Vol. 585 No. 2
1 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach when the next meeting of the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public private partnerships will be held; the likely agenda of the meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8596/04]
2 Mr. J. Higgins 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. [9103/04]
3 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on housing, infrastructure and PPPs last met; its planned meetings for 2004;. [10500/04]
4 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach when the cross-departmental team on housing, infrastructure and PPPs last met; its planned meetings for the remainder of 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10501/04]
5 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public private partnerships will next meet; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10541/04]
6 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public private partnership; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10705/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, together.
Since I last reported to the House, there have been two meetings of the cross-departmental team on housing, infrastructure and public private partnerships, the most recent having taken place on 19 April 2004. The discussions at that meeting were focused on the non-funding aspects of infrastructure delivery, most notably in the project management and legal areas, and on options for acceleration of the national roads programme. The team will undertake further work on the issues involved with a view to developing a composite set of proposals for the next meeting of the team on 9 June. A special emphasis will be given to the further steps that can be taken towards securing speedier and better value for money outcomes.
The team met previously on 3 March. The principal agenda item was the education capital programme, which is now included in the remit of the team. The Department of Education and Science gave a detailed presentation on the programme, covering the primary, post-primary and third-level sectors. The focus was on the outputs achieved to date and the plans and priorities over the period to 2008. It is intended that the Cabinet committee and the supporting cross-departmental team will meet each month over the remainder of the year, with the exceptions of May and August owing to EU Presidency commitments and the holiday period respectively.
Overall, a major acceleration in delivery of key national infrastructure has occurred in recent times. That is clear from the fifth progress report of the team that was published at the end of April and lodged in the Oireachtas Library. The overriding aim is to maintain that momentum over the remaining lifetime of the national development plan.
Many people would be interested to know if the legislation on the national infrastructure board, which relates to public private partnerships, will be published before the local and European Parliament elections. It is designed primarily for the fast-tracking of incinerators, power stations, motorways and so on but has it been discussed at Cabinet? It was reported to have been discussed at, or at least to have been coming before, Cabinet by the end of last month. Will the Taoiseach give us an up-to-date position on it? Has he taken into account the opposition to the Bill on the basis that local government, on which we will, ironically, decide on 11 June, will have less power as a result of it? Is that the reason it is not being brought forward before the local elections as seems to be the case?
The matter has not yet been discussed at Cabinet. The Ministers directly involved are to have some discussions on it. I think it will be the autumn before the Bill comes before the House.
Was the media report that the Bill was to come before Cabinet last month completely wrong? Is it not ready or is it being reconsidered? Does the Taoiseach believe there is a need to look again at the policies on incineration and at many of the other problems? The amount of waste has grown 60% since 1997 when the Taoiseach took office. Recycling is only at 12%. Rather than going forward with this legislation, is there not a need to look at the bigger picture to try to ensure maximum support and some type of consensus on it?
The Minister would want to get maximum support. Many comments have been made about the Bill. I do not know if the Minister has met the individual groups. The Deputy would need to table a question to him. The Bill is intended to deal, in a moderate way, with projects where there would be delays apart from the normal process. Where the normal process operates, there is no reason for projects to be fast-tracked. We must consider what those areas are. I know from previous discussions we should consider it only in limited areas rather than more broadly. There was some debate around that and I am sure the Minister will take account of the views in that area.
As the Deputy is aware, many others have made the point that there are considerable delays with major projects. In a number of projects, people have made the point that they have not met the same levels of bureaucracy and delay elsewhere, whether in Northern Ireland or in the UK. It is necessary to strike a balance and to try to ensure that while we get the necessary investments and make the necessary progress in these areas, it is done in a way that reflects the normal laws and that there is proper discussion. I do not think the Minister is trying to do anything other than to try to ensure we have major projects and that there is a process to deal with them quickly.
Deputy Sargent knows as well as I do that there is much annoyance among some people who have large investments, who try to comply with environmental laws and with everything the Environmental Protection Agency sets out and who go through the planning process but where in the last few days before a decision, somebody comes back and asks for more information which sets them back several further months. That is frustrating, whether it is right or wrong. It is some process that does not endanger investment and decisions by people who are complying with the law and are prepared to comply with every local and national Government regulation, but still get delayed for long periods. Regrettably, there are many such cases.
To what extent does the Cabinet committee address housing issues? For example, does it have dedicated meetings that address solely the housing crisis? Does it address the range of housing issues including the dire need for more social housing and the need to address seriously the massive profiteering that is taking place within the housing market, which is still driving house prices astronomically high and out of the reach of many ordinary workers?
Will the Taoiseach ask the committee and the cross-departmental team to address the housing needs of people with disabilities? The Taoiseach will be aware that the Disability Federation of Ireland published a local government programme this morning. Deputy Séamus Kirk represented the Taoiseach and his party at that event. The federation highlighted the dire accommodation needs of a raft of people involved in the disability sector.
They are having a tough time.
Will the Taoiseach, therefore, bring forward proposals to the committee to adopt a national accommodation strategy for people with disabilities and ensure that after 11 June local authorities will be required to implement the salient points therein?
Will the Taoiseach also ask the committee to address the need to reform completely the disabled person's housing grant, to which I referred this morning in Croke Park, including a national standard and 100% coverage of the work to be carried out for the disabled applicant? These changes have not only been recommended by the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities but, as any Member of the House will know, they are required for those in greatest need.
The Deputy should table to the relevant Minister a question about the disabled person's maintenance grant. On the cross-departmental team, yes, it discusses housing issues and receives housing reports from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, as well as dealing with the programme for social and affordable housing. This year, approximately €1.8 billion has been spent on social and affordable housing. During the life of the national development plan, in the order of €5.25 billion will be spent on social and affordable housing. The cross-departmental team is continually endeavouring to increase social, affordable and voluntary housing capacity. If the Deputy has any further detailed questions in this regard, he should table them to the Department.
The Taoiseach referred to both social and affordable housing, and, while he did not answer a number of questions I put to him, I will conclude with a specific point. Real concern was expressed at this morning's conference in Croke Park that there is a question mark over the provision of social housing through the local authority network, throughout this jurisdiction, given the Government's policy and intent. I invite the Taoiseach to use this opportunity to allay those fears and indicate his Government's commitment to the continued provision of social housing as a priority project of local government in the future.
He has not delivered yet.
Some €1.8 billion will be spent on social and affordable housing this year alone.
No. The Taoiseach should refer to social housing and leave affordable housing aside.
There are still 48,000 on the waiting list.
Most of the expenditure has been on social housing. Practically the entire budget in that area has been on social housing. Last year, 5,000 houses were finished and this year just short of 5,000 have been started. There has been major expenditure on social housing. In the short period of the national development plan, more than €5 billion has been spent on the area. That spending will continue for the lifetime of the plan.
Reports indicate that the lack of a second terminal at Dublin Airport is costing the country substantial sums in lost tourism revenue. The Department of Transport received at least 13 independent proposals to build a second terminal for Dublin Airport. When does the Taoiseach expect that a decision will be reached on this matter of critical importance to the development of the city and the economy?
When does the Taoiseach expect the critical infrastructure Bill to deal specifically with the development of a metro system from Dublin city centre to the airport will be published? Has the Cabinet considered the issue? Is a timescale envisaged? Does the Taoiseach expect that the metro project to which the Minister for Transport referred will have commenced or will be up and running by 2007?
There has been much discussion of a proposal for a second terminal at Dublin Airport and the form it should take — whether it should be independent or an Aer Rianta terminal and whether it should be low cost or of a more substantive nature because the construction costs and format for each will be different. Those discussions are ongoing with the Minister.
The case has been made that a second terminal would attract many extra visitors and generate employment. There were 13 proposals, some of which were detailed while others outlined financial injections of capital that did not describe the organisation and running of the project. The Minister must reach a final decision on the matter.
There are also industrial relations difficulties. Aer Rianta staff are opposed to the concept of an entirely independent terminal outside the remit of the airport. They feel that would introduce differing employment status. Discussions to reconcile this issue are part of the reason for a delay in reaching a conclusion. From looking at the presentations, however, it should be possible to reach agreement, especially if staff are unionised because that would remove many of the difficulties. I have stated that in meetings between the various parties to the arrangement.
A second terminal would require substantial investment and Aer Rianta is not in such a healthy financial position that it can do without the extra business. The Minister will come forward with a solution when the discussions are completed, although I am not sure at what stage they are now.
The original cost structures drawn up by the Rail Procurement Agency for a metro to Dublin Airport were extremely high. The Minister engaged in discussions with the Spanish authorities, who had carried out this work on a much less expensive basis, and the RPA has resubmitted the plan on that basis. The plan prioritises a light rail system from the city to the airport and discussions are continuing on how best to build it — by PPP or otherwise. It is still a very costly project and it is probably only feasible on a PPP basis because it would otherwise require a huge percentage of the overall capital spending programme for the next few years.
That would leave the State open to the difficulties of having the project there, which would take money from other projects if it were not on a PPP basis. Of course, if it were on a PPP basis, it would have to fulfil EUROSTAT rules that the weight of involvement and risk be transferred to the private sector. However, those matters are being considered by the Minister. No decision has yet been made on whether to go ahead with it, but the Minister is completing his report. Before he brings forward a proposal, he is continuing to communicate with the Spanish authorities because of their success.
The Taoiseach has expressed his frustration at the delay in many infrastructural projects, and that is shared by the House, given the very slow delivery, the extent of need and the infrastructural deficit. In light of the fact that the NRA has discovered yet another archaeological find of considerable importance to heritage, perhaps the time has come to examine its composition. Has the Taoiseach given that any thought? With Carrickmines, Tara, and now Waterford, it is beginning to look like the NRA has an unerring instinct for building roads across heritage sites. Is it not time, rather than condemning snails as the Taoiseach has been doing — I have some sympathy in that regard — we consider why engineering and other expertise cannot construct a section of motorway around the hill of Tara rather than through it? They chose a site in Waterford for the proposed road, seemingly deliberately, where, according to Professor Donchadh Ó Corráin and other experts, one would have anticipated an archaeological find of some significance. Is it not time to examine that?
I find it hard to argue against Deputy Rabbitte on this. While the country is very rich in archaeological sites and monuments, it seems extraordinary that, in many of our major projects, we seem to find such locations. Carrickmines is a good example of our going through the entire process and the examination without there seeming to be a difficulty. It was at the end of the process that the problem arose. If I recall correctly, the Carrickmines process took 32 years from the start of the road, and the issues arose only very late. However, in Tara and other areas, people should examine such issues at the preliminary stage. I accept the Deputy's point.
Recently, I asked at a meeting why, everywhere we looked, we seemed to find archaeological delays. An official answered me that when one spends €100 million on archaeology, one tends to have a great many people looking, who in turn tend to find a great deal. That is part of the difficulty too. However, it seems that the archaeological checks should be done at the very earliest stages of identification. We looked elsewhere with the Spanish issue. I have no reason to put roads through national monuments or other buildings of heritage value.
However, it seems that difficulties arise, if not with a building or monument, with a plant or snail. On many other sites where archaeological digs are conducted, people get over problems and find ways of dealing with them. I do not know at what precise stage the engineers check these issues. It should be done when the land is purchased. It is always when we get to the end of the design or planning, when we are far into the process, that it happens. I do not want to guess when the archaeological dig is started, but it should be at land purchase stage.
At a meeting recently I was going through a long list of road projects. In practically all of them archaeological work of one kind or another was required. Important buildings and archaeological sites deserve to be protected and I am not against that. However, it appears extraordinary when something of archaeological importance is attached to almost every single item on a list comprising some 25 or 26 projects. That looks as if people are using the scheme for particular advantage. It is significant that the archaeological profession is one of the fastest growing areas of employment in the country. I do not believe matters have changed so radically in the last decade to justify this level of expansion.
I am somewhat concerned about the proposition that because money is available for excavation, people tend to make a find of some renown. In many parts of the country one could be digging for a long time and one would not find——
We do not want to spend more on digging than we do on the roads.
There is some truth in that. I would be somewhat worried, however, if that is the official advice available to the Taoiseach. As in the Tara case, there are groups who advise the National Roads Authority in advance that if it decides to plough through the hill of Tara it will be likely to come across something of some significance. One does not need to be an archaeological scholar to suspect that this might be borne out to be true. Sometimes the longest way around is the shortest time home. The Taoiseach should attempt to answer the question, which was whether he contemplated any changes in the National Roads Authority as a result of what is not a distinguished record to date.
On the same theme, will the Taoiseach say, in respect of the interdepartmental team on infrastructure and public private partnerships — when all of these grand titles are disposed of as well as the meetings to which he refers — is it not the case that PPPs have not really got off the ground, some five or six years later, in Ireland? When will there be some clarity as to whether PPPs provide the answer to some of our infrastructural need? My advice is that there is a paralysis within the official system in terms of the desire to make PPPs work. I do not believe they are appropriate in all circumstances — far from it. However, it seems there may be circumstances where they could make a significant contribution.
I do not deride the official desire to protect the taxpayer and so on. However, there seems to be an attitude, "If we do not make a decision at all, we will not make a mistake." It is also desirable to slow down projects. That is a saving for the State. This is assisted by official policy because that is the attitude of the Government: reverse engines after elections, slow spending, try to get the electoral and business cycles into kilter. Surely we have passed the age when slowing something down is considered to be for our economic benefit. Will the Taoiseach agree that the absence of progress on infrastructural projects is a constraint on our future economic potential? Is there any sign of a template coming out of these meetings of the interdepartmental committee that will clarify how PPPs are supposed to work?
My understanding is that a large amount of private sector capital is currently looking for a home. It will locate elsewhere if we cannot use it here. There have even been circumstances where the National Pensions Reserve Fund or the National Treasury Management Agency nominated a small amount, €200 million, more than a year ago for projects and it has not yet been taken up. There are no projects being put forward to use the money. There is €10.5 billion in the fund building bridges in Tokyo, New York and so on. Will the Taoiseach tell the House how we can reconcile a situation whereby all sides agree on the serious infrastructural deficit, there is significant money there to do the work but for some reason, whether lack of project expertise, official paralysis or whatever, we do not seem to be able to get the formula right?
I accept the Deputy's point that the NRA should look at these things early on. People make the point that it should be cautious in Tara, which is obvious, but the issue comes up in other areas and archaeological digs are necessary. I will raise the matter about the early identification of the work again with the interdepartmental team.
Many roads are being developed under PPPs. Every time we discuss PPPs numerous Deputies raise ideological objections to the concept. I have explained several times the advice of the Department of Finance and the National Treasury Management Agency on this issue. The EUROSTAT decision earlier this year clarified the issue and there have been explanations and meetings with the investors. The problem with the EUROSTAT count was that the capital costs of a project were counted up front in the general Government deficit, even when the risk was transferred to the private sector, which was unacceptable. We won that argument and that was good for the PPP process. The Department has issued new guidelines which are lengthy as they must be under EUROSTAT laws, but they are understood. IBEC and the construction industry say that people understand the process.
I reject what the Deputy says about the capital programme. Of the roads due to be completed this year almost 80 km. are complete, 150 km. are under construction and another 155 km. are to start. Those figures represent a significant advance on the position two or three years ago. Many of these are PPPs, such as the section of the 11 km. Dundalk-western bypass leading to the Border, the Fermoy bypass, the Waterford road, the Kilcock-Kinnegad route which is by far the longest stretch at 38 km., and several others. The private sector is interested only in PPPs that offer a commercial return, which is understandable but also explains the failure to take them up. In the case of roads and most other infrastructural projects that involves a toll and the private sector is interested only in areas and roads that carry the volumes of traffic that can yield a commercial return.
The private sector view of these issues is very conservative. I was in the Department of Finance when the M50 opened and the view was that it would not be viable and would not hold. The first and second quarter figures showed it was not very viable. That was the end of that story but there was considerable debate, worry and concern about it and that attitude persists. When the national development plan was first launched there was a view that people from the National Treasury Management Agency and the IFSC would be waiting to take up these projects but they are not interested in most construction projects. There has been some concern from those outside the country who showed an interest but found great difficulty in operating the project and there was much criticism here of the five schools that we used early on. The company involved in that project found the negative opinion of the public, the media, local authorities and many in this House, unhelpful. By and large it pulled back from the operation it had begun here. Neither did the private sector find it attractive to take the same level of risk.
The rules are very clear if people are prepared to invest their resources. Following the EUROSTAT change, where the risk is transferred, the international rules are both clear and transparent. The previous process was a silly one but it has been changed. Where the risk is transferred, the resources are not counted in. Not too many are prepared to take that on. Many private sector companies want the return but not to have the risk transferred. They cannot have it that way.
My advice is that the Department of Finance, notwithstanding the EUROSTAT ruling, stills wants to frontload the structuring of the proposal in such a fashion that it is not attractive to elements of the private sector.
If the Deputy takes the case of the 38 km. of the Kilcock-Kinnegad road, there was no difficulty, either with the Department of Finance, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, local authorities or the private sector. They went for it because it was a substantial project with high volumes of traffic. When it comes to water or sewerage, other than the project with which Deputy Quinn is familiar that he and I attended last year and in which there was private investment, by and large, people do not opt to invest in these projects.
I support public private partnerships, but I have said to IBEC that the private sector must accept the international rules that it must carry the risk. It cannot ask the State and the taxpayer to pay a premium to carry the risk and then say it is against PPPs if they do not. That is the difficulty with private sector investors. They want the State to carry the risk. They want to invest money and be assured that, if something goes wrong, they are covered. They cannot do it that way. That is the reason we have been slower than expected.
From talking to members of the British Government, it appears that many of the roads in the early PPP projects are not as good. The argument in that respect is perhaps that they jumped in, gave too much out and undermined much of their own public sector issues. It is a different argument; I do not think it is a reason for not using PPPs, which we use in a substantial number of areas. I am aware that the Department continues to use them. Some of the education projects for this year will also be PPPs. I know there was great difficulty arguing out the transfer of risk issue.
Following on from Deputy Rabbitte's question about archaeological finds, it is my understanding that the Minister, on behalf of the Government, retains policy in terms of road development and also the allocation of money to the National Roads Authority.
When I was Opposition spokesman on arts and heritage, I learned from archaeologists that they do not mind as long as they have the opportunity to excavate and record what is found. The strip analysis is done a long time before road development takes place. Once a line becomes clear, it is perfectly feasible for them to determine early on if there is a strong likelihood of important archaeological finds being discovered.
Professor Séamus Caulfield informed me that there are 100 years' worth of excavations at Rath Cruachan, County Roscommon. It seems to be sacrilegious to drive a motorway through the Hill of Tara. One day while driving to Dublin I heard a National Roads Authority spokesman on the radio state adamantly that there would be no change, irrespective of the feelings or sensitivities not just of the people living in the area but elsewhere in the country. The Hill of Tara means something to everybody in Ireland. Does Government policy allow for this to be taken into account by the National Roads Authority?
With regard to the list of projects the Taoiseach read, I do not understand why when the Government allocated moneys under the national development plan for major infrastructure in 2002, 2003 and 2004, no funding was allocated for any major road structure west of the Shannon. There was some funding for a stretch of motorway on the way to Dundalk, which is included in the BMW region, but that is a long way removed from beyond Termonbarry. When I was travelling up here at 2.30 a.m. this morning, I drove on the new stretch of road, opened yesterday by the Minister, Deputy Cullen, from Strokestown to Termonbarry, about eight kilometres in distance, through virgin bog, which is a good development.
Why is the NRA, which was set up by Government, unable to get its act together in having projects ready in terms of the use of expenditure allocated to particular regions? When one contacts the NRA, one is told that such projects do not have priority and their completion is ten, 12 or 15 years down the line, which makes a mockery of balanced regional economic development. Following Deputy Rabbitte's comment about the NRA, this is something the Government could usefully examine.
I heard what the Deputy said about the archaeological issues. Obviously if one takes a sensitive site or route and tries to force a project through it, one will run into difficulties. The NRA is independent in its examination of these projects and it must go through a process of examination. As to a Department or Minister dictating a route, obviously the Minister responsible has an involvement and when difficulties arise the matter always comes back to him or her. Sometimes the issue may be the costs involved and, as Deputy Rabbitte said, going the long way around can be costly.
I hold the view that the Deputy should not look for trouble — at least we are trying to find routes that are acceptable and unlikely to give rise to issues. It seems that every time a road is proposed in an area, people object to it. I am not blaming the archaeologists for doing their jobs. They come in and, in many cases, carry out checks, and if nothing is found they move on, but that does not stop people protesting or continuing such protests.
On the issue of priorities, as Deputy Kenny knows, a number of projects west of the Shannon are designed to link up with the Dublin-Sligo, Dublin-Galway and Dublin-Limerick routes. The Dublin-Galway route, in particular, is one the Minister has made a priority, with the Kinnegad motorway, the second part of the motorway link to Athlone and, on the other side, the Loughrea bypass linking the motorway back to Galway — the same is the case with the road to Sligo. Probably some of the best motorways that have been finished go through the Curlews——
They are major schemes.
——and the Strokestown-Longford motorway is under construction. These are all significant roads.
It is best if work on these projects continues. As I said before, if we can keep expenditure on such projects to about 5% of GDP and having regard to roads that will be completed this year and the roads under construction, we will have in the order of way more than 400 km of new roadway. If that level of road construction is maintained for a period, that will mean that the NRA will have to keep that level of construction up to the end of this decade. From the figures in the Department of Finance for such projects up to the end of the decade — the figures cover a five or seven year period — it should be possible to keep such expenditure to 5% of GDP and, if that can be done, a huge impact can be made on the motorway status of roads not only on the east coast and in the midlands but also on the west coast.
There is also the Ballina-Bohola road project, in respect of which I am not sure if work has started, but it is also a priority. As Deputy Kenny knows, business people and members of the public are demanding that priority be given to the Galway-Limerick route because they think that link is enormously important. These are priorities the Cabinet committee on infrastructure has put to the NRA as being crucial for balanced economic and regional development in the western region, not to mind projects elsewhere in the country.
I am anxious to follow up on the reply the Taoiseach gave to a question on a PPP when he mentioned the rules being clear across the EU and that the pitfalls, conditions and so forth should be obvious to anybody getting involved. Is he not concerned that when the Audit Commission in the UK reported about schools built under public private partnerships, it indicated that the costs involved could be as much as 24% more than schools built using more traditional financing methods? Is the Taoiseach in a position to state that this would not happen in Ireland or that there would be no repeat here of an incident such as that which occurred in East Lothian last year when a PPP consortium went bust and the school in question was effectively raided and pupils' books, computers, etc., were seized in lieu of payment? Is it not the case that this is one of the risks of PPPs and that the Government cannot deny it?
Will the Taoiseach also comment on the provision of five schools by the Jarvis company? Prior to the opening of these in recent years, concerns were raised by several Deputies in respect of the standard of workmanship and the standard of future maintenance. I am familiar with one of the schools which is situated in my constituency and all the concerns to which I refer have been realised. The vocational education committee responsible for providing education at the facility in question is concerned about the standard thereof. Is this not a major concern for the Government in terms of school building provision?
I do not know if Deputy Ó Caoláin is concerned about the standard of education or the building itself.
The building.
I am not aware of the position in that regard. I am aware that issues were raised. I return to the question I posed earlier, namely, whether one gets a good return on one's investment. As I have explained on numerous occasions, the Department of Finance has stated that as regards the capital programmes for education or health, the cheapest money is that invested by the State. However, that does not always mean that projects will be completed quickly. It is not possible to do everything and that is why we have been slower than others in advancing the process.
As regards the five schools to which the Deputy referred, I would be disappointed if Jarvis was not honouring its commitment. I understand that a 20 or 25 year maintenance contract formed part of the agreement reached with the company. These schools were only completed approximately three years ago and, therefore, I am sure they are still under guarantee and warranty.
I return to the argument about the risk involved. The private sector wants the State to carry the risk, while the Department of Finance has argued — as have the treasuries in the UK and other countries — that the State does not obtain good value in such circumstances. On projects involving road building, private sector interests can carry the risk and obtain a return. If we follow that policy, charges and tolls will be imposed and this affects the public. If we are going to modernise the country in terms of developing roads, the rail network, airport facilities and the water and sewerage infrastructure and do so within a particular period, some of the work can be transferred to the private sector. That policy has been successful in certain instances, such as, for example, the sewerage project at Ringsend and particular road projects. I am not familiar with the details of the education project but I will raise the Deputy's concerns with the relevant Minister.
