a prominent role in the private finance initiative summit held on 12 October fills with dread those of us who oppose the privatisation of our public services, considering the European Investment Bank is heavily biased towards the privatisation of public services?
In the case of some of the EU applicant states, it has facilitated in every way possible the buying up by multinational corporations of publicly owned water facilities at the expense of local public bodies. In response to my earlier question the Taoiseach seemed to rule out the privatisation of publicly owned water services in this State. Does that mean the Government will veto the proposal of some officials of Dublin Corporation who wish to put in place a decades long contract to design, build and operate the water provision service in Ballymore Eustace?
In regard to the Taoiseach's attendance at the private finance initiative summit on 10 October, is the Taoiseach aware that sit down protesters, using a traditional method of peaceful protest, were viciously beaten with batons by a small number of gardaí who seemed to have gone completely out of line? Will the Taoiseach condemn this attack on the right of peaceful protest?
The only protesters I met that morning were a friendly group of farmers from the west of Ireland who were seeking the improvement of a road in their locality. The only garda I saw was my driver. I am not too sure—
(Dublin West): I wish to clarify for the Taoiseach that I attended a peaceful protest of some 200 people including trade unionists on Tuesday evening while the summit was in session. Will the Taoiseach condemn the fact that a number of people who had sat down were quite viciously beaten?
The question is not appropriate to the Taoiseach.
(Dublin West): I am sorry, I did not realise that. The other supplementary questions were quite in order, in regard to the European Investment Bank and Ballymore Eustace.
The European Investment Bank is endeavouring to make resources available across the community for various projects and building on past projects to allow more rapid development of infrastructure, more sustainable development and more competition in the economy. That is the role of the bank and that is what was being discussed at the summit.
I suggest that the Deputy put down a question to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government about any individual project or individual proposals to the local authorities.
Will the Taoiseach outline any recent progress of the public private partnership proposed for the important Grangegorman site with which he is very familiar as he is chair of the special interdepartmental committee on this project? Will the Taoiseach explain what is preventing this project from getting under way? As he knows, it has been dragging on for years now.
I will reply to both questions from Deputy Gregory. Public private partnership is being sought and I am advised that it is a suitable project for such public private partnership.
In reply to the Deputy's second question, it was due to an ongoing dispute which is now resolved between the Eastern Regional Health Authority and the Department of Education and Science.
Has that been resolved?
More or less.
That is like many problems – more or less resolved.
It will take ten years.
Will the Taoiseach inform the House who or what Cabinet or Cabinet sub-committee is responsible for making the decision about hard tolling in relation to road projects under public private partnerships in the national development plan? Is this a matter for the National Roads Authority? Is it a matter for the Department of the Environment and Local Government or is it a matter for the Cabinet sub-committee? In the event of citizens of this State seeking to find out exactly what is happening, how can a public representative, a Member of this House, ask a question that is in order to the relevant Department or to the Cabinet sub-committee or to the Minister in relation to these matters? How can a public representative, a Member of this House, ask a question that is in order to the relevant Department, Cabinet sub-committee or Minister on these matters? Who exactly makes the decision on tolling? Of the 11 roads projects identified as suitable for such public private partnerships, only two, according to the Taoiseach's reply to a supplementary question on 12 June, have been identified and I do not believe there have been significant changes since then. Will the Taoiseach indicate who makes the decision on tolling and what specific decisions have been made to date on it?
In relation to the question posed by Deputy Quinn, a group in my constituency, the Fermoy bypass group, was told by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government that responsibility for hard tolling is a matter for the National Roads Authority and on the same day it was told by the National Roads Authority that responsibility for it is a matter for the Government. Clarification on the matter by the Taoiseach would be of interest to that group. I want the Taoiseach to give a clear, concise answer. Has the Government or the NRA responsibility for hard tolling?
It is more or less Government policy.
It is estimated that the private sector will invest approximately £1 billion through PPPs on national roads under the national development plan, which includes the eastern bypass. The NDP sets an ambitious target of providing motorways on high quality dual carriageways between Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway, Waterford and the Border, which are the six main routes. Finance raised through PPPs is an essential part of this programme and, therefore, there must be tolls. If I recall correctly, the tolls worked out between the Department of the Environment and Local Government and the NRA had to be signed off by the Department of the Environment and Local Government.
Who made the decision?
The Government had to make the decision in conjunction with the NRA.
Who makes the final decision?
A private investor will not put money into a project unless there will be a return.
Who stamps the document?
The Department of the Environment and Local Government signs the tolling scheme, but the NRA carries out the negotiations on it.
Then we should discuss it here.
The power to levy tolls is vested in the NRA under statutory law, which is the requirement. That is the answer to Deputy Quinn's question. I wish to clarify the matter because the Deputy may not have heard me. The power to levy tolls is vested in the National Roads Authority under law and the level of tolls is set on the basis of detailed research by the NRA into traffic volumes and patterns. That is the definitive position.
Who stamps the piece of paper?
I will allow Deputy Quinn and Deputy Mitchell to ask supplementary questions.
As this is a matter of great concern, will the Taoiseach clarify that the legal situation is that where the National Roads Authority proposes a scheme of hard tolling for a stretch of road, that scheme must be sanctioned by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government before it can come into effect and the Minister makes that decision on his own or as part of the Cabinet sub-committee? Is it the case that ultimately a decision on whether there will be a hard toll on a roadway is taken politically, either collectively by the Government or individually by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government?
I realise responsibility for tolling was initially the business of the NRA. The brief from Government was that it was to raise £1 billion for road building by way of tolling. Will the Taoiseach agree that as the cost of roads projects may fall and there is extra capacity in the industry, this may obviate the need for bringing in private financing? Is he aware that hard tolling is the most expensive and uneconomic way of procuring a road from the point of view of the taxpayer and the road user? Will he agree that individual toll schemes must come before the House before any decision is made on them?
The power to levy tolls is vested in the NRA, but it and the Department of the Environment and Local Government are endeavouring to get public private partnerships to put £1 billion into the main network, which must be paid for. Government policy is that toll schemes are produced by the NRA and cleared by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. That is the procedure. In reply to Deputy Mitchell's second—
Cleared or approved?
As I understand it, they have to be approved. The Deputy could ask the Minister for the Environment and Local Government about it. The statutory position is that the NRA has the power to levy the tolls. Money has to be raised; otherwise the roads will not be built.
Who agrees to the toll?
Deputy Mitchell asked if the changed economic circumstances in the construction industry will allow them to be dropped. There is not a hope of that. Price inflation in the construction industry is still way higher than anywhere else, probably twice as high, so there is no possibility over the next six years of tolls being dropped. It would be a disaster. I can predict now that if that happened, we would end up not having the roads in 2007 or 2008, which is the last thing people want.