Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT debate -
Wednesday, 17 Nov 2004

National Roads Authority: Presentation.

I apologise for the delay, but we are waiting for copies of Mr. Tobin's presentation. There was a mix-up with the e-mails. Perhaps members will allow him to proceed and receive their copies in the course of the meeting.

I welcome Mr. Michael Tobin, chief executive of the NRA, Mr. Eugene O'Connor, head of project management and engineering, Mr. Michael Egan, head of corporate affairs, Mr. Gerard Murphy, PPP manager, and Mr. Michael Kennedy, assistant PPP manager. Regarding privilege, I draw witnesses' attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege, but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Perhaps Mr. Tobin might proceed with his opening comments.

Mr. Michael Tobin

I ask for the Chairman's guidance. I understand that the practice is that, rather than reading the entirety of the submission that has gone to members, one gives a foreshortened version that touches on the main points. If that is acceptable, I will go ahead.

That is acceptable to everyone.

Mr. Tobin

The National Roads Authority welcomes the opportunity to provide an update on the national roads programme and to deal with some related issues that I understand are of special interest to committee members. The authority, in conjunction with local authorities, continues to make substantial progress towards delivering on the ambitious programme for the development of national roads as set out by the Government in the NDP. Since the plan commenced, the authority has overseen a capital investment of €4.77 billion in national roads, 47 major projects have been completed, and 350 km of road have been brought into use. Regarding the five major interurban routes on which the thrust of the development strategy for national routes is focused during the NDP period, the authority is actively managing the development and implementation of a range of major projects to provide motorway or dual carriageway standard on the entire length of each of those routes, in accordance with its requirements. It is worth mentioning that, when the M50 and M1 motorways are taken into account, it is now possible to travel on continuous motorway or dual carriageway standard road from south of Portlaoise to south of Dundalk, a distance of about 170 km.

As a result of the Government's adoption of multi-annual funding envelopes for a range of programmes, including the national roads programme, the authority is now able to plan tendering and construction starts with greater confidence. Together with the substantial Exchequer resources allocated to the programme, supplemented by private investment in the PPP schemes, that leaves the authority well placed to complete all five major interurban routes to motorway or dual carriageway standard by the end of 2010. Details of the progress and state of play on those have been circulated to members.

Overall, this year has been an exceptionally good one for the authority in progressing the national roads programme. To date, 12 major schemes throughout the country have commenced construction, with further possible starts before year's end. Details of those starts, including the potential ones, are circulated in appendix 2. The total number of major projects currently under construction is 19. The schemes have a combined length of 195 km, and details have been circulated to members. Nine major projects with a combined length of 72 km, of which 60 km is motorway or dual carriageway, have been completed so far this year, including the N7 Monasterevin bypass, the N11 Ashford and Rathnew bypasses, and the Limerick south ring road phase 1 projects. We anticipate that the 5 km N26 Ballina to Bohola phase 1 scheme will be open to traffic by the middle of next month. Details of those projects are in appendix 4.

There has been increased construction this year under the authority's public private partnership programme, with the commencement of work on the M1 Dundalk western bypass and the M8 Fermoy bypass schemes. PPP contracts awarded to date represent private investment of more than £480 million in the national roads programme. The tender process is actively under way for the M3 Clonee to Kells motorway, while bidders have been short listed for the N7 Limerick south ring, phase 2, and the M50 PPP schemes. I am confident the tender process can be reactivated shortly for the Waterford City bypass in the light of anticipated decisions relating to archaeology on the Woodstown site.

The authority is making extensive use of the design and build form of contract we developed and piloted successfully some time ago. This form of contract is achieving greater certainty of scheme outturn costs vis-à-vis tender award prices. The situation should improve further under arrangements whereby price adjustments are not permitted where annual construction inflation does not exceed 5%. In addition, the authority is exploring the potential benefits from early contractor involvement and target price arrangements. This target price form of contract is being piloted on the Dundalk-Newry scheme in conjunction with the Northern Ireland Roads Service and on the N8 Cashel-Mitchelstown scheme, which is now at the tender award stage. We will monitor developments to determine the merits of possible wider adoption of this approach, taking account of value for money considerations.

The NRA has been proactive in its efforts to advance projects in the BMW region, and €307 million has been allocated to local authorities there this year. Seven of the 16 major projects programmed to commence in 2004 are located in the BMW region. Three major projects have been completed and opened to traffic there this year — the N4 Hughestown-Meera, N5 Strokestown-Longford and the M7 Monasterevin bypass schemes while the N26 Ballina-Bohola, phase 1 project is expected to open to traffic by mid-December. In addition, An Bord Pleanála has recently given approval to the N5 Charlestown bypass proposal.

This year has seen increased activity on national secondary road schemes, complementing the success of the pavement restoration programme introduced some years ago. Work is under way on the N52 Mullingar bypass and the N55 Cavan bypass, while the N77 Kilkenny ring road extension is currently at tender stage.

I now turn to a number of items, which we understood the committee to have a special interest in, and in particular, the West Link toll bridge agreement. This was concluded between the then Dublin County Council and West Link Toll Bridge Limited in 1987, and was subject to the approval of the then Department of the Environment in accordance with the legislation applicable at the time. Under section 66 of the Roads Act 1993, the National Roads Authority took over all the functions, rights and liabilities of the former Dublin County Council as regards the toll agreement, as part of revised statutory arrangements relating to toll roads.

The West Link toll bridge agreement provided for the construction, maintenance and operation of 3.2 km. of motorway on the M50 between the N3, Navan Road, and the N4, Lucan Road, interchanges as well as the West Link Bridge spanning 340 m. over the Liffey valley. The project, which was one of the first sections of the M50 Dublin C-ring to be completed, opened to traffic in 1990.

The agreement provides that the company, NTR plc, has, until the expiry of the agreement in the year 2020, the exclusive right to toll traffic travelling on the M50 between the N4, Galway Road interchange, and the N3, Navan Road interchange. After 2020 the operation and maintenance of the West Link toll facility will revert to the State. The bridge structures were constructed with a design life of 120 years and in the circumstances the State will derive a long term benefit from NTR's investment after the expiry of the concession agreement. It should be remembered that the toll agreement was concluded at a time when the economic outlook for the country was uncertain. Traffic volumes and growth forecasts were substantially different to what has transpired over the intervening years and when Exchequer funding for investment in national roads was limited. It is worth remembering that the allocation to national roads totalled €147 million in 1987. Today it is in the order of €1.25 billion. Real risks and uncertainties attached to the toll agreement when it was concluded and to NTR's commitment to finance the construction and maintenance of the West Link and a section of the M50 motorway. These should be kept in mind in any evaluation of the agreement undertaken with the benefit of hindsight.

The toll bridge opened to traffic in March 1990. Traffic growth has increased substantially on the West Link since then. General economic growth and the development of the land bank along the M50 corridor, have been key factors in underpinning traffic growth on the West Link, which has increased from an average daily volume of 11,500 vehicles in 1991 to approximately 86,500 vehicles per day, currently.

The amount of the State share from the proceeds of the West Link increases as traffic volumes exceed pre-determined thresholds. By the end of 2004 the gross toll revenue that will have been paid there by road users will be approximately €310 million, excluding VAT on tolls which came into effect following a European Court of Justice ruling in September 2001. Over the same period, the value of Exchequer share payments arising from the agreement will have reached €65 million, which includes an estimate of €15 million payable in April 2005 in respect of 2004 toll revenues. In accordance with the terms of the agreement, the Exchequer share is payable to the Minister for Transport for the benefit of the Exchequer.

Looking generally at the West Link toll plaza and operational issues, there is no doubt that, despite the construction of the second bridge and additional lanes, and the introduction of electronic toll collection, the facility is sub-optimal having regard to the daily traffic throughput to be catered for. The toll plaza is currently processing traffic volumes approaching 90,000 vehicles each day. This is the average daily flow throughout the year. There are occasions when daily flows of 100,000 vehicles are recorded at West Link plaza. These traffic volumes are significantly in excess of those that had been expected to use the M50 West Link and reflect the growth in the economy and the extent of development in the Dublin area over recent years. In contrast, the Drogheda bypass toll plaza, which was designed by the NRA and which came into operation in June 2003, is a ten-lane plaza, five in each direction, and processes approximately 24,000 vehicles per day or approximately a quarter of the volume going though the West Link plaza. In addition, the Drogheda bypass and other recent PPP contracts concluded by the authority contain detailed and measurable toll facility performance criteria aimed at ensuring high customer service standards and minimum delay at toll plazas. Failure to observe these requirements will entail penalties on the PPP companies. In addition, these new PPP contracts provide for the operation of electronic toll collection, and so on, as part of the NRA strategy to achieve operational efficiency significantly better than that currently being experienced by users of the West Link facility.

While the authority considers that the toll operator is managing the individual lane throughputs at the plaza efficiently, nonetheless the toll facility at the West Link plaza is not satisfactory for the current traffic volumes. It is view of both the NRA and NTR that the solution at the West Link is to convert the plaza to a fully free-flow electronic toll collection system over time. To this end the Department of Transport is currently preparing legislation that will support the introduction of barrier-free tolling.

The authority is actively working to address capacity constraints on the M50 generally, including the major interchanges along the motorway. A motorway scheme and environmental impact statement for the planned major upgrade of the motorway have recently been published. The Minister for Transport has approved the use, for the purposes of the M50 upgrade, of the revenue share paid annually to his Department in respect of the West Link toll bridge.

A further point, on which I understand the committee wanted information was the link between the planned motorways south of Portlaoise, leading to Cork and Limerick. The M7 and M8 motorways involve the construction of new sections on the Dublin-Limerick and Dublin-Cork routes. Both routes are part of the major inter-urban network which is to be developed to motorway-dual carriageway standard in accordance with the policy objectives of the National Development Plan 2000-2006. The scheme commences from the western end of the M7 Portlaoise bypass, approximately 2 km beyond the Togher roundabout where the current N8 leaves the bypass at a grade-separated junction. The new road continues in a south-westerly direction as far as Ballycuddy where it divides. The M7 section continues to beyond Borris-in-Ossary on the existing N7, while the M8 section extends to beyond Cullahill on the existing N8.

Approximately 40 kilometres of new motorway will be constructed as part of the project, together with 2.2 kilometres of single carriageway link road and 15 kilometres of realigned link roads. The new motorway will bypass Mountrath and Borris-in-Ossory on the existing Limerick road and Abbeyleix and Durrow on the Cork road.

An Bord Pleanála approved the proposed scheme with some minor modifications, on 29 October 2004. In its decision, the board highlighted the aims of the national spatial strategy 2002-20 and, in particular, the need to improve transport connections between the major towns and cities that were identified as principal gateways in the strategy. The board stated that, having regard to the strategy's objectives, "there is a strategic need to provide for all vehicle movements between the M7 and M8, within the motorway system". This, the board continued, would better facilitate north-south connection of the Border, midlands and west region with the south and east region, and would facilitate reasonable access to the motorway system for settlement centres in County Laois, while minimising the environmental impact on the local road network and villages. The board has accordingly written to Laois County Council recommending that urgent priority be given to providing for all vehicle movements between the M7 and M8 within the motorway system.

It might be noted that there was an assessment of the level of demand for such traffic movements as part of the planning process for the motorway scheme. This assessment indicated a low demand and, on this basis, it was concluded that the incorporation of interchange arrangements catering for all traffic movements between the M7 and M8 motorways would not be warranted at present. Full consideration will be given to An Bord Pleanala's recommendation to cater for such traffic movements in the future. The authority will accordingly liaise with Laois County Council in this regard.

Committee members have expressed a wish to visit the Kilcock-Enfield-Kinnegad project for the purpose of being briefed on its progress and to see that progress for themselves. The authority will be delighted to facilitate such a visit. While I am not in any sense dictating the dates on which the committee might visit the project, Thursday, 2 December and Thursday, 16 December are suitable from an NRA perspective. If the secretariat wishes to contact me, we can finalise the necessary arrangements.

We can arrange for spokespersons and the convenors to meet following this meeting to find whether 2 or 16 December are suitable dates. We requested a Thursday and it is good we have options.

I thank Mr. Tobin for his presentation, which provided more information than we expected. We intended to discuss the situation in regard to NTR Limited at Enfield, which we may be able to deal with as part of today's programme. With regard to the NRA calculations of traffic volumes for its projects, what is the NRA using as a guide mark? Has it used the average growth experienced in the past five years or the average growth in the past ten years? I ask this because close to 150,000 extra vehicles per year are coming on to the roads. Was this increase projected with regard to road planning? This point refers to the situation on the M50. All users of the M50 recognise the problems caused because the projections for that project were significantly exceeded. It was projected that some 30,000 vehicles would use the M50 daily by 2000 but this figure was long surpassed by then. Mr. Tobin might deal with this point.

Which type of NRA project — public private partnership or other contract work — has given the most cost-effective return from the perspective of taxpayers? I ask this because on a visit to Spain, some members of the committee met some of those involved in the M4 toll road project. They told committee members they were only interested in considering projects of that size and were not interested in five or eight kilometre stretches. Is the NRA taking steps to make its projects as large as possible to obtain the best possible price on behalf of taxpayers?

Mr. Tobin

I will deal with the issue of forecasting future traffic growth, although my engineering colleagues often warn me not to make forecasts. That said, the NRA is guided in large part by the findings of its own road needs study in which the consultants who first considered the historical trends in increasing traffic volumes also considered forecasts of economic growth and population growth in the context of Ireland being in the middle of the league in terms of car ownership and the fact that, with increasing wealth, it was likely to move up that league.

We need to be careful not to be blinded by short-term increases in traffic volumes. By and large, we are looking at a 20 year horizon when planning roads projects. While there may be some major short-term increases, the tendency over the long term, believe it or not, is for a levelling out of that process. Strange as this may seem, the Dublin transportation study published in 1970 or 1971 forecast traffic volumes on the Dublin ring road of up to 100,000 vehicles per day. Unfortunately, when it came to building the road, and I was a party to this project, we did not believe the figures in the study. However, while there have been times of low growth and high growth over the 20 year horizon from the early 1970s to the early 1990s when sections of the M50 began to roll off the conveyor belt, there has been a tendency for increases to level out. Existing counts and projections are made of what may happen in the future with regard to individual projects. However, we also consider the broader context of economic forecasts and how car ownership and population growth will develop. These are the perameters we will consider to guide us in this area.

With regard to value for money on various types of project, we must be careful in our evaluations and recognise that there are horses for courses. The NRA has a PPP programme of perhaps ten projects. There is little scope beyond this for the use of PPP because the outlay on such projects will be recouped from the tolls on road users and one would need a minimum level of traffic to sustain this. Therefore, there are limits to the number of PPP schemes one can have. Where they can be used, we have found them to be very good value but they cannot be used in all instances.

There is an ongoing debate in regard to project size. One could argue that one should, for example, develop the Dublin-Waterford route as a single project. This would have some advantages in that it would mean the process would be sorted out at one time, one contractor would be required and the project could then begin and move towards completion. However, on the down side, how many contractors could take on that size of project? How much competition would there be to undertake the work? Given the current climate, having got through all the statutory processes for the motorway scheme, there might be one objection in one area, with the result that the entire scheme might be held up.

A balance must be struck. Developing routes in perhaps 40 to 50 kilometre stretches is probably as far as we would like to go in terms of ensuring competition while not exposing ourselves to the undue risk of a major segment of road development being put at risk.

I thank Mr. Tobin for his presentation. The Chairman is correct to state we got more than we bargained for today. Many issues were raised in the presentation. However, as the original intention was for a presentation on the toll bridge, I will begin with that issue. I do not oppose tolling, in fact I am in favour it. However, the State did a bad deal for itself when the first contract was signed, while National Toll Roads, NTR, did a great deal for itself. I accept NTR took a risk at a time when nobody was doing anything about the problem. Perhaps we should thank NTR for kick-starting the M50 project.

The contract is sacrosanct and nothing can be done about it. I have inquired about the matter before. Not only are consumers and motorists paying a toll, they are also paying for an upgrade to feed more traffic on to this toll road. In future there should be some clawback written into deals where the State makes an investment to increase the value of a tolling facility operated by a private company. Development of the road network will not stop in 2008, there will be continuous investment. Is there any way to ensure those who benefit most carry part of the investment? I do not how much the M50 upgrade will cost, but it will be a great deal of money.

Other tolls cannot be put on the M50 because of the position of the current toll. Mr. Tobin is shaking his head. Perhaps legally it can done, but the National Roads Authority, NRA, will be shot at dawn if there is any suggestion of other tolls. It limits the opportunity to toll in the vicinity of an existing toll. Even if the toll plaza is taken away and the road is tolled electronically, it is just as painful for the motorist. Mr. Tobin spoke of performance indicators in subsequent tolling arrangements. However, was anything learned in terms of not being quite so generous? Will private companies carry some of the pain as well as the gain?

The Construction Industry Federation recently spoke about the design and build aspect of contracts. Mr. Tobin said he is happy with how it works, and that it gives greater certainty of outcome in terms of the price of tender. However, representatives of the Construction Industry Federation said they are not given enough freedom. They said the State is being too prescriptive in terms of what the construction industry can do. This limited efficiency and innovation that would benefit the taxpayer.

The critical infrastructure Bill has been promised and prepared for some time. It seems it is becoming less critical. The NRA has been asked to fast track the construction of some motorways. Has the NRA had discussions with the Government with regard to what should be included in the Bill? This is the second crack at preparing the Bill. A planning Bill in 2001 attempted to streamline the planning process but has not achieved that. If anything, the process is slower. Has the NRA any ideas as to how the system can be fast tracked without turning Ireland into a completely undemocratic State where nobody can have any input? Balance is needed, but a Martian would think Ireland was full of national monuments. No matter where one puts a shovel in the ground, one will find one. Can we find the national monuments before the shovel goes in the ground? What occurred at Carrickmines was a tragedy. The issue was not raised until the contractor was on site, the deal was done, costs were being incurred, men were employed and a fortune had been spent. Is there any way we can change the process whereby we become aware of archaeological or environmental impacts beforehand? There is something seriously wrong with the environmental impact assessment and consultation process that does not serve the environment or the motoring public.

Did anything ever happen to the eastern bypass? It has been on and off several times. A report was done two or three years ago on its feasibility. A number of people have raised the issue recently in terms of casting doubt on the efficacy and impact of the port tunnel on city centre traffic, and port traffic in particular. There may be a greater urgency with regard to the eastern bypass.

I will address the issue of the agreement with NTR with regard to the West Link. I have been concerned about this issue for a long time, as have many of the driving public. When I recently tabled a series of questions to the Minister for Transport, he passed the buck. Legislation was changed in 1993, and even though the Minister had responsibility to oversee the agreement reached he is not answerable to the Dáil. He said it is a matter for the NRA.

I asked that any information provided by the NRA today be circulated to Members beforehand. We would like to have examined the figures more deeply. If Members have further questions, I hope the NRA replies to them in writing.

There is a huge amount of concern among the driving public about the West Link toll bridge, which is regarded as a cash cow. I fully accept the NRA inherited the problem, and that it was an agreement between Dublin County Council and NTR. Details have emerged about various activities in the county council during that period. Who were the signatories to that agreement?

The rules of the committee state the Deputy should not ask any question that will divulge a person's name. What went on at Dublin County Council has nothing to do with us today. We must deal with the facts as we find them, namely the position in which the NRA finds itself having inherited the agreement.

I accept that.

We cannot go into the detail of who was involved.

This is supposed to be an open process. If officers of the state signed a major agreement on behalf of the State, we are entitled to know who those officers were.

If the Deputy wants to know the names of the officers, there are other ways of finding out this information. She cannot ask Mr. Tobin or others.

I have already asked the Minister in the Dáil.

I remind the Deputy that Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

The Chairman is jumping to conclusions. I am interested in the agreement, and the public is interested in the agreement.

We are all interested.

I asked a perfectly acceptable question. Who were the signatories to this agreement on behalf of Dublin County Council? The Chairman is jumping ahead. I asked a factual question.

The Deputy is asking for people who are not here to be named. The rules of the committee are quite clear.

Deputy Shortall is asking a perfectly reasonable question. This was a public agreement made on behalf of the public.

I have no problem with it being a public agreement. However, there are procedures with regard to people not present being named.

I am not making allegations.

The Deputy asked for the names of those who signed the agreement on behalf of Dublin County Council.

I want factual information regarding the signatories. I am in order in asking the question.

There was no need to bring Mr. Tobin or his officials before the committee if that was what the Deputy wished to know. The Deputy could have written to Dublin County Council to get the names of the signatories.

It is one of a number of answers I am looking for. It is not up to the Chairman to decide.

It is up to me to decide whether somebody is named. I have no problem with members seeking information. However, I do have a problem with members trying to name people not present. I am the judge with regard to whether somebody should be named.

Why is the Chairman going to such lengths to keep this secret? This information should be in the public domain. The Minister will not provide it in the Dáil. I am asking a straightforward question. Who are the signatories?

If the Deputy had told me of her question a week ago I could have written to Dublin County Council——

I am asking representatives of the NRA.

The NRA inherited the situation.

I do not have to direct questions through the Chairman.

It is the normal procedure.

It is not. I am asking a public body whose representatives are before the committee today. The Chairman's interference in my questioning is completely inappropriate.

The normal procedure is to go through the Chair when questioning somebody appearing before the committee.

I do not need the Chairman's permission to ask questions, nor do I need to give notice of them. I am asking a public body, the NRA, a straightforward question. Who are the signatories, on behalf of Dublin County Council, to the NTR agreement?

The original bridge cost €38 million. The return to NTR is approximately €300 million, which represents more than 750% on the initial investment. The concession will run for another 16 years. If toll rates remain the same, NTR are on track to make some €1.3 billion on an investment of €38 million. This represents a return of more than 2,000%, which is extraordinary. This was a sweetheart deal agreed between NTR and Dublin County Council, and approved by the then Minister for the Environment and Local Government. I would like Mr. Tobin's comment on these calculations.

The second bridge was built at a cost of approximately €19 million. Last year, the then Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, came before the committee to discuss the West Link Bridge. Projections for the coming year were down on the previous year's, which did not make any sense because traffic volume was increasing. One would expect the State's share to increase also. The Minister was asked why the projected figure was down for the current year. The committee was told it was part of the agreement reached regarding the second bridge, and that the State made a contribution to the bridge's construction. I could not understand this, and the Minister dodged the question in his usual way. Can Mr. Tobin explain the details regarding the second bridge? Who paid for it?

Given the extraordinary return NTR stand to make on a small initial investment, how can there be any justification on annual toll rate increases? Has the NRA taken steps to ensure tolls are kept at the current level? This is a bonanza for those involved. Has the NRA attempted to renegotiate that aspect of the agreement?

The NRA inherited the situation. However, there is much talk about the increased use of PPPs in respect of road projects. Can Mr. Tobin outline the lessons the NRA has learned from this extraordinary deal?

Can Mr. Tobin also tell us the annual return to the State with regard to toll bridges?

Mr. Tobin

I will address the Chairman's question first as its the most straightforward. The Exchequer's share of toll revenue is almost €65 million. The State also receives income through its various manifestations in other areas. The totality of what has been received in the share of toll revenue is approaching €65 million. That will not be due for payment until April 2005, by which time we estimate the sum will be €15.3 million.

Deputy Shortall mentioned that the former Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, said he anticipated a reduced share going to the Exchequer in recent years. When the deal with NTR regarding the second bridge was being agreed the view was that toll rates would increase, the toll would be hit by VAT and there would be upset due to building work. The Minister allowed the use of some of the Exchequer's share to cushion those increases and for car toll rates to be lower than usual. Hence, some of the share that would otherwise go to the State was diverted to underpin the process of keeping the toll for cars constant. The Exchequer share in 2000 was just over €8 million, in 2001 it was €9.2 million, in 2002 it was just under €7.6 million and in 2003 it was just over €8 million. Between 2002 and 2003, part of the Exchequer share was used to cushion toll increases for car users because of the disruption caused by building work, etc.

There was no question of the NTR carrying that cost.

Mr. Tobin

Not many private sector operators easily forgo their rights.

When they get this sort of return of their investment, they should be made to.

Mr. Tobin

It is hard to gainsay that the NTR did well on the deal. We agree with the estimate that has recently gone into the public domain. We think gross revenue received by the toll operator is approximately €310 million, excluding VAT. Offset against that figure, the Exchequer has received some €65 million for its share. The cost of operation and maintenance of the bridge and the adjoining road is approximately €40 million. In the meantime, the company had to meet repayments of capital and interest costs, of which we do not know the extent. The company will have made corporation tax payments on profits and paid rates. We understand that for the period 1998 to 2004, rate payments to the councils in Dublin were €12.8 million. Prior to 1978, when rates were payable under a somewhat different arrangement, some €500,000 was paid in rates. The toll company will also incur expenses in leaving the facility with a residual life at the end of operations.

We have attempted to establish the prospects into the future. If one brings into current values the revenue stream that will accrue to the toll operator at the West Link Bridge in the period to 2020, it will equate to some €700 million in today's value, excluding VAT. The Exchequer share of the company's outgoings will represent approximately €238 million of that, corporation tax will take some €33 million, rates to local authorities will account for approximately €37 million and irrecoverable VAT payments will take some €59 million. Of the €700 million, therefore, more than half, or some €367 million, will find its way back to the State in some shape. There are other taxes on employment.

Can Mr. Tobin confirm that the company will take in €700 million?

Mr. Tobin

We estimate that in current value terms, the income from now through to 2020 which will accrue to the operators at West Link will be some €700 million.

May the committee see the supporting figures for that projection?

Mr. Tobin

Yes, I can supply those figures.

I appreciate that.

Mr. Tobin

In addition, operations and maintenance outgoings will account for some €44 million. We cannot at this point put a value on the other taxes which will fall due to the State from, for example, the employment of staff or the investment required to leave a residual life in the facility when the company takes its leave during 2020. The money which the toll operator will make net of all these outgoings is some €290 million, less those outgoings which we cannot estimate, that is, the cost of ensuring an extended life beyond completion of the toll period and the taxes to be paid on employment.

I repeat my previous assertions regarding the lessons the NRA has learned. We have a far greater degree of competition with regard to the public private partnerships projects with which we have been involved. People must appreciate that the deal with NTR was such that the latter company had exclusive rights to toll the relevant section of road. There was no way any other body could be brought in to operate a toll. In doing a deal with NTR to duplicate the West Link Bridge, we were effectively captive. Nevertheless, after seeking professional advice, we secured a deal with NTR which did not in any way enhance the level of profitability to that company in its building of the second bridge, which was financed totally by NTR.

Our PPP deals have involved competitive tendering in accordance with our own and EU tender processes. We have made an assessment of potential profits associated with the tendering and a right to reject any tender we have been advised is structured to secure "super-profits". We have specialist advisers in regard to traffic projections and financial issues. The NRA is no longer engaged in deals that would allow the type of returns achieved on the West Link Bridge. There will also be a service requirement on future operators.

I remember how it was in the mid 1980s when this deal was done. I worked in the then Department of the Environment and we knew well that the prospects of the United States being in a position to finance major sections of the M50 were virtually nil. Then came the proposal from a company to build it for nothing——

The committee is not asking Mr. Tobin to justify that decision.

Mr. Tobin

Prior to the deal, the Department did not have the funding to build a free-flow interchange at a place called the Red Cow. It was a different era and there was a genuinely held conviction in the Department that this was a good deal. The hindsight afforded by the passage of time is a wonderful instrument with which to review the matter——

Mr. Tobin is straying into the political area.

Mr. Tobin

I apologise, that is not my intention. I simply make the point that in evaluating the nature of the deal, the context must also be considered. That is all I am saying. I assure members that I have no wish to stray into the political arena.

On a point of order, the lack of political input is one of the problems with the roads policy. Politicians are not allowed to discuss the issue.

Mr. Tobin

At least 50% of the income received by the toll operators is making its way back into the State's coffers, through one conduit or another. That is worth remembering.

Deputy Olivia Mitchell mentioned the concern expressed to her by the construction industry with regard to constraints on innovation in terms of building and design. We recognise this problem. It is part and parcel of the system whereby our property acquisition is done by way of motorway schemes or compulsory purchase orders. One is immediately constrained in terms of the location of the road. It must be built to a alignment which accords with the rights acquired. There has always been a view that there was a rather tight limit as to how much one could stray from an alignment which was given in advancing a CPO or motorway scheme. We have recently received guidance on this matter. In determining the structure of the Portlaoise bypass motorway scheme, An Bord Pleanála indicated that it would not tolerate height increases more than 1.5 m in any part of the motorway from the measurements specified in the data it had received. In some instances, increase above the height documented at the inquiry were permitted.

Deputy Mitchell is correct, therefore, that there are constraints on the extent to which bidding firms can innovate. We are trying to get around this limitation through the process I mentioned in my opening submission. This involves piloting the concept of early contractor involvement, whereby a contractor is brought on board before the point at which property requirements are determined fully. In this way, the contracting company can bring its skill to bear in terms of alignment, earthworks and those other areas to which it can bring added value. This facilitates recognition of how best value can be attained from a contractor when bidding for work on a CPO or motorway scheme. We are considering a number of issues that will help in this regard.

The NRA has had an input to the transport Bill. At this point, however, we believe An Bord Pleanála has been turning around the CPOs and motorway schemes necessary for our programme in an efficient and effective manner. The most significant problem now is not so much in regard to the statutory process but with regard to the scope for people to take issue subsequently, be it in the courts here or in Europe, or in terms of archaeological matters, to prevent the completion of works. Deputy Mitchell correctly recognises that balancing is needed to accommodate the rights of individuals to protest and take legal cases where they feel that issues should be handled in a different manner. That is the balance which needs to be struck. Given the need for balance between the exigencies of the common good and the rights of individuals, summary balancing might not be any harm in this area.

The national monuments legislation is of some help in that we now have a mechanism whereby a decision can be taken as to what is the appropriate way to deal with archaeological remains when found. However, one of the major difficulties is that more archaeological remains are found after the NRA moves on site than are known of or have been discovered from initial examination of the ground, which is an unfortunate reality. When such remains are found, there is a mechanism and code of practice whereby the NRA works through the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Appropriate licences are obtained and direction given as to how we handle such situations. While we are happy to do this and have no problem with it, it can create delays.

The committee's knowledge of the eastern bypass project is accurate. The project was considered perhaps 18 to 24 months ago. Having considered it for some considerable time, it was then put on a shelf because it had a possible €1.5 billion price tag and was surrounded by major environmental issues in regard to Sandymount strand, the marsh at Booterstown and so on. That said, the authority recently asked me and my colleagues on the staff to dust off the project assessment, read it and find where the project now stands. This process is ongoing.

I dealt with some of the questions asked by Deputy Shortall and will now deal with some of her other questions. With regard to the second bridge at the West Link, our understanding is that the value of the project was approximately €23 million.

Was that funded fully by National Toll Roads Limited, NTR?

Mr. Tobin

Yes. With regard to whether we could stop increasing the rate of toll, there are provisions in the agreement to freeze the rates. However, the toll operator must be compensated for the loss arising therefrom. The deal signed allows for the adjustment of the rates by reference to the consumer price index. Should a view be taken that we should not allow increases from here on, a mechanism is built in whereby the loss to the operator would be assessed and paid. NTR recognises the need to make whatever attempts possible to improve the service being provided at the West Link. The NRA considers the way forward at the West Link is to have free-flow tolling.

On the enforcement side, there are snags due to the existing legislation. In my opening remarks, I stated that our parent Department is considering the necessary legislation to help in this area. We have been advised by the Minister that the State's share can be used as part of a funding mechanism for the upgrade of the M50 that the NRA is currently planning.

Who were the signatories to the agreement?

On that matter, to help Deputy Shortall, I, as Chairman, will write to the relevant county council to find out who the signatories were. I will then provide the information for the Deputy. This information is from before Mr. Tobin's time and I do not think——

Mr. Murphy has the information.

Mr. Tobin

If it is acceptable under the rules of the committee, I could name the office holders by reference to their offices. I am in the hands of the Chair.

There is a problem with naming those who are not present at the committee.

What of their offices?

They would be identified. The appropriate——

This is a public agreement.

Excuse me. I told the Deputy what I was prepared to do as Chairman to solve her problem. It is obvious the Deputy knows the answers.

I do not and I have no other way of finding out.

I will find the information for the Deputy and will notify her.

I am asking a question. These witnesses have the information I require. As a public representative, I asked a straightforward question of a public body as to who signed the agreement on behalf of Dublin County Council.

I am caught in the middle due to the problem of identifying people not present and not in a position to defend themselves. I have a duty to defend them.

No allegation is being made. I am asking a factual question of Mr. Tobin as to who signed the agreement.

I told the Deputy how I propose to deal with this.

Why is the Chairman being so defensive about this?

I am not being defensive because I do not even know who are the individuals.

The information is available now and it would save the Chairman writing letters.

I am not being defensive. However, regulations are in place with regard to identifying people not present at the committee. The Deputy is well aware of the many times these regulations have been made known to the committee.

When the Chairman receives a reply to his letter, he will identify these people.

Yes, but I will notify the Deputy directly.

Is the Chairman suggesting there is something wrong with identifying people?

I am not suggesting that but people should be made aware of the fact that they will be identified rather than reading it in tomorrow's newspapers.

That is very strange.

I welcome Mr. Tobin and his colleagues. I congratulate all those concerned with the Monasterevin bypass project, especially as I travel regularly from Limerick to Dublin. The fact the project was completed a year early and under budget reflects well on all concerned.

Who decides the priority given to different projects? For example, appendix 1 of the document before the committee gives the anticipated start time, tender time, construction time and finish time of a project. Who makes these decisions, how are they arrived at and what factors influence the decisions? At the risk of being parochial, this relates to the southern ring road, phase 2, which is a PPP project. In terms of national spatial policy, there is huge emphasis on the Limerick-Shannon gateway and the new Shannon Airport Authority. The airport authority and everybody associated with it are crying out for fast-tracking of this proposal. Will Mr. Tobin explain why, if this is a national priority in terms of servicing the airport and complying with the national spatial strategy, there is not a case to fast-track this project or any other project which would comply with the strategy?

With regard to the West Link toll, has consideration been given to the buying out of the concessionaire? Have rough calculations been made of the possible cost of this or whether it would be economic, efficient or viable? I am sure the issue has been examined.

I would be interested to know in general terms the formula the NRA employs in regard to PPP contracts; perhaps Mr. Gerard Murphy will have a role in answering this question. It seems that any company tendering for a PPP contract will know the project and will have its costings, including the cost of ongoing bank finance, completed. It would appear that any agreements or formulae in regard to such agreements should be tied to calculating all the costs involved, including finance costs, and should give the operator a simple percentage return at the end. For example, if a project cost €100 per year to run, €20 to finance and €30 to maintain — a total of €150 per year — could it not be tied into the agreement that as the costs are €150 per year, the project operator would be given profits of perhaps €20 per year? If the costs are, say, €120 a year the profit remains the same. We need to tie the profit into the ongoing financing cost. Perhaps that is already part of the agreement and has been considered. I would like to hear Mr. Tobin's views on that proposal.

Will Mr. Tobin say how much the multi-annual programme has helped in terms of fast-tracking projects? He has mentioned this before, but I would like him to elaborate on it. Regrettably, I am not in a position to wait for the replies. However, I will get the transcripts tomorrow and will be able to read them.

I must offer my apologies to the Chairman and the delegation, but I have to leave.

I am disappointed the audience is dwindling, at least in numbers. The quality has probably improved, in fact.

The Deputy should not hurt anyone who is not present.

I welcome Mr. Tobin and his colleagues. One matter I had not intended raising, but which is relevant in the light of Deputy Shortall's questioning, is about the agreement, the subject matter of Mr. Tobin's discourse with our colleague. When was that agreement signed? That is relevant and it is a question which was not asked.

Does the Deputy mean the year?

Mr. Tobin

In 1987.

I would like to focus on the M50 upgrade. I notice the publication of the motorway scheme, the environmental impact survey, EIS, and the timeframe during which the work is to be done, 2006-2010. Is the NRA aware of the proposed IKEA development at the Ballymun interchange and the Dublin Airport Authority proposals for a second runway and the projected doubling of passenger numbers through the airport? Have the new runway and the IKEA project been factored into the NRA's existing plans for upgrade of the M50? Is Mr. Tobin aware that the retail planning and the regional planning guidelines for the greater Dublin area and the DTO platform for change all set out a presumption against large retail centres being located adjacent to the M50? Finally, is he aware of the problems being caused by a similar IKEA development on the North Circular Road link to IKEA at Wembley in London and can similarities be drawn in terms of the impact of the projected development on NRA plans for the upgrading of the M50?

I do not want to go over the same ground again. As Mr. Tobin talked of the West Link bypass and the golden goose it has become for the toll company, I am reminded of a money lending situation. It appears that we did not have the money in 1987, but we knew of someone who could give it to us, obviously at an enormous cost. Several tolls are being suggested for the many motorways we hope will be built away from Dublin. We hope that in these cases the profit margins will not be that great, because no system could take that type of profiteering. Mr. Tobin might put the overall national scene in context for the committee. The NRA was before the Committee of Public Accounts some months ago. On that occasion the woeful overrun on the original costs laid down was highlighted. The national development plan provided for approximately €6 billion or €7 billion. It appears that the overrun was as high as €8.5 billion on top of that. This is according to the Comptroller and Auditor General, not me. Will Mr. Tobin say what the main reason for this was and, more importantly, given that so many projects are now starting, will there be similar overruns to the same degree? Irrespective of how one looks at it, the committee would like to know why there was such an explosion in the actual cost of building the roadways, compared to what was estimated in 2002 or 2003.

With regard to technical matters, will all dual carriageways in future have a security fence in the centre passage? Is it official policy that, irrespective of where the dual carriageway or twin-lane roadway is located, this feature will be built in? As Mr. Tobin is aware, there appears to have been a double-think in this regard over the last couple of years. This question was asked a couple of years ago and we were told it would relate only to a particular standard of motorway and apart from that there would be no security fence. Perhaps Mr. Tobin might clarify the position on that.

On the Athlone bypass, what was regarded as a beautiful and a beneficial fence which ensured oncoming lights would not dazzle drivers on the other side, has largely been ripped up over a couple of miles. Is that because the security fence is being installed or could it not have been put beside the hedge, for environmental reasons? It seems terrible to have to pull that fence out. From an environmental viewpoint, many people wonder why this degree of butchery was required on such a beautiful landscape.

I attended a deputation yesterday where this next matter was outlined so I will not waste the committee's time on it. I understand compulsory purchase orders are being issued in respect of the M6, from Ballinasloe to Galway. Will Mr. Tobin indicate how many tolls will a motorist driving from Galway city to Dublin have to face in the future? How many times will he or she be hit by a toll plaza?

People in the BMW region are aggrieved that all of the major road projects up to now have been around Dublin. It is clear that the M50 will have to be expanded spectacularly to cater for the Red Cow anomalies etc. Will there be another slowdown as regards badly needed development in the regions, afterwards, because of the innate appetite in the Dublin conurbation for huge building? What sort of money is being invested in the M50 over the next five or ten years and how does that relate to what should be happening in the west, the south and all the other regions?

While the NRA has no brief for rail traffic, has it occurred to Mr. Tobin that rail is a significantly important player in getting people from their homes to and from work etc? I could be wrong about this, but I have watched the Dublin scene as an outsider for years. Has it occurred to the NRA, as a very important player in getting people between work and their homes, that, no matter how much we spend on roads, there will be a traffic jam at 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.? The great investment is welcome no matter where, though in the west of Ireland, we did not get our fair share and will demand it in future. Against that background, does the NRA believe that substantial investment on roads alone will stop the terrible paralysis in this city?

We will let Mr. Tobin respond and then take the next three questions.

Mr. Tobin

I will ask Mr. Gerard Murphy to comment on the more detailed analysis of our mechanism for evaluating tenders. Like Deputy Power, we are delighted with Monasterevin. We are 50 weeks ahead of time and within budget. We are joining up the network, and if one leaves Dublin, one can go on dual carriageway or motorway until one is beyond Portlaoise, meaning that one has now broken the traffic, some of it for Limerick and some for Cork, and that has to be a major advance. It is akin to what we did last year on the M1. With the completion of the motorway segments from Dublin Airport to Balbriggan and the bypass in Drogheda, one has continuous motorway now to south of Dundalk, and we hope that we will be seeing more of that in the years ahead.

Someone asked us to put a value on buying out West-Link. Our current rough estimate is of €300 million or €400 million. I will by and large leave this to Mr. Murphy, but Deputy Power seemed to suggest that the deals we do on PPP should be on the basis of ensuring that the promoter gets a fixed profit. That clearly offers no possibility for the promoter to make a loss. One might wonder whether one is transferring a risk at all if one guarantees a profit. There is a fairly competitive mechanism for such deals, and Mr. Murphy will go into that when I have concluded.

I was asked how the multi-annual programme is fast-tracking our work. It is not so much that; it gives us certainty and, with that, the confidence to plan for the projects that we need. Previously, until budget time had passed, which now tends to be late November and early December, we could not be certain of our money for the following year. Most people will accept that is no way to run a major infrastructure programme. Anyone in business will say that one ought to know one's likely budget years in advance. We now have that, and it is a major gain for the NRA.

We are conscious of the various developments occurring around the M50, as are our consultants. Perhaps we might encapsulate what we are doing there in a slightly different manner. Consistent with Dublin transportation policy, we are seeking to draw the maximum capacity from what we now provide. Under the Dublin Transportation Office strategy, we will not provide further capacity. This is the last throw of the dice on the M50. We are satisfied that we can enhance the major interchanges, in most cases with absolute and in other cases with near-total free flow. The third lane from Dublin Airport to Sandyford will be a major enhancement in capacity, but that is as far as we feel it can be taken. Telling us that someone else may develop something within 100 yd of the M50 will not affect that. We are seeking to draw maximum capacity from that network.

Does that mean that there will be relief roads 20 miles west, north and east of the M50?

Mr. Tobin

That is a definite possibility, and we are taking our first tentative looks at it. It is evident from our traffic information that a considerable volume of traffic joins the M50 from outside and makes a part journey on it to return outwards. We do not have sufficiently detailed information to know where we might plan a route to relieve the M50 — is it 10 km, 15 km or 20 km? We must examine these issues, and we will not have an answer for a year or two. Much research is needed on the origin and destination of traffic before we can reach that, but it is on our agenda.

In summary, is Mr. Tobin saying that even the new, improved 2010 version of the M50 will not be able to take a retail development of the size projected for IKEA?

Mr. Tobin

No, we are not saying that. I took the question to be whether we would be caught out by IKEA or another such company. If there were another 40 IKEAs in prospect, I would still say that we are seeking to provide maximum capacity on that corridor. Regardless of what happens, we cannot do better than that.

Perhaps I might put my question another way. Does Mr. Tobin believe that his maximum capacity will be able to absorb what an IKEA might bring?

Mr. Tobin

I am afraid that I cannot answer the question, since I do not know in such detail what IKEA will bring.

It is the largest single retail development in the history of the State.

Mr. Tobin

I am not even sure whether it has received planning permission.

To put it into comparison, the development will be bigger than the Liffey Valley Centre off the N4 Ballymun interchange. Could even the new, improved 2010 full-capacity M50 deal with that?

Mr. Tobin

The short answer is that I do not know.

Could Mr. Tobin venture an opinion?

Mr. Tobin

I would not wish to.

I can understand why, but perhaps he might hazard a guess.

Mr. Tobin

Rather than my venturing an opinion, when the local authority evaluates the planning application, it will have to get a traffic model and determine the implications for the road network in the shape of the M50 or the N2, which adjoins it, then taking a view on whether it can allow it to go ahead. If it is not the IKEA development or something else that takes the M50 to its top capacity, sooner or later it will reach that capacity anyway, and we can go no further than in the current proposal to eke out the greatest capacity from the corridor.

I would have thought that, with present traffic levels, we are running flat out — no pun intended — to meet the pace of traffic increase on the M50 and will be for the foreseeable future, even without any development.

Mr. Tobin

That is true. In its present state, the M50 has difficulties in some segments. Deputies will have heard that around the West Link some days 100,000 vehicles pass through. That is clearly beyond what anyone would normally assess as its capacity. Our view is that, with the expanded M50, with three lanes and auxiliary lanes here and there, one could probably have 135,000 or 140,000 vehicles a day. However, we must all acknowledge that the chances are that it will not take the motoring public, heavy goods vehicles or new developments very long to absorb that capacity. Within the DTO strategy, this is as far as we can take the M50.

Perhaps I might return to Deputy Connaughton's point on margins on new deals. We are much more conscious that consortia obtaining such deals should make a reasonable profit but that no enormous profits should be made. We are satisfied our deals do not allow that.

The Comptroller and Auditor General received a considerable amount of documentation about the Kilcock, Enfield, Kinnegad deal. On my last appearance before the Committee of Public Accounts, possibly at this committee too, people were anxious to hear detail of the deal. I had to say that because of the commercial sensitivity of some of the information I had a difficulty in giving it. The Comptroller and Auditor General has sought and we have given him as much detail as he has requested on that. I hope that in time he will offer a view as to the value we have been getting for the public money we are spending on our public private partnership projects.

From the point of view of the National Roads Authority the median barriers problem is a no-win situation. Traditionally, and in line with international practice, where there was a grass median between two carriageways of 9 metres or more, the perceived wisdom was that one should not put in a median barrier. The view was that with that width of median a high proportion of cars straying off the carriageway would be able to right themselves in the margin without striking anything, and get back on to the road without any great damage being done. Following international practice that width has increased to more than 15 metres. Until recently we said that where we had 15 metres or less we would install median barriers and we have a programme running and almost completed to install median barriers on the existing network where the median is less than 15 metres.

Our board decided recently that regardless of median width we will now in all instances install median barriers on dual carriageways or motorways. There have been several instances where due to bad driving, carelessness, or whatever, accidents are happening in which people have crossed the median. As a matter of policy we are going to install a median barrier in all cases. Those advocating the median barrier have at times conveyed the view that it is the answer to all our problems. That is not necessarily the case. Median barriers can be very unforgiving when struck at speed. In the absence of a barrier a car might stray into the opposing lane where the speed difference between that car and the oncoming car is greater than if the car pops back into its own lane. The odds are that if one hits a median barrier one will pop back into one's own lane and may collide with another car or truck or whatever going in the same direction.

Our policy has been updated to ensure that we have a median barrier on all dual carriageways and motorways but lest anyone think that will prevent accidents occurring on motorways, it will not. Our motorways are extremely safe as they are. We expect this to continue and to maintain that safety standard. Safety barriers are not the answer to every problem. We need to take care when we drive. Drivers need to take responsibility for what they are doing.

Deputy Connaughton raised the issue about the Athlone bypass and I share his view about what is happening to the hedging there. It is a dreadful pity but in line with our policy a median barrier is being installed and due to the narrowness of that median, it is a concrete barrier which must be put in and much of the hedge, which is a rather nice well-established hedge, must be cut down in places. I regret that but unfortunately that is one of the downsides of installing the median. The barrier is such that it will prevent lights from cars coming against it from blinding drivers.

We expect that when the Dublin-Galway network is completed a driver will pay a toll on the Galway to Ballinasloe segment and on the Kinnegad-Kilcock segment.

Such a driver would pay twice.

Mr. Tobin

Correct. Deputy Connaughton's point echoed that made by many of his colleagues from the Border, midlands and western regions. We hear this constantly when we go to meetings of the monitoring committee for the economic and social infrastructure operational programme and so on. We take the point but we have said that when we started on the national development plan we had a major programme under way. By coincidence several major projects were under way in the eastern region, particularly around Dublin. We are moving to make good that shortfall in the Border, midlands and western region and over €300 million has been allocated to it this year. We intend to ensure that the full extent of the investment proposed for that region in the national development plan and in the economic and social infrastructure operational programme will be honoured. We have taken significant steps in that direction already.

Will it be ring-fenced?

Mr. Tobin

That may not be the correct phrase. The intention is that we will honour the commitment in the national development plan and the economic and social infrastructure operational programme to make the investment signalled as required for that region.

The Deputy raised a question about the extent of the investment required on the M50. Overall it is approximately €750 million. Approximately two thirds of that will be financed under a public private partnership mechanism bringing the net cost to approximately €250 million. That should not interfere with, or make it less likely, that we will provide the full funding that has been assigned for the Border, midlands and western region in the national development plan.

The Committee of Public Accounts dealt extensively with the drift in the cost of our programme. The salient points were that to talk about the gap between the €6.7 billion mentioned in the national development plan and the cost estimate for our programme in 2002 which was €15.8 billion, does not compare like with like. Several significant changes were made to the programme that had been costed at €6.8 billion between the submission of that programme by the National Roads Authority and the publication of the national development plan. The most obvious is the Government's decision that all the major inter-urban routes should be delivered to motorway or high quality dual carriageway standards by 2006. That involved an increase in standards and foreshortened timescales compared with those priced by the National Roads Authority.

Other factors came into play, for example, the road construction industry was hit by significant levels of cost increase or inflation over several years. Our ability to estimate accurately the cost of projects was not as good as it ought to have been. We have taken on additional staff specialising in that area and believe that now our cost estimates are pretty accurate. A review by consultants in the past year in the context of a mid-term review of the national development plan suggests that we are very close with our estimates. More and more of our schemes are coming in within budget and ahead of schedule.

I will ask Gerry Murphy to outline for the committee, by way of response to Deputy Power, the mechanisms used for receiving and evaluating tenders or bids for our public private partnership programmes and the steps we take to ensure we are getting value for money and that our deals do not involve any super profit.

To present it simply, we want to arrive at the same place as that elaborated by Deputy Power. As part of their bid, tenderers are obliged, for each year of the concession, to set out where they will give a share to the authority at different traffic levels. This proposed share is evaluated by the authority using its projected traffic level. It is combined with the subvention they seek for the road. The total is combined and the one with the lowest cost is the winning bid. The tenderer is then fixed as to what money will be paid back to the authority over the years of the concession. As it is in a competitive tendering situation, tenderers try to minimise bids by maximising future payments to be made to the authority if traffic volumes increase.

We looked at a mechanism of asking tenderers to bid a fixed return on projects. However, as Mr. Tobin pointed out, the main problem was that it involved a risk transfer back to us, based on the tenderers' cost bate. There is also the issue of the manipulation of future costs. Tenderers can manipulate figures for operation and maintenance costs 15 years from now. This means there would always be a moving post as regards what moneys we will get back. The mechanism we devised achieves the same objective. The returns are capped, these are assessed in competitive tendering and fixed, allowing us to know the costs for each year.

When the national development plan was announced, many Members believed it was very ambitious, unrealistic with its construction timescales and over-optimistic on delivery times. Meanwhile, there have been staggering overruns and slippage in construction dates given. The Castletown-Nenagh, Nenagh-Limerick and Cullahill-Cashel roads were to be completed by 2006. However, the committee has been informed today that the construction date is 2010, a four-year slippage in construction time. In the interim, landowners on the proposed routes have had land commandeered for the motorways. Affected landowners have been in consultation with the relevant authorities, concerned that due to the number of overruns and policy changes, the National Roads Authority may not complete these projects. Will Mr. Tobin give a guarantee that the authority is committed to the completion of the Castletown-Nenagh, Nenagh-Limerick and Cullahill-Cashel roads?

Affected landowners are close to their lands and have a tremendous interest in continuing in farming. They accept their lands will go for these roads and their agricultural holdings will be no longer viable. In the interim, landholdings in other areas have come on the market. Some of those affected are anxious to make alternate arrangements to remain in farming and, therefore, willing to purchase those lands. I have made representations on their behalf to the National Roads Authority. However, it has informed me that due to procedures it is not possible to give those affected landowners a letter of commitment guaranteeing them x amount of funds in an approximate time for the purchase of lands on these routes. This denies them the opportunity to bridge financing to purchase alternate landholdings to continue as commercially viable farmers. Will the process of paying moneys over or giving financial underwritings to these affected people be speeded up to allow them to make other arrangements?

It is frustrating that a Member cannot ask the Minister any question about the National Roads Authority. I regularly send parliamentary questions to the Minister for Transport, only to receive the standard response that it has nothing to do with him.

Mr. Tobin said that the National Roads Authority has learnt its lessons from inaccurate charging that occurred during the formulation of the national development plan. How does he explain the costs estimates for the M50 upgrade? In October 2003, the authority informed the committee that the upgrade's estimated cost was €316 million. During the summer, I was informed that the costs had risen to €600 million. This afternoon, the upgrade's cost is €750 million. The environmental impact study for An Bord Pleanála puts the cost at €807 million. If the authority has learnt to be accurate in its costs estimates, how can the cost of the M50 upgrade go from €316 million to €807 million in one year?

I believe the National Roads Authority has a tradition of costing projects low initially to get political and public support for them. Once the commitment has been given by the Government, it does not matter and the costs can go to €807 million, as no one notices or cares. For the M50 upgrade, I have found it impossible to learn which Cabinet sub-committee gave the go ahead for the project. How does the authority explain the trebling in price of this project when it claims it has its costing estimates right?

I am glad that Deputy Glennon said that the incessant predict-and-provide policy for road capacity is leading to a cul-de-sac into gridlock. At last we are seeing some sense and truth within the Fianna Fáil Party regarding the transport debate. Mr. Tobin suggested to the committee that despite the widening of the M50, probably costing €1.5 billion in the end, it will be at full gridlock capacity from the day it opens. The environmental impact study acknowledges that on opening, the key sections for the N2 to the N3 will be at 109% of the congestion reference flow, the sections for the N3 to the N4 at 106% and the sections for the N4 to the N7 at 104%. That is before an IKEA store will open, the economy grows and traffic volumes increase. There may be reductions in the queues in the approaching roads. However, upgrading the M50 will simply relocate the traffic jams from the approach roads to the M50. As Mr. Tobin said, this is the last roll of the dice and the M50 will be congested from day one. This is the end of a strategy that has pumped approximately €16 billion into roads leading to Dublin city. Will Mr. Tobin comment on the figures as provided in the environmental impact strategy for this project?

Recently the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, said in a radio interview that he wants a different emphasis for the national roads strategy. Rather than the emphasis on these roads leading to Dublin city and the gridlocked M50, he indicated the new policy's emphasis would be on making connections between Waterford and Cork cities and along the western seaboard. This will be the priority for investment rather than motorways leading to Dublin city. Is this Government thinking or is it something the Minister said that has not yet been decided?

I am concerned about the Clonee to Kells bypass but it has been impossible to ask questions about it. I have tabled questions asking who is responsible for it and who could change the route of this road, given the archaeological findings on the preferred route. Every time I raise the issue, the Ceann Comhairle states that it is not the Minister's responsibility. Given the massive public concern on the decision to build a motorway through the middle of this most sensitive archaeological area, what could make the NRA consider re-routing or building the road in sections while looking at different options? What is the logic of having three national primary routes, often motorways, within 30 kilometres of each other — the M1, N2 and N3 — in that area?

I could ask a thousand questions here because of our inability to ask them in the House but I will leave it with questions on the costing and transport modelling of the N3, the national roads policy under the new Minister and who decides if the new M3 will be re-routed from the plans set out in the EIS.

I welcome the delegation. How much private funding is going into the public private partnership for the Kinnegad-Kilcock bypass? Are there any design and build projects planned apart from those in public private partnership and the conventional system used by local authorities?

Will the NRA make recommendations to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on proposed speed limits on the new stretches of motorway and dual carriageway? Will the existing limits be changed? They could be raised in some cases.

The planned route for the Castlebar to Westport road was on the back burner for a long time and it appears to be even further back according to the appendix. This road carries nearly as much traffic as the road from Dublin to Belfast. What is happening with it now?

How can contractors be brought on site for motorways before CPOs are put in place? Do the contractors bid for the work prior to the CPOs being issued or is there a preferred contractor? I cannot see how it works, although I can see its benefits.

I support Deputy Eamon Ryan's comments on the M3 and the Hill of Tara and I would like to hear the NRA's views on this. Who will decide to change the route if that happens? What is the procedure for changing it?

Mr. Tobin accepted that there is an imbalance in the roads programme towards the east, with slippage in the programme since the announcement of the national development plan. Plans for the N24 appear to have been put on the long finger. The road connecting Limerick, Waterford and Rosslare is significant economically for the south east and the mid west. It passes through south Tipperary and would include the Tipperary town, Clonmel and Carrick on Suir bypasses. There are heavy volumes of traffic on this road, with the Tipperary to Cahir section being particularly poor. When will construction begin on the road improvements and bypasses? When will they be completed?

I welcome Mr. Tobin and his team and compliment them on the presentation. The list of projects, with the numbers of roads completed, about to be completed, in progress or in planning, is formidable and great progress has been made in the past few years.

I listened to my female colleagues asking questions about deals done. We will always learn lessons but hindsight is 20-20. In the mid-1980s, interest rates were 20% and it is difficult to argue in the present financial climate about things that happened 20 years ago. Looking forward 20 years, it is also difficult to project the transport that will exist.

I compliment the NRA for completing the Cashel bypass. For us in Waterford it is a blessing. What is the situation with Woodstown? The Vikings are still giving us problems there. Is it true that the route may have to be changed? What is the situation with the Dungarvan bypass? I compliment the NRA putting the traffic calming measures at Cushcam in place.

If the capacity within the M50, which acts as a cordon around the city, is continually reduced by the provision of bus lanes and Luas extensions, is there any point in improving free flow over interchanges and increasing the capacity by 30% to 135,000 cars if there is nowhere for the cars to go inside that cordon? What consideration has been given to that possibility?

The NRA has acknowledged another issue concerning the upgrading of the M50, which I mentioned to the authority on the last occasion it was before the committee, which is that if people are travelling into Dublin on the Navan Road and returning on the Lucan Road or travelling in on the Ashbourne Road and returning on the Navan Road, because they have no alternative they will be forced onto the M50 and must pay a toll. The only alternative is to rat run through back lanes and villages, which is no longer acceptable.

I am surprised and shocked to hear Mr. Tobin say that pen has not even been put to paper in terms of examining an alternative route. Since the M50 was placed on the old Dublin County Council development plan maps, an outer ring was provided for, which has since been superseded because of the pace of development. A blind man could see it. In 1999, Fingal County Council obliterated part of that old outer ring in any event.

It is alarming that the NRA has stated that it already knows the M50 will be congested by the time it opens. There will be no alternative for Lucan and other villages through which people have to rat run to get from one arterial route to another. Considering the length of time it takes to agree a route, it is also alarming that no county council or the NRA itself has put pen to paper or lifted a telephone to discuss where this outer ring might go, whether it is ten, 15 or 20 miles from the city centre. What are the NRA's intentions in this regard? Whose responsibility is it to lift the telephone between the local authorities and the NRA?

The only concern I have about events at the Hill of Tara is that the motorway routes out of Dublin are following the old N2 , N3 and N4 lines across the country. The NRA has not created any new corridors. Has there been any thought — or might such thought be forced by court action and delays which no one can cost because they are insurmountable — about a midway route between the N2 and N3 as a proper carriageway, for example, from the Cappagh interchange at Finglas outwards? Will the process involve continuing to build on existing roads? Should an alternative not have been considered?

I would like the delegation to answer the questions raised by Deputy Eamon Ryan and me regarding the M50 because I fear the consequences of spending this amount of money, whether it is public or private, and the time factor involved. We all know there will be reduced capacity on the M50 because of bus lanes and so on and we are not building any extra streets in Dublin, therefore, where will this extra traffic go? Will there be free-flow in any event?

There are two questions which I want to put rather than have the delegation revert to them later. On the N4, Edgeworthstown is now jamming on a regular weekly basis. It is becoming the new Enfield. Will the NRA let us know what it is doing in regard to the bypass of the town? The next problem which will arise is Carrick-on-Shannon. It is already in a log jam at weekends and the bridge on the N4 is beginning to clog up. I understand the NRA has established a route for the new bypass of Carrick-on-Shannon but the delegation might tell us how far advanced are the plans. The Longford-Drumsna section of the N4 also requires attention because, as the N4 progresses, there will be dual carriageway to just outside Mullingar, after which drivers will run into another famous bottleneck. I ask the questions because all politics is local.

The NRA gave a commitment to Leitrim County Council that route selection on the N16, which is the main link road from Northern Ireland into the west, would be finished by the end of this year. Will the delegation inform us of the position on that project?

Mr. Tobin

I will try to address the Chairman's questions before I move on. The Longford-Drumsna project is being progressed on the basis of a two-plus-one type carriageway and we except to see CPOs made by the end of the year. We expect to see work underway on an inner bypass of Edgeworthstown next year. A line has been mapped out for the Carrick-on-Shannon project but the initial results are not positive in terms of the economics of the route because it is a relatively long one compared to the existing one through the town and it is relatively expensive as another significant Shannon River crossing is involved. We will keep the project under review — it is early days yet.

Has the route selection been made for the N16?

Mr. Tobin

I am not certain. We have done some pavement work.

I know that. A commitment was given to Leitrim County Council that it was hoped to have the project completed by the end of this year.

Mr. Tobin

If the Chairman is agreeable, I will take a note of the matter and communicate with him.

I assure Senator Morrissey that if I gave him the impression that a pen had not been put to paper in respect of an alternative route outside the M50, I have misled him because that is not the case. We have examined this issue before. Much work has still to be done to decide on a specific location and so on, but the issue is in our minds and it is being dealt with. The Senator can take my word for it. I do not want to give the impression that we have done nothing. We are working on it.

Does that project include a new road over the Wicklow Mountains?

Mr. Tobin

It may or may not.

The regional planning guidelines include a road over the Wicklow Mountains.

Mr. Tobin

At this stage, it may or may not involve our building a new road over the Wicklow Mountains. Our initial examination suggested that we would not necessarily take it that far but rather from the M1 to Naas and the N7. There might not be a justification for the extension beyond the Wicklow Mountains.

Deputy Wilkinson referred to the Dungarvan bypass, in respect of which a line has been part identified. There is an environmental issue, as the Deputy well knows, concerning the Killarney fern, as it is called, and we have agreed to some further studies in this regard which might help in the negotiations and discussion between the NRA and Waterford County Council as well as the heritage section of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. We need to examine the extent to which there is a need to protect the fern, which will influence the line to be determined for the bypass of the town.

On the N24, a number of schemes are at planning stage including a bypass at Mooncoin, the Clonmel-Cahir and Bansha-Tipperary roads, the Oola bypass, Carrick-on-Suir bypass and the Cahir to Bansha road. It must also be acknowledged that none of those projects is scheduled as of now for construction commencement between now and 2007.

The extent of private sector spend——

In regard to the N24 projects, can Mr. Tobin be more specific? Is he saying the projects will start in 2007?

Mr. Tobin

I said that they are not scheduled at this time to start at all.

Yes. I heard that. What did Mr. Tobin say about 2007?

Mr. Tobin

Up to now, we have a fair idea of starts through to 2006 and 2007. These projects are not scheduled in that time as of now.

Can Mr. Tobin give any indication as to when they might start?

Mr. Tobin

No.

None at all?

Mr. Tobin

No.

I am not trying to be difficult. I am simply looking for some information about the issue.

Perhaps we could help the Deputy and Mr. Tobin by asking Mr. Tobin to provide a detailed reply as to how he envisages the projects developing.

I would like to have something in writing. I thought Mr. Tobin might have some indication about where the projects will go from here. I simply want an indication of when there might be movement on the N24, which will link the mid-west and the south east, because that road is vitally important for the economic development of south Tipperary.

Mr. Tobin

If I may come back on that, Chairman, and explain the position. We know now that we have a multi-annual budget of approximately €8 billion taking us up to 2008. We are not sure beyond that but we are exchanging correspondence and having discussions with our parent Department and I suspect officials there are talking to the Department of Finance as to what might happen in the period beyond 2008. When we have clarity on that we will consider scheduling further starts beyond those we have now scheduled, and those projects on the N24 will come into consideration in that context. As of now, I do not want to indicate to the Deputy that they will start in a particular year when I have no way of being assured there is a reasonable basis for making that statement.

Leaving aside the PPP-type projects, the bulk of our schemes will now be done under a design-build mechanism. The main gain from that is that it will minimise the drift from tender price to outturn cost; it will give us that certainty of cost. That is an enormous gain from our point of view and hence the vast bulk of our projects, outside of the PPP side, will be done on that basis.

On speed limits, we have made an input to the departmental-ministerial consideration of that issue. From our point of view, the main change in metrication arises on the motorway network. That will bring the speed limit to the equivalent of approximately 74.5 miles an hour, which translates into 120 kilometres an hour. We hope that there will be scope in the legislation to enable us put forward the proposition to allow the 120 kilometre an hour limit apply to high quality dual carriageways, which could not be described, in legal parlance, as a motorway. I believe that will be covered in the legislation.

On the earlier contractor involvement, I will ask Eugene O'Connor to speak on that when I have dealt with the other points. The Castlebar scheme is at preliminary design stage. As with the projects we mentioned on the N24, it is not scheduled for commencement at this point.

On Deputy Wilkinson's point about Woodstown, which I know is dear to his heart, it is one of the major archaeological sites with which we are caught currently. As of now, preliminary investigations have been undertaken in respect of the archaeology and reports have been submitted to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. It now falls to that Minister, under the amended national monuments legislation, to decided how we should take forward the handling of archaeology on that site. Our hope is that we will have decisions as soon as possible but, realistically, the Minister will require a number of months to fully consider the various issues from his point of view and then indicate to us, by way of direction or whatever, how we should progress.

On the bypass scheme, our intention is to allow the tender process to progress. We believe we can advance what I would call the main part of the bypass ahead of that element which is affected by Woodstown. The hope is that some time before the end of next year a contractor will be appointed for that DPP project.

On the capacity of the M50, I acknowledge that the volumes we believe are likely to use it will be in line with its current capacity. That is acknowledged by all the parties involved, the DTO and ourselves and we recognise that with the passage of time, and as further capacity will not be added to it, the issue of dealing with this will arise by way of traffic management measures. That is what we will have to do. We will not be able to provide more capacity. I acknowledge there is an issue about not increasing capacity on the M50 but that is DTO policy, which we have to accept. Nonetheless, there are many movements happening at the interchanges that require free flow and we want to allow for that. Without doubt, the efforts being made to get modal transfer to public transport in this city have to be pushed forward and we must entice people out of their cars and onto public transport.

What Mr. Tobin is saying backs up what is contained in the EIS which states, in respect of this project, that for the benefits of the scheme to be maintained it will be necessary in the future to implement specific scheme-demand management measures to control the level of traffic onto the motorway. Effectively, Mr. Tobin is saying we will need to put tolls on access roads to the M50 because it will be so congested it will not work. Is that an accurate reflection of that sentence in the EIS?

Mr. Tobin

That is one way, but only one way, of implementing traffic management.

How can traffic be restricted if a toll is not put on the motorway?

Mr. Tobin

Traffic lights on ramps, and the timing of them, is one way.

But if we are to implement free flow on the junctions, where would the traffic lights be located?

Mr. Tobin

There are traffic lights at the approaches to the road.

Are we then talking about restricting access by traffic on the motorways to the M50 because the M50 would be congested beyond its working capacity?

Mr. Tobin

That is correct.

How quickly does Mr. Tobin believe that will evolve?

Mr. Tobin

I do not want to get into the guessing game but it appears that within a relatively short time of finishing this project the M50 will be carrying volumes at or above capacity. That does not mean it will be in gridlock. It means that sections of it will not deliver an ideal level of service but it will still be able to move people along. We want to try to keep that network moving in a reasonable way bearing in mind that in the context of developing the Dublin Port tunnel, Dublin Corporation will also bring into play traffic management mechanisms in respect of heavy goods vehicles, which will have the effect of putting more pressure on them to use the M50 rather than urban streets. We want to ensure, therefore, that those heavy goods vehicles can travel at a reasonable pace to get to the port.

Mr. Tobin has acknowledged that this policy of restricting traffic on the approach roads to the M50 will have to be introduced in a very short time, even though almost €1 billion will be spent on upgrading the M50. I imagine that will involve congestion also if traffic lights are put on, say, the Monasterevin or another similar approach road. How does that fit in with the Government's overall national strategy plan to have a quick journey time on the five inter-urban routes if traffic lights have to be put on those routes to try to free up capacity on the congested M50?

Mr. Tobin

I do not envisage traffic lights at Monasterevin. We are talking about the immediate vicinity of the M50.

Traffic lights will be put on the motorway approaches to the M50.

Mr. Tobin

Yes, at the entrance points to the M50. One way of doing this is to introduce traffic to meter traffic onto the system. If that is what is called for, that may be the way we will have to go.

Tolls are a possibility as well.

Mr. Tobin

Of course tolls are a possibility. They are one way of cutting down on the demand, but only one way.

In regard to the Hill of Tara and the way we are developing the N2 and the N3, was any thought given to whether we might eventually be forced into re-examining a median route from Cappagh?

Mr. Tobin

I would like to make a number of points on that. We developed the M1 to motorway standard. We have now reached a point where An Bord Pleanála has approved a proposal to improve the Clonee bypass to Kells to motorway standard. We are not proposing that the N2 would be upgraded to motorway standard. We are upgrading the road to a dual carriageway as far as Ashbourne, effectively, to deal with the high traffic volumes on that segment of the road. Apart from work at Slane which, in reality, is being done for road safety reasons as much as anything else, we have no proposals beyond that — except for north of Ardee — other than to preserve the existing roads. We are not planning to put a motorway on that route. To say there are three motorways there is simply not the case.

We went through an extensive process of public consultation regarding the M3. There is a mechanism in law for determining whether a motorway should go ahead, which is by way of a determination by An Board Pleanála. It heard the various evidence available, the route options and the considerations and pros and cons affecting each of those options. It accepted the route we picked is acceptable and has approved it. Our wish is to progress work on that and bring relief to people who use the existing network and to relief the congestion in towns such as Dunshaughlin, Navan, Kells and so on.

Is Mr. Tobin awaiting a decision from the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on archaeological issues that have become evident since work started on scoping for the road? Does he consider that the NRA can proceed at full pace or will he wait to get approval from the Minister regarding archaeological issues along the route?

Mr. Tobin

Rest assured we have no option but to wait for the Minister nor have we any wish not to do so. We have submitted a number of reports to him on the area in the vicinity of the Tara-Skryne Valley. There are something like 28 individual archaeological sites where investigations have taken place. Reports on them have been prepared and sent to the Minister. No further progress on activity on archaeological and other matters in that area will take place until we have a determination by the Minister as to how we should deal with archaeological sites in that area.

The view of our archaeologists is that while these are valuable sites, they are not what we would regard as a unique. We do not view them as being individually especially significant. Those who object to the route by reference to archaeology view it more from the overall setting as opposed to any issue regarding individual sites. We have sent reports to the Minister and we await decisions from him.

I have a further question on the cost overrun or the cost estimates presented. I will have to leave shortly, but I would like to get an answer to this question. How did the costing estimates increase from €360 million last year to €750 million this year?

Is the Deputy referring to the M50?

Yes, the M50.

Mr. Tobin

I gave a ballpark figure of €750 million which is in 2003 values. I cannot say with certainty but I assume that in the EIS somebody updated the figures to current values. The difference between this figure and the €300 million plus project figure is simply that they are two different projects. We discovered from further research that there is capacity available, through the use of the Department's share of the existing toll and the leveraging of funding from the advance sale of the toll beyond 2020, to run a PPP project there that would meet a substantial part of that cost. Given that, and in line with the DTO policy, we have decided to go for a fairly big project that, for the most part, will give free flow at the intersections. Hence, the current estimate is €750 million in 2003 values.

I may be confused about this. A newspaper dated 14 October 2003 carries a headline to the effect that it will cost €300 million to upgrade M50 and Red Cow roundabout. According to presentations on this given to the committee last year, €360 million was the only figure indicated. I will have to re-read the text, but my understanding is that there was no mention of other figures in presentations on this matter to the committee last year, although I could be wrong. I will check that. Why did the newspapers at that time report all the discussion about a €300 million plan to upgrade the route? If there were two different costs involved and the more accurate figure was €800 million, why was that not reflected in the newspapers at that time?

Mr. Tobin

If the Deputy checks the record, he may find that we would have specifically said in the context of the €300 million plus figure that it did not include upgrades of the N2 and N3 interchanges. We held out the possibility that those additional works and others might be added to the project. The project in respect of which I am telling the committee we have estimated at a ballpark figure of €750 million in 2003 values is a different one from the concept project that was priced at €300 plus million.

I take it that the original pricing was on the basis of providing a three lane motorway on the M50 without the necessary works for access to it from the N2, N3 and N4?

Mr. Tobin

That is correct. I cannot be specific, but the original estimate at €300 million odd excluded the upgrade of some of the interchanges, one being the N2. I know that for a fact.

It is about €500 million.

The bottom line is this work will go to a tendering process down the road. We might not be serving our interests by putting out the figures that might be available.

Mr. Tobin

I am reasonably satisfied that the figure of €750 million, allowing for it being in 2003 values, is a realistic estimate of the cost. The Chairman's point is well made in that ultimately, a tender process will determine the exact cost of undertaking the works. Hopefully, the cost will be somewhat less than that figure. Land will have to bought in some instances, none of which I suspect will be particularly cheap bearing in mind the location.

If there are no further questions, I express our sincere thanks to Mr. Tobin and his officials for appearing before us and to Mr. Tobin for giving us as much information as he possibly could. The committee stands adjourned until 2.30 p.m. on Thursday, 25 November 2004, when the select committee will meet to deal with the Road Traffic Bill 2004, subject to it being completed in the House this week.

The joint committee adjourned at 5.10 p.m. sine die.

Top
Share