Trevor Sargent
Question:1 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the Border, Midlands and Western Regional Assembly in December 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34618/04]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Regional Development.
Enda Kenny
Question:2 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the outcome of his recent meeting with the Border, Midlands and Western Regional Assembly; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2603/05]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:3 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with the Border, Midlands and Western Regional Assembly. [3500/05]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:4 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the outcome of his meeting with the Border, Midlands and Western Regional Assembly in December 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3648/05]
Joe Higgins
Question:5 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the December 2004 meeting with the Border, Midlands and Western Regional Assembly. [6513/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.
I met with representatives from the Border, Midlands and Western Regional Assembly on 18 November 2004. The meeting allowed for useful discussion on issues of particular importance in the region. In general terms, these included progress on the implementation of the national development plan, especially by reference to the key objectives of more balanced regional development and the funding position of the region post-2006. My Department will remain in contact with the regional assembly and will keep me informed of any developments.
My question is not unlike my previous question. Did the Taoiseach indicate to the Border, Midlands and Western Regional Assembly whether he would act on his 2002 commitment to provide a western rail corridor? Is that the current Government position or has it changed? There has been a change with regard to carbon tax, even though it was in the manifesto. Is the western rail corridor on line to be built?
The group probably raised the need for a spur link to Shannon Airport. Is that part of the thinking in terms of the western rail corridor? Given that the line is already in place, to a large extent, has the projected rise in population from 480,000 to 620,000 being served by the line been taken into account? Will the Government give a timeframe for its implementation?
The Deputy is aware of the study of the western rail corridor. The former Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, set up a group in conjunction with the western corridor group to conduct a full study which will be available in April. I am not sure whether that addresses the issue of Shannon, but I met members of the group a few months ago and the study certainly covers the full link of the 12 or 15 towns involved. The expert group which has carried out the professional study will produce its report in mid-April.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. The BMW region is given Objective One status for the purposes of making it a priority for infrastructure spend and decisiveness on the part of Government. The Taoiseach mentioned earlier that €1.2 billion is left aside for rail transport. I strongly support the western rail corridor. Over the past 25 years members of the Taoiseach's party at county council level have been very diligent, along with all parties, in retaining the land and line and that is of great value. I would like the Taoiseach to say that he supports the opening of the corridor from Sligo southwards. The engineers who do this tell me they could actually complete the business inside two years. Is that part of the Taoiseach's thinking regarding Sligo to Ennis? The survey only covers a particular section of that. The Government should give the matter its full support.
Does the Taoiseach have information on the spend or allocation to Knock Airport? It is of international size.
Questions of a detailed nature would be more appropriate to the line Minister.
I do not know whether the Ceann Comhairle has had occasion to fly into Knock, which is in the heart of the BMW region.
The question does not arise.
Does the Government support the airport as a central part of infrastructure for the BMW region?
Was the issue of the N4 and N5 discussed with the Taoiseach and his delegation? There was a certain development in that regard.
That is a separate question for the Minister for Transport.
The N4 and N5 are the main roads to the west. The section through Ráth Cruachán near Tulsk presents a problem in terms of archaeology.
There is €640 million of an underspend in the BMW region. Can the Taoiseach spur on the appropriate Ministers to make decisions where projects are ready to proceed?
I will try to answer all those questions, although I may not have all the details. I am supportive of the western rail corridor but where it starts and finishes depends on the studies that are being undertaken.
It is good to hear that.
It would make sense to use the existing rail lines but we will have to await the completion of the studies in order to ascertain the viability of the various issues. When I met representatives of the groups involved, they told me they knew there were issues concerning the viability of all the lines. It is important to be supportive of it. As we all know, rail makes enormous sense and that is why we have been putting a huge amount of resources into railway infrastructure.
The purpose of the ten-year envelope is to try to get order into the planning process. We are spending twice the EU average on infrastructure and have argued strongly about the need for this with the European Commission. We will do so again in the next round, even though we will probably get far less money. We had underspends for decades and nobody solved them. I have argued that the country did not have the money at the time and I have given the figures to the European Commission. While we are spending more now, we need to do so.
We are not getting the required level of private sector investment in these projects. They will argue all day about what would happen if the public-private partnership system was easier to implement. To be frank, however, having listened to all the arguments, I do not think they want to get into PPPs. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, is looking at this matter afresh to see what other way we can approach it. Even in the United Kingdom they are pulling back on public-private partnerships. With less money from the European Union and less private sector involvement — unless they change their attitude to these issues — the State will have to fund this. The ten-year programme makes logical sense and obviously within that programme there will be priorities. The necessary infrastructure includes railways and linking roads to the main towns, including those in the west.
We are endeavouring to finish some of the very big infrastructural projects which will release funds. We are getting very close to the end of the Dublin to the Border route on the Dundalk line, which will be totally finished at Easter. The Dundalk by-pass at Ballymascanlon is underway. The Dublin Port tunnel will finish around Christmas, although it may go into early 2006 for testing. However, we are on the last year of big expenditure for that project. The same is the case with the road going south. As the Minister, Deputy Cowen, said, some of those resources should then be released. That is why the decisions on half the projects this year are in the BMW region — some seven of the 12 projects.
Nine.
Nine of the 12 projects are in the west. It was a positive decision to do that. As the Deputy knows, we have difficulties on a few of the other major projects we wanted to start because of environmental issues but rather than arguing about them we will invest moneys in other areas. That is the plan. The ten-year programme certainly allows us to make progress.
As we finish some major road projects on the east coast, €1.4 billion is being spent on infrastructural resources for roads this year alone. As everyone can see, therefore, a huge investment is being made in this catch-up phase.
We have now outlined what roads are to be completed this year, which will be started, which are in the final stages of tendering and which are at the planning and development phase, including compulsory purchase orders. I admit it has taken a few years to get to this stage. I have chaired the relevant committee and it has not always been easy to bring order to the process. However, there is now a clear structure within the Departments, the National Roads Authority and the local authorities. The planning process has been outlined in an ordered way right up to 2015.
It is ongoing.
The challenge for the State is to keep such expenditure at 5% to 6% of GDP. Recently, the engineers said that regardless of what happens to the economy we should be able to do that. I do not think any politician — certainly not myself, or any Taoiseach — would make that claim. If we can do it, however, there is agreement that in 2015 we could have a very modern system. It will have to continue in that order. I have put much effort in that committee into getting a long-term, ordered plan, otherwise we would just keep ticking away and would never get there in anybody's lifetime. There is now a good structure in place in the Department, the National Roads Authority and the local authorities, which communicate and work together, which is a good system.
The Taoiseach forgot to mention the central infrastructural element, which is Knock Airport where there are serious plans for expansion. I know the airport has received some money but the Taoiseach might comment on that matter. It is close to everybody's heart in the sense that it provides real potential for future development.
We have given Knock Airport €3 million which is part of what it requires. It is the biggest slice that any such project has received, although I know the airport is seeking more. I have spoken to the airport's representatives twice in the past six months. The Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, has provided the allocation of €3 million. I agree that the potential is there. It is the only investment opportunity to get a really good strategic development in that area. When the IDA meets with business groups, they all mention Knock Airport as a key facility. It is obviously correct to support the airport's ongoing development given its potential for attracting companies to the region. I do not know what overall expenditure the airport's representatives are seeking but they have been given €3 million to get on with some of the works they want to undertake.
I wish to revert to some of the points that have been raised. Currently, the Taoiseach, in common with the rest of us in the House, is experiencing the problems that have come with the explosion of development in Dublin, which has spilled over into neighbouring counties. There is a serious grievance at the other end of the country about the degree of underspending of such moneys as have been allocated. I want to ask the Taoiseach specifically about the western rail corridor. I heard the Taoiseach make positive noises, as the previous Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, did also. I have not noticed the current Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, do so yet, although he may have made positive noises. The people who are concerned about this matter want to see something tangible at this stage. They want to know if there is any reality behind the positive noises. Where are the reports that have been undertaken? In the Government's view, where is the presentation by the group lobbying for the western rail corridor deficient, if it is deficient? That group has been in existence for some time. Are there particular aspects of the presentation that need to be firmed up before a decision will be made? When is it likely that a decision will be made, albeit a partial decision on a phased basis? Will the Taoiseach indicate an approximate schedule for such a decision?
I am advised that the report by the chairman will be ready in April. The Minister, Deputy Cullen, tells me he believes it will be in early April. We have been supportive of this all the way through. The report is to identify how it can best be achieved. There will probably be arguments about the viability of where the western rail corridor starts and ends. I have heard the arguments about whether Sligo is the best location, as Deputy Kenny said, but I am not an expert in such matters. As much as we can, it makes sense to support and engage in what is viable, based on expert advice. The finances for it are already with the Department and, from presentations we have received, I know it will be part of the ten-year rail plan. Therefore, provision has already been made for it. What is not clear from the discussions is where they should start, where it is viable and where it is not viable. It has been stated that technically the way to return to a proper rail link in the west is to proceed on a phased basis. I accept the Deputy is correct. I have not heard anybody being negative about the concept in the presentations I have heard in recent years. The only argument has been about where, when and what adds up. There is a real opportunity to get it done on a phased basis. The report which is due some time before the summer will come back with recommendations from the Department to the committee and then we will have to make a decision.
Will the Taoiseach speak in general about the current state of the decentralisation programme? A number of those towns were due to benefit from some element of decentralisation. Will they have to wait a while longer than was envisaged in the precipitative announcement by the former Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy, or is it that some of them are off the map entirely?
It would be more appropriate to table detailed questions to the Minister.
It is a general question.
Generally the policy is that 10,300 public servants will move to the 50-plus locations in 24 counties. The process will take longer than originally envisaged. The OPW and the group working on decentralisation have divided the move into three blocks. One block will move with the greatest speed. Regarding the second block, in some areas they are down to a number of sites and locations in terms of building offices. The third block is further back. They have not been able to advance it.
The decentralisation group will make its second report some time in spring. The end of April was the date that was originally agreed. I presume that will not change because of the difficulties with the chairman. That was the date it was working towards and I cannot see why it cannot be achieved. The third category is not off the map but clearly it will take longer to complete that phase.
I note from the Taoiseach's earlier reply to this series of questions that he has agreed that the single biggest issue of concern to people in the BMW region is infrastructure in all its aspects. Can I deduce from what the Taoiseach said that he accepts that people in our region are rightly concerned that despite Objective One status, the promised peace dividend and the establishment of a regional assembly that the entire region, especially the Border counties, feel they are being left far behind the east and the south of the island in terms of infrastructural development?
Will the Taoiseach advise what steps he is prepared to take? He indicated some intent of redressing the imbalance in terms of major projects to be undertaken. Will he outline what further steps he is prepared to take to address this imbalance to ensure the Border counties, the midlands and the west will get their fair share, not only on a continuum but in terms of the catch-up and what is overdue in addressing the imbalance in investment that has taken place over a considerable period? What action will the Taoiseach take to remedy it and will the Government instruct, advise or encourage the NRA to ensure that in its particular area of responsibility projects earmarked for the BMW region will be given priority in the coming years?
What steps can be taken to ensure that there is a significant improvement in the roll-out of broadband into the BMW region?
That question is more appropriate to the line Minister responsible for broadband.
It is an aspect of infrastructure no different to roads or rail. Broadband is infrastructure. Will the Taoiseach give an indication of the Government's intent in regard to addressing the deficiency in broadband access in the BMW region? Specifically in my county and that of the Ceann Comhairle, what is the status of the towns of Castleblaney and Clones?
That is a specific question for the line Minister.
Fair enough. That is a more specific question——
The Taoiseach cannot be expected to have details of every town.
——but I am using it as an example of Border towns that have known only disadvantage and marginalisation over many years. What does the Taoiseach propose to do?
The roll-out of broadband has intensified greatly in the 19 towns that were originally identified. It has continued into the next 38 towns and it will continue to be rolled out in up to 100 towns. There are also community broadband schemes. There has been an enormous acceleration of that activity. Eircom and others had reduced their programme because of losses on the 3G licence issue but they are back in again and have been working with the Minister. There has been a significant intensification of the roll-out programme, particularly into smaller towns. It is a positive story this year. The Minister gave a detailed statement in regard to it. The programme has been accelerated and is on track. A great deal of work was done last year. The same is true of this calendar year.
The economic and social infrastructure operational programme is large. There has been an enormous increase in the intended expenditure. Far more is being spent than was estimated. It is not a question of spending falling behind the projections.
We want to achieve balanced regional development and an equality of expenditure between the southern and eastern region and the BMW region. The BMW region fell behind because of a few major projects. I think I said nine out of 12 projects to Deputy Kenny earlier when I should have said nine out of 18. We have now given priority to the BMW region for starts last year, this year and next year. Once the three projects to which I referred earlier are completed we can continue to do more in the BMW region.
Some of the major projects elsewhere are of equal benefit to the BMW region. Deputy Kenny made the point earlier about some of the roads. The Kinnegad bypass, which is a major project, is of great benefit to everybody in the country, as is the case with most such developments. The Loughrea bypass is under way and the Ballinasloe bypass is in the final stages of planning.
Slane Bridge is another example.
Yes. Not to be parochial, which I know Deputy Ó Caoláin would never be——
It is in County Meath.
——his county is getting its fair share of bypasses.
We have waited a long time.
Deputy Crawford has been lobbying me for these and I have to deliver them to him.
Well done. Hear, hear.
Not to mention the number of bypasses on Cavan Hospital.
The rest of us lobbied the line Minister.
The Ceann Comhairle would not be against those projects either. Significant resources are being invested in these projects. The Exchequer has provided €1.8 billion more than was planned for these developments. While investment in the BMW region has been behind target in the first part of the plan, particularly in the roads programme, expenditure in the region has accelerated according to last year's figures. Eight new projects are about to commence between now and 1 May. We are beginning to see a catch-up in that investment. From the lists of roads issued last week Members can see how much has been achieved in that area.
I appreciate the work that has commenced on the N2. I hope it will continue. It is proof of what is needed in the BMW region. The Belturbet bypass on the N3 is urgently required.
Infrastructure is all about economic improvement for areas. The Border region has not yet received the jobs. If it were not for the IFI——
Does the Deputy have a question? I point out to Deputies that 63 questions have been tabled to the Taoiseach on the Order Paper. We have been dealing with five questions for the past half hour.
This is the first time I have had the chance to ask the Taoiseach a question. I am sorry for annoying the Ceann Comhairle.
I ask Members to confine themselves to questions of a general nature to the Taoiseach rather than detailed questions which should be asked of line Ministers. Otherwise, we will never get through the 63 questions.
Surely the Ceann Comhairle will not do down his constituency colleague.
If we got through the 63 questions, it would be the first time ever.
Does the Taoiseach accept that INTERREG, PEACE II and IFI funds are often used as in substitution rather than comprising additional money for the BMW region? This is why people in the BMW region are angry at the €640 million shortfall of spending in the region. Will the Taoiseach make every effort during the remainder of the period in which the is money available to make sure that the bias is in favour of the BMW and that the money allocated to it is actually spent?
Deputy Crawford is correct that the money should be additional rather than being used in substitution for other funds. The funds from PEACE II, INTERREG and the peace dividend were meant to be additional funds for the region. I had an interesting discussion the other day with an individual who complained to me about traffic in the Meath constituency. In his next breath he complained about decentralisation. I had great difficulty in relating to him that the decentralisation of jobs could solve the traffic problems. Unfortunately, he did not agree with me.
Did the Taoiseach get the vote?
I would probably not have got it anyway. It was an interesting discussion when one considers the logic of a public servant driving to the city and being against decentralisation.
The economic and social structure of the programme originally had a ratio of 27:73; that of employment in human resources development was 29:71; the productive sector was 36:64 and for technical assistance the ratio was 38:62. Under the PEACE II programme, all the funds went to the BMW region. The actual figures for the ratio at the mid-point were 22:78, which indicates that the Border region slipped 5%. The ratio for employment was 29:71, which figure was planned and on target. The productive sector ratio was 24:76, which represented the largest drop. However, the other ratios were all on target. Sometimes the position is put that all the ratios fell behind. I accept there are areas in which they did, but not to the extent suggested.
It must have moved to Louth or Strangford.
It moved around the areas.
Last Monday, the additional contract was signed for the Dundalk-Newry road and the continuation of the M1 which, I hope, will develop further. All the economic analysis indicates that business in the Border region is still only 25% to 30% of what it would be between two regions if it had not been for the conflicts of the past. Border Deputies know better than I that business investors have continually stated that the quality of the transport network presented them with problems. However, the opposite is now the case because, as Deputies know, the journey time between Dublin and Belfast is much shorter, even keeping well within the law. This will be improved further after the Ballymascanlon and Dundalk bypasses are complete. The contract for the M1 into Newry was also signed the other day, the completion of which will make an enormous difference. In the normal course of investment, this should represent a major improvement, as was stated to me in a recent meeting with the chamber of commerce in Dundalk and with the Newry and Mourne chamber of commerce late last year. They all state that these developments will lead to greater investment and I hope they do.
I accept Deputy Crawford's point that Monaghan has for a long time relied on its indigenous industries of furniture, mushrooms and so on and has not received the kind of inward investment that would have made a difference. However, the difference in prices and travel times on that road should make an enormous difference and I hope that comes to pass. It now represents some of the country's best infrastructure.
I will take two very brief questions and I ask Deputies to be brief.
I realise this question will require more attention from the Minister for Transport. However, in regard to his discussions with the BMW regional assembly, will the Taoiseach inform the House whether the Government is willing to progress a development whereby a rail line might be built alongside a new road being constructed, for example, between Sligo and Bundoran, in order to take advantage of the reservation acquisition there? Opportunities such as this may arise and could form part of an ongoing plan. Given the congestion in Galway, Sligo and so on which adversely affects 85% of businesses, is it envisaged that will we make progress in this manner?
As the Deputy correctly anticipated, the question is more appropriate to the line Minister.
I am seeking to take advantage of the fact that the line Minister is sitting beside the Taoiseach.
Given that all the major Gaeltacht areas, namely, Mayo, Donegal and Galway, are within the BMW region, is the Taoiseach aware that the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs has signed the order for the Údarás na Gaeltachta election on Friday, which has disadvantaged a large number of people?
That does not arise on this series of questions.
It arises very seriously within the Gaeltacht area.
I suggest the Deputy submits a question or finds another way of raising the issue.
The Minister is in the House and he can reply if he likes. The issue arises in the Gaeltacht areas in which, only two days after the order was signed, hundreds of postal votes were disallowed in Galway yesterday despite the fact that two working days had not elapsed between the order and the election.
The Deputy has made his point. I asked for a brief question. As I pointed out, 63 questions have been tabled to the Taoiseach. If we move through the questions at the rate we are today, it will take ten weeks to go through them all.
In reply to Deputy Sargent, we are committed to infrastructure in the west, whether that involves road or rail, but the projects must be viable. It is one thing to construct rail lines but they must be viable. Rail is already a huge loss-maker, which one must accept because it is a good transport system. I am not aware of the example to which the Deputy referred but one cannot construct such lines unless there is at least a reasonable flow, otherwise they would become very costly. However, where there is a reasonable flow that is a different matter.
Departmental Bodies.
Joe Higgins
Question:6 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the progress made by the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public private partnerships; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1457/05]
Enda Kenny
Question:7 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the January 2005 meeting of the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public private partnerships; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2455/05]
Enda Kenny
Question:8 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. [2456/05]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:9 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the number of occasions during 2004 on which the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public private partnership met; when the committee will next meet; if he will report on the work of the team to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3501/05]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:10 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach when the cross-departmental team on housing, infrastructure and PPPs last met; and its planned meetings for 2005. [3695/05]
Trevor Sargent
Question:11 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the progress made by the cross-departmental group on infrastructure and public private partnership; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4487/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 11 together.
The meeting of the cross-departmental team on housing, infrastructure and PPPs scheduled for January was amalgamated with the most recent meeting on 2 February. The reason is that important preparatory work in one of the principle agenda items, namely, strategic national infrastructure, was still ongoing when the January meeting was scheduled to have taken place. It is expected that the Government will formally consider the outputs of that work in the very near future. The other main agenda item was the national spatial strategy with an emphasis on progress to date and plans for the year.
A further meeting of the team is being held today. Agenda items are: housing, particularly in the context of recent reports from the National Economic and Social Council and the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution; strategic national infrastructure, especially proposals to expedite delivery; and the transport investment programme under the ten year envelope.
In general terms, the team and the Cabinet committee to which it reports serve a valuable role in progressing and resolving issues related to infrastructural planning and delivery. To that end the team continued to make a major contribution throughout last year and met on ten separate occasions. I have reported to the House separately on those meetings.
Overall, the team has helped to improve significantly the context for the delivery of national infrastructure, especially in terms of time and cost. A particularly important feature of the team's work last year was related to the roll out of the multi-annual financial envelopes for the various broad categories of infrastructure activity. The House can be assured that the team will continue to make an important contribution throughout this year.
Does the Taoiseach expect that the national development programme will be completed on time? How far off schedule does he expect it to be given the remarks made recently by the Institution of Engineers of Ireland with regard to the multi-annual funding network which was announced? Does the Taoiseach expect to have it completed within the time limit or will it be off schedule by three to five years?
The Taoiseach mentioned there is a meeting today about housing. I am sure the Taoiseach has had his eyes opened, as many other Deputies have had, by the huge conurbations outside the city in Meath and Kildare. The clumping of huge housing estates without infrastructure is a social crime of enormous consequence.
That is a question for the line Minister.
This is a question on the cross-departmental team which the Taoiseach will deal with on the housing issue. My question is valid in that sense. Does that committee discuss the concept of housing whereby if 1,000 or 2,000 houses are to be built in a certain place, there will be a concurrent proposal to construct the schools, leisure facilities, playgrounds and so forth, so those who pay their deposit in the first instance can know in advance the bus routes and public facilities that will be available? I have seen some of these estates in the last few weeks and——
Again, Deputy Kenny, these are questions for the line Minister.
A Cheann Comhairle, you have become very tetchy in the last couple of days.
I am asking a question about a cross-departmental team dealing with housing. Is anything wrong with that?
The details of what is discussed at the cross-departmental committee——
Did I mention any specific location? I mentioned housing as a concept.
Each Minister is responsible for their line Department in the areas for which they have responsibility. The Taoiseach is not specifically responsible for these detailed questions——
I did not suggest he was. I asked the Taoiseach if the cross-departmental team dealing with housing discusses such issues. This is about people and their lives.
The details of what it discusses is not appropriate under these questions. The Deputy's question asked about the meeting of the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public private partnerships and asked the Taoiseach to make a statement on the matter.
Yes, that is part of it. You, a Cheann Comhairle, no longer need to canvass because of your privileged position here but if you had been in some of the housing estates I have been in during the last couple of weeks, you would understand what I am saying.
I would have put down my question to the line Minister.
Obviously, these issues are discussed in various fora, not just in the committee. The reason for national planning, balanced regional development and the national spatial strategy, on which we worked over the last few years, was to deal with the type of issues mentioned by the Deputy. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is currently developing terms of reference for a study of the needs of gateways. That proposal has been approved by the cross-departmental team and it is anticipated the project will be completed by the middle of this year.
A few things have happened. One is the impact of the national development plan projects in overcoming infrastructure barriers. There are also the strategic infrastructural requirements of the gateway areas. The reason the national spatial strategy provided that all local authorities must have regional planning guidelines was to deal with the issue raised by the Deputy. They must examine how development is conducted. I have seen some of these developments. They provide grand housing but there were no regional planning guidelines in the past. However, they are now in place and people must consider from the start of the development where the school, community centre and so forth will be.
Deputy Rabbitte is probably far more knowledgeable than I about what happened in the Tallaght and Clondalkin area 30 years ago, when that mistake was made. It would be regrettable if we were still making the same mistake. We had to go back into those areas and provide schools, playgrounds and parks 30 years later. Of course, that turned the community around. Nowadays, developments are being built in areas where there is no problem with open space — if anything, in some cases they are being built on too open a space — so I cannot understand why they cannot get the school right.
Out of curiosity, I checked a few developments in recent days to find out if it was a case of the Department of Education and Science messing up. However, I discovered that in many cases the places were opened before the applications were even put forward. To be frank, it is just bad organisation in planning development. I accept that councillors work hard. There is a planned new development in Navan of approximately 1,200 houses. Last week I looked at a plan shown to me by the chairman of a community council and I discussed it will Deputy Cullen. Nobody could find any road other than the existing one. I was never an engineer and I would not be much good if I ever tried to study for that profession but if one is building 1,200 houses, it is a basic requirement to provide a road from it to the main road and not use a road that is already overcrowded. This is basic stuff.
Colleagues have told me that the answer to this is the regional planning guidelines. In the context of the national spatial strategy and the gateways, the purpose and logic of why the technical people have argued about ways to do this is to ensure that planning is dealt with in a far broader way. It is not an issue of putting 600 or 1,000 houses in Mornington or any of the other areas we have visited recently and then, when they are half built, to consider building a school given that there might be children in the houses. If the development is taking four or five years, it should be done in a better way.
I have also seen areas where that was done well, often because of good public representatives or councillors. These people were often berated because they wanted to get the development right and argued for it. Many local authorities oblige developers to make a contribution. There was a row in the House a few years ago about these contributions. However, it should not be a cost that is passed on. If the prices we hear one can get for houses are correct, the cost of the contribution should not be added to the price of the house. We argued about this and urban development costs in the House. The developer should be able to fund a contribution to the schools, roads and other facilities out of the huge profits. Local authorities are seeking this for the last three or four years, and so they should. It was argued in the House that it would just be put onto the price of houses. However, with the size of some of these estates, the developer has six or seven years work and is making an enormous profit so he has an obligation to pay towards development costs, probably even more than the existing amounts.
I did not notice that in the Institution of Engineers of Ireland report or a suggestion of what we should do. I accept many of the points the institution makes but developers should pay towards development costs.
I agree with the Taoiseach's comments but I am not sure it is happening in practice. While we are swapping anecdotes, one community in Meath told me that the site for the school is designated and, after it is rezoned, the Department must buy it back at the rezoned value. If that type of thing happens, it is extraordinary. I agree with the Taoiseach's comments about the experience of the western towns.
I was in Sallins recently where people told me there is a big problem with the primary school and that their three and four year old children cannot be enrolled in secondary school. Is it not the case that there is no secondary school available? Naas CBS cannot take them so parents are presented with private education in Newbridge as the only prospect. As Deputy Kenny said, there is an amazing deficit in facilities in this area of developmental explosion of recent years. Is a significant number of projects contemplated as a result of ironing out the difficulties with public private partnerships? The Committee of Public Accounts heard some time ago that such moneys as had been made available from the pension reserve fund for infrastructure projects had not been called on and no projects have been brought forward despite the manifest requirement.
Deputy Kenny dealt with another matter. The report from the Institution of Engineers of Ireland is far more critical than one would divine from the Taoiseach's response. Did the experts who compiled that report suggest we are not within a mile of hitting the national development plan target because we are so far behind today?
Whatever about past schemes, a process is now in place in regard to the gateways, hubs and regional planning guidelines. With many developments of the past year or two, the developer simply gave the land site as part of the development, which is what should happen. The Deputy is correct in regard to other cases in older developments where this was not part of the overall development. In these cases, the State has not got the sites and people will obviously try to zone the sites to sell them to the State at a higher cost. However, if it was done as part of the regional planning guidelines at the commencement, the State should not pay anything for these sites; it should be part of the overall development. That is happening and there are many good examples of vigilant public representatives of all political parties co-operating to achieve this. This is the way it should be but, unfortunately, guidelines were not in place previously and developers were able to push these developments through, probably by applying pressure, without making much contribution, such as providing some open space. The regional planning guidelines will force that to change.
I accept many of the positive points made in the report of the Institution of Engineers of Ireland. We have invested hundreds of millions of euro more than was planned in the national development plan, yet there are areas where we are behind. The institution correctly identifies some of these areas. Where did the money go? In many cases, it was eaten up due to under estimation, changes to the design of projects, cost inflation and also engineer's inflation. Many of these factors have caused resources to be used up and, therefore, we are behind in some areas.
In other cases, however, we have gone beyond the national development plan. For example, the multi-annual envelopes for 2005 to 2009 will see approximately €33.4 billion invested in the capital programme, which must be factored in. However, the institution makes positive suggestions.
A section of the National Treasury Management Agency is considering the issue of public private partnership. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, has, to his credit, given much time since the budget to consideration of this area. He is considering changes to structures and spent a whole day with people involved in PPP, listening to their cases and to what they think is wrong, to find if there is some other way we can make the system work.
With regard to some major projects, I have tried to achieve private sector engagement but it is not easy. Some say the process does not work and when one tries to get the private sector to organise a major project, one does not get the feeling the sector is clear on the idea. Some projects around Dublin city would be ideal if the private sector was prepared to take them over, for example, the completion by tunnel of the M50 going south. This project would probably cost well over €1 billion if the private sector wanted to take it up, and it would not go wrong if it wanted it for 30 or 40 years. However, the private sector tends to pull away from these projects.
The State will never be able to complete all of these projects. Therefore, we must find some imaginative way of involving the pension fund in this. The Minister, Deputy Cowen, is working on this at present.
The private sector has become involved in the M50 project and some other projects. However, it should take the really big money. We will not need the pension fund money for 20 to 25 years. My view, given the demographics, is that we will not need it for far longer. I do not understand how, on one side, some say we will need it in the years 2025 to 2030 and, on the other side, some say there will be 1 million extra people at that time. I do not believe this doomsday scenario will happen.
We should be able put aside more of this money. The pension fund managers will invest the resources but it must be a private sector driven project. I have yet to see someone coming forward with a vehicle that will lead to this. However, having listened to what the people say they need, the Minister, Deputy Cowen, is reconsidering the matter.
I note the Taoiseach had his Duracells changed this morning. On an area that was not addressed, has the cross-departmental team with responsibility for housing considered the issue of housing in the private rented sector? Is the Taoiseach aware that the number of households in receipt of rent supplement now exceeds 40% of the entire private rented sector? This is a statistic learned from a recent Parliamentary Question to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs. Does the Taoiseach accept it is clear these people should be accommodated within the social rented sector as the State is massively subsidising the private rented sector, and this statistic only underscores it? Will the Taoiseach reply to the specifics of my questions?
We often warn in this House of the danger of moneylenders and loan sharks. Is the Taoiseach alarmed that some PPPs are much more expensive than the public sector component? The Kilcock-Kinnegad section, for example, cost €1.1 million less per kilometre than the private sector section of that project. Is there any measure to end this type of gross profiteering from the private sector? How will a PPP work, for example, in regard to building, as proposed by Government, a prison on the Dublin-Meath border? Will it be responsible for security and maintenance or just for construction?
While the committee does not deal with Deputy Ó Caoláin's question, generally, the private rented sector is an important part of housing policy. The changes we have introduced in that area have significantly reduced the private sector rented market. It is continuing to decline dramatically, even in the heart of Dublin, which is a major change. If many in that sector could access affordable or social housing, it is undoubted they would be happier. However, the State is subsidising them in accommodation, in many cases where they are happiest and from where they do not want to move. It is not one size fits all.
There are many arguments about PPPs which time does not permit me to go into. However, another argument suggests that PPP projects are coming in on cost and on or ahead of time — the Monasterevin bypass was nearly a year ahead and the Kinnegad project is going well. There are efficiencies of scale and there will also be efficiencies in regard to maintenance. While cost is a factor, if one was to wait to undertake projects in the traditional way, there would be increased delays and difficulties. We are spending increased resources in recent years —€1.4 billion on roads and €1.2 billion on rail, and we must find the most effective way of completing projects which does not only concern cost.
What of the prison?
There is a cost involved in doing it this way. In terms of speed, efficiency, volume and capacity, one must give some projects to the private sector.
What of the prison? Is this the case for security?