As far as I was aware, the Deputy's party is in favour of the principle of PPPs, unless there is a change, not alone in the leadership of the Labour Party but also in its long-standing policy in this regard. Public private partnerships have been welcomed on most sides of the House and also by the trade union movement, subject to their usual provisos.
What the Deputy dealt with, the question of the matters to which the Deputy referred, would have been taken into account before a franchise was decided for that motorway. What I am asked to deal with here, the tax treatment of PPPs in this context, is dealt with, as I pointed out in my reply, in the normal context under the normal accounting standards which apply to this area, and there is nothing unusual about this. In simple terms, it is very similar to the treatment of a developer of land when it is being used as part of his housing development. It is treated as stock in trade rather than as a capital asset, and the cost of the development can be written off against the developer's income.
The Deputy asked here about the tax treatment of this transaction. I outlined what it is and there is nothing unusual about it. Leading up to any of the PPPs, including the maritime college and the bundle of schools project, the Revenue Commissioners have treated this in the same way and therefore there is nothing unusual in the tax treatment regarding the concession the winner has got in the case of the Kilcock-Kinnegad motorway.
The matter of the tax advantage would be taken into account in the assessment of the overall financial model for a PPP. The tax treatment is taken into it as part of the calculation before a decision is made to grant a PPP. It is part of the calculation mechanism.