Enda Kenny
Question:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the duties and responsibilities of the special political advisers as appointed by him; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39758/05]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Ministerial Staff.
Trevor Sargent
Question:2 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the duties and responsibilities of special political advisers appointed by him; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6396/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
There are six special advisers appointed by me. There has been no increase in their number since I took office. Under the direction of the programme manager, the primary function of the advisers is to monitor, facilitate and help secure the achievement of Government objectives and to ensure effective co-ordination in the implementation of the programme for Government. They are also tasked with giving me advice and keeping me informed on a wide range of issues, including business, financial, economic, political, administrative and media matters and performing such other functions as may be directed by me from time to time.
Each of the advisers liaises with a number of Departments and acts as a point of contact in my office for Ministers and their advisers. My advisers attend meetings of Cabinet committees and cross-departmental teams relevant to their responsibilities. They also liaise, on my behalf, with organisations and interest groups outside of Government.
In addition, a number of my advisers have specific responsibilities in speech drafting. My programme manager meets other ministerial advisers on a weekly basis. He monitors and reports to me on progress in implementing the programme for Government.
According to the Taoiseach's reply he has a programme manager, a special adviser and three other special advisers. Is that correct?
There are six.
There are six, including the programme manager to the Tánaiste and so on. In terms of their salary scales, the first four cost €513,000, and good luck to them. When the Taoiseach states that their duties are partly to advise him on a wider range of issues, it seems strange that none of his political advisers brought up the matter of the former Minister of State, Deputy Callely, being removed from office.
That matter does not arise.
Good, sound political advice might have led the Taoiseach in a different direction. I am not privy, of course, to conversations the Taoiseach might have had with these people who cost a half a million euro, but he could have gone to any street in his constituency and got very clear advice for nothing as to when, how and where he might site a successor. Is the Taoiseach happy with the range of issues on which this quadrant of advisers is available to him? Does he consider that they fulfil their duties and functions properly, as laid out in their respective contracts?
I have one special adviser, a programme manager and four others. One of the advisers liaises with the Ministers of State. That adviser's role relates to them, given that Ministers of State do not have advisers. The total salaries of all advisers is €974,122.
That is €1 million. They must give good advice.
I am satisfied with the work. Between them, they cover the entire range of Departments, with three or four each. They liaise with Ministers and Ministers of State as well as groups inside and outside the various Departments. This involves a range of meetings and I am satisfied with the work they do.
I commended the Tánaiste on the speed with which the Government published the report commissioned by the HSE into the provision of children's hospital facilities in Dublin, in terms of the move from Temple Street, the Mater and so on. When they consult the Ministers and the Ministers of State, do the programme managers and advisers encourage them to bring reports to Cabinet for quick publication? The Minister for Education and Science, for instance, said there was an information deficit at the heart of the education system, yet half a dozen reports have been lying on her desk for a number of months which have not been published. In terms of their advice to the Taoiseach, as Head of Government, is it not appropriate that they should follow the example flagged by the children's hospital issue, for example, and allow for early publication of these reports? They are not secret and are not concerned with sensitive tragedies or whatever. There is no reason they should be kept back——
That does not arise out of this question.
It does.
No, the Deputy cannot go into detail.
The Ceann Comhairle cannot stop me because——
It is a general question.
In other words, say nothing.
It is on a wider range of issues.
The Taoiseach said these special advisers advise him on a wide range of issues.
The Chair can accept a question on the reports, but not detailed questions that should be addressed elsewhere.
I am asking about a wide range of issues, and the Ceann Comhairle appears to think, when he comes here on Tuesdays, that he has to concoct some method to prevent legitimate questions being asked.
The Deputy is well aware——
It looks that way.
I know some of the Taoiseach's advisers and they are very good people. In the interests of efficiency in Government and of giving the public information contained in reports that are locked away in Departments, do these advisers urge Ministers to publish reports quickly because the people would like to know what is in them? That is a fair question, which by any standards the Ceann Comhairle cannot rule out of order.
The Chair will allow that but the Deputy cannot go into detail.
We are getting there.
I agree with Deputy Kenny that reports should be published quickly where issues of confidentiality are not involved, as is normally the case. There was an urgent reason the report he mentioned should be published quickly because it was holding up the decision on the release of the development of the hospital. It was correct that it was published immediately to allow for consultation and the health sector to input its views on the report.
Sometimes reports are held back for consultation or action but usually reports are published quickly. The normal procedure with the parts of the NESC and ESRI reports that go to my Department is that we bring them to the next Government meeting. We clear them in Cabinet or we bring them to it for information, as all reports do not necessarily require clearance. We then publish them and have the consultation process. It is the same with any of the other reports or research related to social partnership, which we circulate to the various social partners as soon as they are ready and publish them.
The reply from the Taoiseach is, effectively, the same reply he gave on 18 October 2005. No new information has been provided to the Dáil. The only way new information can be elicited is by way of supplementary question so I hope the Ceann Comhairle will allow me to ask three questions.
Will the Taoiseach be more specific about the type of work and responsibilities given to his advisers? He needs to be a little more specific if we are to understand exactly what "helping to secure the achievement of Government objectives" means. Are special advisers involved in focus group work? A report on 30 January in The Irish Times gave a figure in the region of €1 million across a number of parties. Is that type of work part of the responsibility of advisers?
Are the Taoiseach's advisers based in this country or are any based overseas? I understand that the former adviser, Mr. Peter McDonagh, lives abroad but his services have been retained. Will the Taoiseach outline Mr. McDonagh's responsibilities and the cost of same?
The Taoiseach mentioned a figure of €974,400. Does he believe there should be specific and published guidelines for the work of special advisers and, perhaps, also a legislative base given that it is a fairly costly service? It is only fair to taxpayers that there would be some level of accountability. For example, do special advisers deal with constituency work? One can ask how much of this is properly the work of an adviser and, given that it is taxpayers' money, should we be more specific than simply saying the work of advisers is to secure the achievement of Government objectives?
One of the special advisers is a programme manager and another co-ordinates directly with Ministers of State. Each of the special advisers has responsibility for a number of Departments and liaises with them on items of the Cabinet agenda and issues that are working through sub-committees of Cabinet. They also deal with groups that wish to make representations to me and with areas where there are difficulties across Departments in progressing issues. That is the kind of work they are doing. They are linked directly to Departments. They are not involved in political work such as focus groups or in party headquarters.
Mr. McDonagh ceased duty in 2001 and he has not worked as a political adviser to Government since then. He took up a post in the Czech Republic, to which I think Deputy Sargent referred. He possibly keeps in contact with people in party headquarters but has nothing to do with the advisers.
We dropped the old system whereby every Minister had both programme managers and advisers. The co-ordination role of the four advisers involves effectively undertaking what was previously undertaken by special advisers and programme managers when every Minister had them. They liaise with Ministers and Departments to carry out this role across the 15 Departments, work which more than takes up their time and efforts.
The legislative base for advisers is in the Public Service Management Act 1997, section 11(1) of which makes provision for special advisers. It was also covered in the Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Act 2004. They are fully governed by compliance with the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995.
I agree with Deputy Kenny about the helpfulness of the Taoiseach's political advisers. However, they must have been on holidays over the last few weeks or the Taoiseach slipped off the leash because he is not as sure-footed as he used to be. There must be some explanation for it.
They do not all come from north Dublin.
Obviously not.
Is there an overlap between the political advisers and staff in constituency offices? There are eight people in the Taoiseach's constituency office at a cost of €250,000 and there are 82 staff employed in Ministers' constituency offices. Coming from this side of the House, one feels that it is not that difficult to get the name of a legendary constituency worker if one has eight people to back one up. Is there an overlap between the political and constituency office staffing? The Taoiseach tells us that the communications unit is basically a Civil Service function. Why is greater confidence not placed in the Civil Service, as opposed to excessively staffing constituency offices, which seems to be the case at the moment? Nobody objected when there were a few people in ministerial constituency offices but 82 staff appears to be excessive.
There is no overlap between advisers and constituency office staff. Practically all the people in my constituency office, with the possible exception of one junior person, are civil servants. Quite a few of the staff in a constituency office work on personal computers and carry out filing work so they would not be engaged in constituency work in terms of contacts. There is no overlap between the advisers who are working across Departments and people who work in constituency offices.
Would the Taoiseach agree that employing six advisers costing just under €1 million per annum is exorbitant and excessive? When one combines this with the Taoiseach's other personal staff, it appears that an Arabian sheikh would hardly have such a large retinue as the Taoiseach now has advising him at every turn. Public sector workers are constantly berated in the private press about benchmarking. How does the Taoiseach benchmark the work and success of his advisers? Has he a particular standard by which he measures the quality of the advice received by him? Do they advise other Ministers and, speaking of benchmarking, do they carry responsibility for some of the debacles in which the Government has been involved such as the nursing home fees, electronic voting and PPARS? Given the cost of these advisers, why were these issues not flagged a long time ago, which would have saved a lot of public money? Perhaps then they would have earned the €1 million.
Whose idea was it that the Taoiseach should tell the Minister of State, Deputy de Valera, through the medium of Clare local radio, that she should spend more time in west Clare, rather than someone informing her in person?
That question does not arise under the questions tabled.
One adviser gone.
As the Deputy is aware, there are far fewer advisers and programme managers now than was the case previously. Both numerically and cost-wise, the numbers involved are now much lower, but I will not go into that matter. The people who remain in my Department co-ordinate the work which would have been carried out by advisers and programme managers in each Department. They deal with a number of Departments and liaise with Ministers, Ministers of State and my Department on the range of issues across each Department. A high proportion of the 40 or so advisers who work in the system are seconded from the Civil Service. Compared with the past, very few people come from outside the Civil Service. By and large, the system works efficiently.
The salaries of these people are directly linked to Civil Service grades. The posts are analysed and examined in the same way as public servants, including assistant principal officers or principal officers. They are linked to a grade and not dealt with in isolation.
Our hearts go out to the unfortunate, under-paid and over-stressed advisers, especially since they were not even consulted in the context of the recent crisis when they could have been very useful. It begs the question in what type of work they are involved. Do they deputise for Ministers? Do they attend meetings instead of Ministers? Do they do so at home or abroad? To what extent do they contact various agencies outside their respective Departments and the Oireachtas? For example, do they contact national or local radio stations or newspapers or advise on editorial policy? What did they do over the past month for €1 million, for example?
In a given period, legislation must be prepared across a range of Departments and there are ongoing meetings of Cabinet sub-committees with various items on the agenda. For example, on the cross-departmental team dealing with infrastructural issues, an adviser would work with the Minister and the officials in my Department to try to co-ordinate efforts on items on the agenda, including infrastructural and transport Bills. They do not work outside the country, except in the case of my adviser on European issues who works on European Council papers, data on foreign trips or visits of delegations to this country. Other than that, these people work in Government Buildings. They are confined to dealing with matters on the Government's agenda. They do not deputise for Ministers but rather liaise between Ministers and Departments. They co-ordinate the effort to keep the process of Government work moving as swiftly as possible by ensuring items on the programme for Government are moved forward.
Interdepartmental Committees.
Enda Kenny
Question:3 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public-private partnerships will next meet; the number of meetings of the team planned for 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39760/05]
Joe Higgins
Question:4 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. [1861/06]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:5 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the cross-departmental team on housing, infrastructure and public-private partnerships; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3208/06]
Trevor Sargent
Question:6 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the progress made by the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public-private partnerships; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6397/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 6, inclusive, together.
The cross-departmental team on housing, infrastructure and public-private partnerships, PPPs, is scheduled to meet next on Wednesday, 1 March. While the agenda remains to be finalised, it will include Transport 21 and housing. These meetings are generally held on a monthly basis and there are eight more meetings planned for the remainder of 2006.
The team's role is to assist in progressing and resolving issues related to infrastructure planning and delivery. Given the significance of cross-departmental co-ordination in securing progress in this area, the team plays a valuable role in identifying appropriate issues to be addressed and, where necessary, in proposing possible solutions for consideration by the Cabinet committee and the Government. Such cross-departmental co-ordination has helped to improve significantly the capacity for the delivery of national infrastructure, especially in terms of time and cost.
Particular issues considered by the team in recent times include Transport 21, housing, the national spatial strategy and waste management. Lead responsibility remains with the relevant Minister and Department in respect of each infrastructure project.
Has consideration been given to the continuation of the PPP process as it is currently operated? I made the point previously that it is a very expensive and technically complex tender system and that there is no claw-back for companies who are unsuccessful in tendering. We could end up with a small cartel of influential companies which could give rise to fears of inflated prices. In the case of the Cork School of Music, for example, I understand the cost is some €75 million while the maintenance fee is €8 million for 25 years thereafter. Given the strength of the economy, are we in a position to adopt a design-build approach as distinct from the PPP system as it currently operates?
The Taoiseach mentioned that Transport 21 will be discussed at the meeting of the cross-departmental team on 1 March. The launch of that document was well-flagged and an extraordinary amount of money is involved. It did not, however, include the proposed orbital roue for the greater Dublin area. Based on current estimates, the sum involved will be truly extraordinary, depending on how far from the city boundaries it is built, whether 20 or 30 miles or whatever.
Will the cross-departmental committee make further recommendations about future tolling of roads? This is an issue of great concern to thousands of people, many of whom believe we have arrived at a stage economically where we can develop many of our roads. We have waited a long time to get these roads which are now being tolled. Will the infrastructure committee consider this issue, either at its meeting of 1 March or at subsequent meetings?
Deputy Kenny raised the first issue on a previous occasion at which time I told him the Minister for Finance was working on an initiative. That is now complete and I will give some details of it. It is aimed at accelerating PPP projects for key capital infrastructural projects in central Government areas. A new centre of expertise will be established under the National Development Finance Agency, NDFA, whose role will be expanded to include procurement functions on behalf of Departments. This will be in addition to its existing role as adviser to Departments on PPP procurement. The agency has commenced this new activity on an interim non-statutory basis and the Department of Finance is working with its legal advisers, in consultation with the NDFA, to bring forward any necessary legislative amendments without delay. The Minister for Finance appointed two additional members to the board of the National Development Finance Agency and the appointments are interim and non-statutory in the first instance pending amendment of the National Development Finance Agency Act 2002. The additional board members are Mr. Fred Barry, chief executive of the National Roads Authority, and Mr. Stuart Harrington, chartered surveyor and director of Killeen Properties.
The centre will provide the skills and capacity required to support the procurement of key infrastructural projects by public-private partnership in the central government area. This relates to the point raised by Deputy Kenny. By concentrating initially on three key Departments, namely, the Departments of Education and Science, Health and Children and Justice, Equality and Law Reform, an approved flow of PPP projects will be generated and resources will be focused on bringing these projects to completion. This relates to the point raised by the Deputy whereby companies had to invest in a major outlay for contracts with no return and incurred a sizeable hit in terms of their own costs.
Ministers will continue to be responsible for the assessment and approval of projects, including decisions to procure the project as a PPP, the setting of project budgets, output specifications and other service requirements. The NDFA's centre of expertise will be responsible for procuring the projects within these parameters and carrying out any negotiations needed to the turnkey stage. It will hand over the completed project to the Department concerned after construction.
This development resulted following consultation which, as Deputy Kenny will recall, involved the Minister listening to the agencies and companies concerned make the point about the cost. This development will lead to a much more efficient operation and give a centre of expertise where the process involved will be centralised as opposed to the existing position.
There is no new discussion on the tolling issue other than the decisions that have already been made. Only a small number of the roads, in respect of which €1.5 billion will be invested, are tolled.
With regard to Transport 21 issues related to the orbital route, the Deputy will recall that the National Roads Authority has carried out preliminary work on the orbital route but has not yet decided on a route. It has broadly indicated that it wants to proceed on an outer line but the exact location of it and the related cost specifications of it will take some time to establish. It has said it will report back but it will take some time before it does that in a meaningful way in terms of it being costed. It is important to commence preliminary work on the orbital route for the longer term.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the use of public-private partnerships is not economically justified but politically motivated and that the Government, in its philosophy, essentially favours big business interests in major infrastructural projects for ideological reasons and because of the political closeness of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats to big business interests which also finance those parties?
Does the Taoiseach agree that in respect of group schools there is no great experience in this country as of yet of the alleged economic benefits of public-private partnership and that in the case of the provision of six schools which were agreed in 1999, the Comptroller and Auditor General found they were 8% to 13% more expensive to deliver than if they had been delivered under public stewardship? Does the Taoiseach agree that the effect of this process is that the taxpayers, in other guises as ordinary people, consumers, users of roads etc., will be hit for more to provide for the profits of the friends of the Government?
When the public-private partnership process gives a company a stake or a right in terms of the provision of a public service for up to the 20 or 25 years, does the Taoiseach agree that it is inevitable that many of those companies will move on, or may run into difficulties or have to offload their contracts and those public services become the subject of speculation in the capitalist marketplace? Is that any way to deliver public services on a secure basis for our people?
I do not agree with the Deputy's thinking on this matter. Public-private partnerships here and elsewhere are designed to involve the private sector more efficiently and speedily because it has expertise in undertaking such projects and to try to complete projects more quickly. There is a cost effect too because the State will always be able to make better loan arrangements than anyone else, provided its rating is healthy. The State, however, cannot do everything in one year or period.
There will always be a significant backlog of capital investment projects required. The State can engage the private sector through public-private partnerships, with proper procurement standards and arrangements which work well internationally. There is a good range of examples. The Deputy is correct to say we were late into this area. We can, however, see where others have made mistakes or where there are good models, and use proper procurement arrangements to enable strategic developments.
Whether in schools in 1999, or in some other areas, this involves a learning curve. Deputy Kenny mentioned the Cork School of Music which got into difficulties mainly because the original company pulled out and other companies were not interested in coming in. By and large people are interested in coming into road, sewage and water treatment projects. These are good examples of design, build and manage contracts which are good for the State. We have a range of these and they will build up over time. The State will not always have the expertise to carry out these projects within its ambit. If there are good quality private sector companies, Irish or other, which have international acclaim, which can carry out and finance these projects it is a good way to work. A relatively small element of the overall capital programme is under public-private partnership but it is good to deal with part of the capital programme in that way.
The Taoiseach referred earlier to tolling. Has the cross-departmental team addressed this in any substantive way? There is already an extensive demand on road users through vehicle registration tax, car tax, income tax, excise duties on fuel consumption and now tolling is an ever-increasing feature of our road infrastructure. Would it not be appropriate for the cross-departmental team to address this matter? What does the Taoiseach have to say to us on this issue?
Housing is one of the responsibilities of the cross-departmental team. Will the Taoiseach confirm that the team has addressed the issue of Traveller accommodation? I refer to the case brought by the elderly Traveller couple, one aged 70 the other 74, who are trying to ensure their squalid conditions are brought up to an acceptable standard in the twilight years of their lives. If the cross-departmental team has not addressed the issue of Traveller accommodation will the Taoiseach in light of this case bring the issue to its attention?
This committee does not deal with that particular issue but the committee on social inclusion deals with the housing and infrastructural programme for Travellers. The Deputy should put down a question to the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Fahey. There have been several discussions over the past six months not only at the Cabinet committee on that issue but also with the local authorities and the NGOs representing the Traveller community. The Minister of State would be glad to outline this process.
The questions submitted on the issue of tolling refer to the number of roads designated for this and the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, will be glad to furnish those numbers. There have been no new discussions on the issue. The policy has been outlined and the Minister will deal with any questions. Nothing has changed in respect of tolling.
The Taoiseach referred to the agenda for the cross-departmental team on infrastructure as including issues such as the Transport 21 plan and housing. Will a re-examination of the strategic infrastructure Bill be on the agenda? Has the Taoiseach and the Government any plans for a thermal power station or any other combustion installation with a total energy output of 300 MW or more?
I suggest the Deputy table a question to the appropriate line Minister.
I ask whether this matter is on the agenda for the cross-departmental team. It has been suggested to me that such a proposal could cover a nuclear power station.
The Deputy should confine himself to a question as there are a number of Deputies waiting.
I am confining myself by being very specific. The agenda of the cross-departmental team is a subject which the Taoiseach has raised. The question of whether a nuclear power station is on the agenda would be of considerable interest to people. Will the Taoiseach amend the Bill to clarify the matter as people will want to know if this is what he has in mind?
Will the 1998 Aarhus Convention be on the agenda? This convention allows for public participation in decision-making. Is the cross-departmental team planning to ditch that convention or will the Taoiseach find a way of transposing it into Irish law as was supposed to happen by last month?
Is the Taoiseach aware of the report on broadband——
The Minister responsible will follow shortly with his replies to questions.
I do not wish to rain on the Minister's parade, I simply wish to ask the Taoiseach whether the matter is on the agenda.
That matter does not arise out of these questions.
The issue of broadband arises. Am I to receive a reply?
The Deputy will receive replies to three questions.
Broadband issues are on the agenda of the committee.
I seek clarification of the announcement made by the Taoiseach about the new centre for excellence.
It is the centre for expertise.
Is it an organisation, a quango, a committee or people? Is it the case that the National Development Finance Agency is responsible for identifying and driving infrastructure projects, whether by PPP or otherwise? Is there interaction between the agency and the cross-departmental team? Is the cross-departmental team merely trying to solve or flag problems? Where does the centre for expertise sit between the two? Is it reposed in the National Development Finance Agency? Does it consist of a number of people with expertise, whether in engineering, finance or accountancy?
What is the situation regarding the affordable housing projects to be built on State lands requisitioned from the Army, which the Taoiseach announced with great fanfare a few years ago? Is this project on target? When will the housing be available and what will be the selling price of the houses?
The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources will answer the question on broadband. The issue regarding the directive is being discussed and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, will shortly bring forward proposals on that matter. The Government is totally opposed to nuclear power and has no proposals on that.
The Taoiseach should put down an amendment.
I note that many of the Deputy's European colleagues, the Greens, are beginning to press for nuclear power.
Many of the Taoiseach's colleagues are as well.
However, I will resist it and hope that I can hold off the pressure as best I can from the Greens to bring nuclear power to Ireland——
Does the Taoiseach have an amendment then?
——since it has been strongly forced by them.
On Deputy Rabbitte's question concerning the centre for expertise, Departments still have responsibility for identifying the project. The difficulty is that all of them went to different locations to get advice, with no co-ordination. It is brought together around the Cabinet sub-committee on infrastructure but, by and large, officials and public servants do not have the expertise. Issues that arose in examining public private partnerships included the appropriate expertise on how best to undertake a project, as the Deputy correctly said, how best to finance it, the engineering solution, where we could examine the model for best international practice and who could do so. To say the least it was not very coherent.
It has been decided that this centre for expertise will be located in one place, the National Development Finance Agency, whose role will be expanded to include a procurement function on behalf of the Departments. On an agency basis, therefore, the NDFA will be able to procure on behalf of Departments. Until now, it had an advisory role to Departments on PPP procurement and, as I said, the agency has started that work on a non-statutory basis.
The legislation governing the NDFA allows for far more flexibility to hire expert staff and interact at home and abroad with the appropriate people. The agency has taken on extra board members and will be able to hire additional experts in various areas. It will have a significant effect in being able to assist Departments to move the project forward. That is the idea. My understanding is that legislation will be required but the centre is being established on a non-statutory basis, at this stage at least.
Is it a stand-alone entity or is it part of the NDFA?
It is part of the agency but involves an extension of the powers of the NDFA. Until now, the NDFA was able to give advice on the financing of the project, including relevant issues such as how best to finance it and the timescales involved. Now it will have a role in procurement. In some cases it has expertise but in others it will be able to bring in expertise and source the best place to do so. This is being done on some of the PPP projects the Deputy and I would know best, including the redevelopment of rundown areas, such as Fatima Mansions, O'Devaney Gardens and other places. Compared to the other system, the timing of this one has been quite focused and very beneficial.
Deputies will be aware that the Minister has published the major infrastructural Bill, which will bring about greater efficiency in the consent process for major infrastructural projects in addition to providing a better service for stakeholders through a single agency.
As regards Deputy Connaughton's question on affordable housing, very good progress is being made in that regard. To date, over 70 projects are planned on State and local authority lands. Together with the projected 2,500 houses under Part 5 of the Planning and Development Act, the total projected delivery under the initiative is over 10,000 housing units.
How many of them are built?
Please allow the Taoiseach to continue. He has gone well over the time allocated.
The initiative has delivered over 1,100 units to date, including those through Part 5.
They are units, not houses.
It is estimated that over 2,000 houses will be provided under the initiative this year and 3,000 in 2007. Unfortunately, we have not yet found a way where one can hand over State land on Monday, get planning permission on Wednesday and build them on Friday. We have not yet found that mechanism.