Enda Kenny
Question:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the projected cost to date of the communications unit in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29464/08]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Departmental Expenditure.
Eamon Gilmore
Question:2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the plans he has to make changes to the operation of the media monitoring unit within his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30106/08]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:3 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the number of persons employed in the communications unit in his Department and their grades and salaries; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34894/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
The projected cost of the communications unit for 2008 is €302,235. There are four civil servants employed in the unit: two executive officers, one staff officer and one clerical officer. Their salaries are €50,410, €44,931, €41,566 and €34,642, plus one sixth allowance for shift work. The role of the communications unit is under continual review in terms of its efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Following a recent review of the unit's work, in conjunction with an audit of Departments' use of external media monitoring companies, various possibilities were explored with a view to improving efficiency, eliminating duplication and implementing cost savings.
To assess whether a viable alternative solution is available that would achieve those objectives, the Department of the Taoiseach has issued a tender for a centralised Government contract for the provision of a press cutting and media monitoring service for all Government Departments. Some Departments have agreed individual contracts with media monitoring companies to be provided with media notifications specific to their areas. To ensure that the most efficient and effective service is available in Departments, it was decided to explore the possibility of appointing a single provider that could provide a viable solution, leading to cost savings across the service. The tenders that were received are being considered. A decision whether to proceed on this basis will be made.
Does that mean the communications unit, as it currently exists, will be abolished? In 2003-04, the Taoiseach's predecessor as Minister for Finance had a bill for press cutting services of €1,800. I suppose that represented value for money. In 2007, when the Taoiseach was Minister for Finance, that bill had increased by 380% to €30,000. Given that all of this activity goes on in every Department anyway, can the Taoiseach justify spending €30,000 of public money on press cuttings when he was in the Department of Finance? This evening, the Dáil will consider a motion relating to the withdrawal of funds to vaccinate young children at a time when the Government is spending a fortune on finding out what Ministers are saying and what is of news to them in various Departments. Can the Taoiseach comment on that? At a time when children between the ages of ten and 12 are being denied essential vaccinations, it seems extraordinary that so much public money is being spent on getting public servants to take press cuttings and inform Ministers of what others are saying about them, or what is going on in their Departments.
The public servants in question work within the departmental system. It is obvious that they are available to work elsewhere as well. The question of savings does not arise in that sense. The purpose of the service that is being provided by these public servants is to ensure that the work of the Government is portrayed accurately in the national public media so any inaccuracies, misrepresentations or errors are corrected quickly. That is the purpose of the communications unit, which has been in place for some time. The Department is ascertaining whether it is possible to achieve further cost savings by putting in place a viable alternative to the present arrangements.
It seems public servants in every Department of State are required to dedicate part of their working day to going through newspapers to see whether they contain matters of relevance to the Ministers and Ministers of State in that Department. They have to put together a file of such clippings and present it to the Minister or Minister of State so he or she can read what the media has to say about him or her. This appears to be a replication of the work being done by the communications unit of the Department of the Taoiseach. At a time when the Taoiseach and others are rightly speaking about the need for real public service reform, why are the absolutely brilliant young men and women who have gone through the public service examination system and entered the public service being required to dedicate some of their time to cutting out, photocopying and pasting newspaper pieces and presenting them to Ministers? At a time of financial crisis for hundreds of thousands of families, surely public servants should not have to waste their time going through newspapers to find out what is being written about Ministers and Ministers of State. It would be easy to make some fairly radical proposals to deal with this problem. There is no need for facilities of this nature to be provided to Ministers and Ministers of State in every Department. The work that is being done at Government level is being replicated at enormous public cost.
That is not the situation in terms of the work these public servants do. A small part of the work of some public servants involves giving Ministers' offices an indication of the media coverage of what is going on in their Departments. The press offices in the various Departments provide much more assistance and value than that. It is a question of ensuring that the communications unit in the Department of the Taoiseach, to which the questions tabled to me relate, is working effectively. We are checking whether they can operate more effectively than they are operating at the moment. It is quite right that we would review the operation of the unit from time to time. Press offices are involved in far more than the Deputy is suggesting. Press offices provide for such a huge demand from many media outlets, both print and electronic, on an ongoing basis that the interaction between a Department and the public via the media is an intrinsic part of its work and, therefore, reducing that work to suggest it is simply about pasting is a little superfluous.
If the communications unit of the Taoiseach, on behalf of the Government, is working effectively, why is it necessary that press units of Departments and Ministers of State must still involve themselves in gathering press clippings as part of their work? Surely, this information could be sent electronically to every Minister and Minister of State with them being told "That is the news for today. Your press office does not need to involve itself anymore in press cuttings". When the Taoiseach was Minister for Finance, a sum of €30,000 was spent on press cuttings. At this time, he is well aware many people are under serious pressure and it is difficult for them to understand public servants being required as part of their duties to involve themselves every day in putting together press clippings for Ministers who are all absent from the House to find what is being said about them. If the Government's communications unit is working effectively, it should not be necessary to gather press clippings in all Departments. The Minister for Education and Science recently said he had a file of clippings about third level fees. Where did that come from? Did that come from the communications unit or the press office?
I do not know where it came from, probably from the relevant section in the Department. It does not matter. I do not know what the argument is about. Press offices in every Department deal with the media on an ongoing basis in a range of areas. The Deputy knows better than I do about the proliferation of media outlets and one must deal with that. One can decide to deal with that or not but it is better that everyone deals with that.
The questions relate to the communications unit and I indicated in my reply the initiative being taken to see if we can contribute to a more effective way in which the unit does its work of monitoring how the national media portray the Government's work to the public to make sure it is an accurate reflection of where we are at and to inform Ministers accordingly.
The Taoiseach said the Government intended to invite tenders for a press cuttings service. If the Government succeeds in attracting a successful tender for such a service, will that mean the services of the communication unit in his Department will then be dispensed with or will we end up with in a situation where we have the communications unit in his Department, a press office in every other Department and, on top of that, a press cuttings service contracted out somewhere? If the tendering process is concluded, where will the savings be made for the public purse? Will they be made by way of standing down the communications unit or by reductions in staff, perhaps, in the press units of individual Departments?
Is it not the case the days of press cuttings services are over? Why is the Government seeking such a service anyway? Most media have websites and most newspapers have their own electronic editions. If Ministers want to find out what is going on in the world these days, they should not have to be reliant on the press cuttings provided by the communications unit summarising all the various radio and television news and current affairs programmes and, as they are being driven around in their State cars, they could look up any number of sites for breaking news on a Blackberry to find out what is happening in the world and break out of the splendid isolation in which they appear to exist. If they could not do that, it should be possible for their press offices to check out the archives available on radio and newspaper websites to find the article or broadcast to which they need to respond. What purpose does this press cuttings service serve? Press cuttings services are a thing of the past.
The questions relate to the communications unit and its work. The point I have been making is that currently some Departments have individual contracts with media monitoring companies to provide them with media notification specific to their areas. In order to ensure that the most efficient and effective service is utilised across Departments, we decided to explore the appointment of a single provider that could provide a viable solution leading to cost savings across the service. The purpose of the arrangements we are considering is to see if there is a viable way of doing this far more cost-effectively than at present.
As a former officeholder, Deputy Gilmore will be aware that the press office is involved in far more that what is being portrayed here today. I made the same point to the Leader of the Opposition. In fact, since Deputy Gilmore held office there is a far greater proliferation of media outlets to be contended with and dealt with professionally and effectively than was the case previously. That requires a workload which is part of the work of a Department of State, part of providing information upon request and part of ensuring that those who have queries on matters are dealt with. That is an ongoing element of the work of a Department which could be involved in the expenditure of billions of euro. It is in that context that, clearly, one must have a press office arrangement to deal with the plethora of inquiries and, indeed, in terms of presenting to the public or to the public via the media various policy initiatives, decisions and allocations of public moneys being made.
It is quite normal, proper procedure that such would be the case and the idea that one could do that job without individual press offices in Departments where specialised knowledge is available from departmental staff is a nonsense. These people do necessary and important work and to reduce all that work to suggesting that it is a question of going around copying pieces of paper and sending them into the Minister's office does an injustice to those who are working in those offices.
This work is an important part of the role of a Department in terms of accountability, accuracy and ensuring that the media are in a position to present in full the context of policies and decisions etc. It is part of modern government. It is part of communicating to the public and the idea that it can be done any other way is nonsensical. That being said, one must do it in as efficient and effective a way as possible. In reply to the question tabled, a tender is being sought to see if there is a viable way of doing this in a centralised way. This does not mean replacing the communications unit; it means ensuring that the communications unit can do on behalf of other Departments what is being done separately at present.
I understand the work of and need for a Department press office which, I accept entirely, must issue statements on behalf of the Department and the Minister and communicate to the press and public what a Department is doing. What I am questioning is whether in the modern age this idea of a media-monitoring service still has any relevance or value or whether it is just a waste of money.
There have been such questions about this communications unit on a number of occasions in the past. I had a letter from the Taoiseach's predecessor just about this time last year setting out in considerable detail what the communications unit does on a daily basis. He described that the staff start at 7 a.m., summarise news headlines and bulletins, the newspapers and every radio and television programme during the day, and circulate these summaries to Ministers and Ministers of State and to various Departments.
Is the Taoiseach trying to tell us that his Ministers and Ministers of State are going around weighed down with the summaries issued to them by the communications unit, and poring over them to see if there is anything of particular relevance to their Department——
If their name is mentioned.
——and if anything has been said by somebody who telephoned Mr. Joe Duffy's radio programme to which the Minister needs to reply? This is a nonsensical operation. The Taoiseach is now stating that in addition to the communications unit he will spend more public money on a contracted service to work on the media monitoring operation. Given that the Taoiseach acknowledges there is now a wider range of media, what is wrong with a system whereby an item is brought to the attention of the Minister or Department by a journalist and offers an opportunity to respond to it or by a member of the public who hears something on the radio in the morning or reads something in a newspaper about which he or she has a question and contacts the Department and the Department responds to it?
Why do we need a listening station? Why do we have this listening post? Why does the Government operate this MI5-type of operation on the media at taxpayers' expense when Ministers can listen to the radio themselves and read newspapers? If they hear about something they can look it up on the Internet or get a playback of the item, or someone can do so on their behalf, and they can respond to it. Why do we have media monitoring, centralised or otherwise, or contracted out or otherwise?
This is a waste of money. At a time when the Taoiseach is discussing cutting down the number of State agencies and cutting out waste in the public service I respectfully suggest to him that this is an area, albeit entailing relatively small public expenditure, that the taxpayer could do without. Instead of tendering for another contract for media monitoring the operation should be closed down. Let Ministers and Departments communicate with and respond to the media in the normal way.
I do not agree. The role of the unit is to monitor coverage of official Government activity and how it is portrayed in the media. It is right that this is done and that the range of programmes being monitored at present is monitored to ensure Ministers are aware of how policy is being presented. If it is accurate that is fine but if it is not we must deal with it. This is its role.
Press offices in many Departments have their own arrangements with regard to how they monitor the media and it is a matter for them. I want to see whether a more effective way exists than how it is done at present. The view of Opposition Deputies is that we should not have it at all.
Yes.
From the Government's point of view, there is a need to communicate our message and to ensure it is disseminated properly and accurately——
The Taoiseach is as well off not knowing some of the stuff that is written about him.
I am aware of that. Deputy Kenny is cock of the walk himself.
Yes, exactly.
He reminds me of a cock in a dung heap.
The Taoiseach should spend a couple of years on this side of the House and see what it is like to have newspaper monitoring.
He is like a crowing cock in a dung heap. In terms of modern communications, this communications unit serves this role. I am trying to ensure we do this as effectively and efficiently as possible. It will not meet the requirements of Opposition Deputies because they do not want it.
I want to know what it is for.
Deputy Gilmore knows exactly what it is for but he likes to portray it as something else.
It is daft. It is a waste of money.
He speaks about it being an MI5-type operation on the media. He should cop himself on.
Big brother.
God be with the days when the Taoiseach's predecessor had a file on everyone.
I call Deputy Ó Caoláin..
What a cue.
How often, in the course of a day, does the Taoiseach take the time to read the reports of the communications unit on its monitoring of broadcast and print media reports? I do not know what is the practice. Does the Taoiseach inform himself personally from this or is it done by someone else within the Department? How does it work?
With regard to tendering to the private sector and PR interests taking up the responsibility of monitoring and preparing a scrapbook, have invitations to tender gone out in the normal way? Has the Taoiseach had a number of responses? Is a timeframe in place by which a decision will be taken to offer a contract? Will the Taoiseach indicate whether tendering has presented? As far as I recall, the figure cited by the Taoiseach at the outset for the cost of the monitoring unit was approximately €302,000. Does this involve a saving? The Taoiseach indicated that part of the review was to identify savings. In terms of opening it up to private interests, are there signalled savings? I am sceptical in this regard but I would appreciate the Taoiseach sharing the salient details with us.
Will the Taoiseach note that whatever about the valid question marks raised by colleagues this afternoon in regard to the current methodology, that is, civil servants being employed in the communications unit to carry out this work, I believe that privatising this service would be an even less favoured approach?
As I said, the communications unit provides updates on media issues during the course of the day. I would see updates from time to time but I do not seek them out at any particular time of the day. It depends on how busy I am, but they are part of my papers as I go about my business. It helps to know what is going on.
In regard to tendering, I have not seen any tenders and they have been sought in the normal way. They will be examined and dealt with and I will be notified of the tender and whether it is intended to proceed with the new arrangement. I will await the outcome of that. I do not involve myself in the process in an operational fashion; it is dealt with at official level in the normal way.
In regard to the Deputy's question on privatisation, the objective is to see whether there is a more effective and efficient way of doing it than is currently the case. That will emerge presumably from the tendering process. If people are concerned, as we all would be, regarding the effective use of taxpayers' money in the context of doing the job we have to do and ensuring Government policies are understood and presented in an accurate way as we interface with the media on an ongoing basis, as the Government must, then if there is a viable alternative which offers a more effective way of doing it, why should we not consider it? Our intention is to address the issue raised in these parliamentary questions, which is to see what is the most effective way of doing this job, which is a small but important part of our business. That is the motivation behind it.
The Taoiseach's response suggests that the product of the working of the unit is only noted in a casual way and that there is no systematic way of monitoring its reports or taking up the information highlighted in the reports. If the Taoiseach is not the person intended to take heed of the information in a substantive way, is there somebody else within the Department who must do so and who scrutinises the monitoring reports of the communications unit?
To return to the point about the tendering process the Taoiseach indicated, I understand this was reported first in September, going back a couple of months, in preparation for today's series of meetings. I would have expected either the Taoiseach himself or his colleagues in the Department to have prepared an adequate briefing note to advise us of what stage the tendering process has now reached. Has it concluded, was a deadline set for the receipt of tenders, how many were received, what is the expected duration of the consideration of the tenders and when will a decision be taken on whether a contract will issue? Can the Taoiseach shed more light on this than he has indicated so far this afternoon?
No, because I do not micro-manage tendering arrangements, as I have explained. I do not involve myself in them — they are dealt with in the normal way at official level, as all these matters are dealt with. A report will come to me as soon as consideration has been given to any tenders that have come in. I am told that a decision on whether to proceed on such a basis will be made shortly. I do not involve myself in these types of issues, which are dealt with quite properly at official level.
The Taoiseach is the chairman of the Cabinet sub-committee on climate change and energy security. What is the role of the communications unit in communicating the message about what will be needed in the future to deal with the targets set for this country and the proposals the Government has to deal with these two major issues? This is where a communications unit should exercise itself. There is a total lack of understanding among the public about what we are facing. Rather than clipping items from newspapers, could this unit spend its time informing the public about the serious issues that the Taoiseach, as chairperson of the Cabinet sub-committee, and his Government colleagues must face in agriculture, transport and other Departments? Nobody has a clue about this. We have set ourselves targets that are not being achieved and we are entering into an agreement for 2012 to 2020 for further major cuts of up of 30% in our emissions. This will have effects on industry, farming and various aspects of people's lives and they must be prepared for it. I ask the Taoiseach to direct the energies of the communications unit to informing the public and the media of what we must do to prepare ourselves.
That is not the role of the media monitoring that takes place in the communications unit. That is dealt with by the Government Information Services, the GIS, and by press officers in individual Departments, such as those of the Ministers, Deputy Eamon Ryan and Deputy John Gormley.
I am talking about the communications. The Taoiseach is chairperson of the Cabinet sub-committee.
I am aware of that. Those deliberations continue within the Cabinet sub-committee. The Deputy will be aware it is not the practice to speak about the deliberations of such committees, no more than about the deliberations within the Cabinet. They deal with decisions. Ongoing negotiations are taking place regarding the EU's efforts to come to full agreement on the 20% target it set in preparation for the Copenhagen meeting next year and a commitment to move to 30% if a global agreement can be secured. Indeed, the Deputy's committee is another forum where information can be made available to the public.
There has been extensive coverage of this issue. Granted, ordinary members of the public do not get involved to the same extent as legislators. That is what one would expect. However, when decisions are taken, that can be dealt with. In the meantime, negotiations continue and discussions are ongoing. Providing the maximum flexibility possible for us to meet these targets is the objective of the negotiators who are currently engaged with the various elements of the Commission who are dealing with this. Now that the Presidency is involved as we go into the final phase of discussions before the December Council meeting, when it is expected the decision will be taken, those engagements will intensify.
Interdepartmental Committees.
Enda Kenny
Question:4 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach when the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public private partnership will next meet; the number of meetings of the team planned for the remainder of 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29467/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:5 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach when the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public private partnership last met; when the next meeting is due; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29624/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:6 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on social inclusion last met; and when the next meeting is due [29625/08]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:7 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the number of occasions on which the cross-departmental team on housing, infrastructure and public private partnership met in 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34895/08]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:8 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on social inclusion will next meet. [34896/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 8, inclusive, together.
The Cabinet committee on social inclusion, children and integration met on 13 February 2008 and is scheduled to meet again on 26 November 2008.
The cross-departmental team on housing, infrastructure and PPPs has met on six occasions this year, most recently on 23 September 2008. It is due to hold two further meetings before the end of the year, one tomorrow, 12 November, and the other on 9 December. The role of the cross-departmental team is to assist in progressing and resolving issues related to infrastructure planning and delivery, and ensuring that they are adequately prepared for consideration by the relevant Cabinet committee and, where necessary, by the Government.
Questions about the business actually conducted at Cabinet committees or cross-departmental team meetings have never been allowed in the House on the grounds that they are internal to Government. Questions about the delivery of any particular infrastructure project, housing policy or the role of PPPs should be directed to the responsible Minister.
There were five key projects due for completion by the end of 2008 under Transport 21. The spend will reach almost €8 billion. The projects are the joining of the Tallaght and Sandyford Luas lines in the city centre; the Luas extension from Connolly Station to the Docklands; the Luas extension from Tallaght to Citywest, which is subject to developer contributions; the Cork commuter rail service to Midleton; and the Ennis-Athenry rail line. None of these will be completed, as was envisaged, by the end of 2008. The Department of Transport has said it is prioritising various schemes, which means it is pushing back other projects which have not reached contract stage. Given that Ireland has dropped from 55th place in 2007 to 64th place in 2008 out of 134 countries in the global competitiveness report dealing with the quality of overall infrastructure, is the Taoiseach concerned this startling fact alone damages the business environment and business attractiveness of Ireland?
I refer to the cross-departmental team on housing, infrastructure and public private partnerships. What are the implications for Transport 21, which had a definitive end date of 2015? Is it the view of the Taoiseach and the team that the completion date can still be met, or will many of the projects never see the light of day? What will happen projects involving contracts which are not yet signed? Is it envisaged these will be delayed forever and a day? Does the Taoiseach see all proposals in Transport 21 reaching contract stage?
Deputy Kenny emphasised a point which I make also, which is the need to maintain a public investment programme even at a time when we have seen a severe downturn in performance in terms of the growth of the economy as an indication of the commitment of the Government to continue to put in place the building blocks that will enhance competitiveness, not only during these difficult times, but when the upturn comes in the global economy. The Government maintains its overall commitment to keep capital investment at between 5% and 6% of GNP during the current the national development plan. We have given priority to projects which have an economic return, which will allow us to continue to build upon the competitiveness building blocks of the economy.
We are near the end of the third year of the Transport 21 programme and strong progress has been made in the delivery of road and public transport projects. Some 37 projects have been completed since the beginning of Transport 21 in 2006 and a further 25 projects are underway. Some of the major achievements to date include progress on the major inter-urban routes connecting Dublin with the Border, Galway, Cork, Limerick and Waterford. These schemes are already open to the public and are on target for completion by 2010.
New inter-city rail cars have been introduced on the Dublin to Limerick, Dublin to Westport, Dublin to Waterford and Dublin to Galway lines. New carriages have been rolled out for the Dublin to Cork line, facilitating an hourly service in both directions. Several new railway stations have opened, namely, Docklands, Park West, Cherry Orchard and Clondalkin Fonthill. A state-of-the-art maintenance facility has been provided at Portlaoise train depot. Construction has begun on several key Transport 21 projects, including the Luas extension to the Docklands and Cherrywood, the Kildare route project and phase one of the western corridor project. There are issues of land acquisition and planning involved and the Railway Procurement Agency, RPA, has been very proactive with communities in that regard, particularly on public transport projects. Much progress is being made in this area and we continue to commit significant funds to these projects.
Regarding the third part of the Deputy's question, planning and preliminary work continues on projects not yet contracted. Decisions on whether we move on some of these projects as set out in Transport 21 is based on the detailed evaluation carried out as these projects were prepared and proceeded. We will make decisions on an ongoing basis at Cabinet depending on the full picture available at the time when these projects are ready to be considered. Overall, Transport 21 reflects a significant part of the public investment programme for the reasons outlined in Deputy Kenny's original question, which include competitiveness, moving goods and services to the market with the most efficient transport infrastructure we can provide, improving the quality of life especially in urban centres and trying to provide a modern public transport system to counteract historical under-investment in these areas. That is the update of the current situation.
When did the sub-committee on social inclusion, integration and children last meet?
There was a meeting in February, and one will be held this month.
The Cabinet sub-committee on social inclusion, children and integration last met in February. This is a year in which the Government has scrapped child benefit for children over 18 and an immunisation scheme for 12 year old girls, has increased class sizes, has scrapped the book grant for children from disadvantaged backgrounds and capped the number of English language teachers for foreign-born students in our schools.
Those issues were discussed in full by the Cabinet.
What is the purpose of the sub-committee on social inclusion, children and integration? Which Minister is responsible for convening it? This shows more clearly than anything the level of priority and consideration that this Government gives to the concepts of social inclusion, protection of children and the integration problems in our schools and the wider society. The specific Cabinet sub-committee responsible for these important areas of Government policy has not met since February, yet Ministers of State are appointed with responsibility for children and integration. We have more Ministers of State and advisers than ever, yet this sub-committee has not met since February. This speaks volumes of the lack of priority that the Government gives to these areas, and what it thinks about poverty and social exclusion in this country.
I do not agree with that contention because we have established Ministers of State with cross-cutting responsibilities in these areas. There has also been much discussion of these issues at full Cabinet meetings. The suggestion that social inclusion matters do not arise unless they are raised at Cabinet committee level is not the issue. The full Cabinet has been dealing with many of these issues in recent times. The cross-cutting responsibilities of Ministers of State on integration, the elderly and so on have helped the co-ordinating mechanism.
The success of the Office of the Minister for Children has meant that we have extended that idea into other areas which deal with social inclusion. When the offices of the different Ministers of State pull together, the situation is far better than what happened in the past, when individual Departments were pulled together through the Cabinet sub-committee system. That work is ongoing and the fact that we have set it up in this way does not mean it has not been given priority. On the contrary, it has been given high priority.
Will the cross-departmental team address the scandalous situation where two private contractors have pulled out of five key social housing projects in Dublin? I refer to St. Michael's estate, O'Devaney Gardens, Dominick Street, the convent lands on Seán McDermott Street and Infirmary Road. Is the Taoiseach aware that communities in these areas have been waiting for years for the opportunity to see the long overdue enhancement of their neighbourhoods? Has the cross-departmental team taken any action on this? If I recall correctly, housing was the first component part of the public private partnership project. Will the Taoiseach indicate what steps will now be taken, given the clear failure of the PPP approach allied to local government, to ensure that the necessary moneys will be provided to the appropriate council — Dublin City Council — in order that these communities do not continue to suffer as they have done over a generation?
The Minister of State, Deputy Finneran, and Dublin City Council have been working continually on that matter since an issue arose regarding the contracts for those important housing projects. PPPs have a role to play. They do not subsume the role of other means by which housing is provided by the State, including direct Exchequer funding, local authorities or many other approaches, such as affordable or voluntary housing schemes. Many models provide a differentiated approach in respect of different housing needs, rather than the old approach which was almost exclusively a local authority funded and directed operation. That provided for uniform solutions——
The Taoiseach has moved to the other extreme.
——which did not exactly bring social harmony in many respects, or a social mix. The affordable homes partnership is an excellent example of how, with a much more flexible approach, housing is being provided for families in a far more enlightened way than the traditional model of provision did in the past. All of these have a role to play and one method does not subsume the other. The specific issue raised by the Deputy is continuing to be investigated by Dublin City Council. The matter was raised in the House when the prospective developer indicated that he was not able to proceed.
That concludes questions to the Taoiseach.