Ceisteanna — Questions.
1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the names of the persons he has appointed to the boards of the State agencies under the aegis of his Department since May 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30937/04]
View answer2 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the persons appointed to boards or agencies under the aegis of his Department during 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32124/04]
View answer3 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the appointments he has made to boards of State agencies since May 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32415/04]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
I refer the Deputies to the reply which I gave to a similar question on 5 October. I include a table showing the appointments which have been made since then.
|
State Board/Agency |
Name of Appointee |
Occupation/ Organisation |
Date of Appointment |
|
National Economic & Social Forum |
|||
|
Strand (ii) Employer/Trade Unions |
|||
|
Employer/Business Organisations |
Maria Cronin |
IBEC |
Oct/Nov 2004 (replaced Jackie Harrison) |
|
Strand (iii) Community & Voluntary Sector |
|||
|
Disadvantaged |
Audrey Deane |
Society of Saint Vincent de Paul |
Nov 2004 (replaced John-Mark McCafferty) |
|
Strand (iv) Central Government, Local Government and Independents |
|||
|
Local Government |
Councillor Ger Barron |
General Council of County Councils |
Nov 2004 (replaced Cllr. John Egan) |
|
Councillor Jack Crowe |
General Council of County Councils |
Nov 2004 (replaced Cllr. Patsy Treanor) |
|
|
John Tierney |
County and City Managers Association |
Nov 2004 (replaced Donal O’Donoghue) |
The only change since then is to the National Economic and Social Forum. There has been one change at IBEC, one from the voluntary sector where a person from the Society of St. Vincent de Paul has replaced another member and two councillors and one county manager have been changed in the local government sector. There are no other changes.
How many agencies are under the aegis of the Taoiseach's Department? Is he still having difficulty in getting quality people to take up these positions, as he expressed before, because of the odium in which some State boards find themselves?
It does not affect my Department because it is mostly made up of the social partners. The only groups under my aegis are the Information Society Commission, whose members tend to be technical people, the National Statistics Board, whose members are most definitely technical people, the Law Reform Commission, which is very small, and the National Centre for Partnership and Performance and the National Economic and Social Forum. These groups are made up of Members of this House or the social partners, so my Department is not affected. The position is stabilising on general State boards as the era of inquires moveson.
Is the Taoiseach satisfied that the gender balance sought by organisations such as the National Women's Council is not yet reflected in State boards? Only 27% of those appointed to State boards are women, despite a minimum target of 40% set by the Government in 1991. What procedures are in place to redress that imbalance? Will that be established by any timeframe set by the Taoiseach?
The equality division of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform monitors that on a continuous basis. My own Department endeavours to make sure that we have the highest percentage of women. A number of boards under my Department are chaired by women. It is not as big a problem with NESC, where 42% of members are women and around 40% of the other boards are women. That is a good figure, but all the boards are monitored by the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
Is the Taoiseach saying that all State boards under his aegis have around 40% female membership? It is also Government policy to promote people with disabilities. What is the Taoiseach's record in this regard in relation to appointments to State boards?
I do not have that information with me. We are ahead of the average and we are trying to improve on it. The average is around 3% and we are around 4%, but we always try to increase that wherever we can and to make facilities for as many as we can.
On the Deputy's first question, in some of our boards we are higher and in others we might be a bit less, but around 40% of our boards comprise women. Our problem is with the social partners. It is an ongoing battle with all of them to get them to nominate women, though it has improved. In the other boards, it is not so much of a problem. We have a good representation on the statistics board and the Law Reform Commission, where there are two women on a board of five or six members. The social partners are improving but we always have to go back to force them to comply. I am not blaming one social partner over another, it seems to happen with all of them.
4 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the details of the arrangements within his Department for providing assistance to certain independent Deputies of Dáil Éireann; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30938/04]
View answer5 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will list the Deputies in respect of whom arrangements have been made by his Department to provide assistance; the nature of the assistance provided; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32123/04]
View answer6 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if his Department has made arrangements to provide assistance to certain members of Dáil Éireann; the nature of that assistance; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33156/04]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, together.
A number of Independent Deputies offered invaluable support to the previous Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government. Their support is not as critical to the Government's majority in this Administration, but given the support they have provided in the past, I have always tried, and continue to try, to be as helpful as possible to these Deputies. A staff member in my office assists the Government Chief Whip's office in its work in liaising with these Deputies, namely Deputy Fox, Deputy Healy-Rae and Deputy Blaney of Independent Fianna Fáil. This official meets with these Deputies on a regular basis and arranges to keep them briefed on issues as they arise.
I was going to ask the Taoiseach how the clinics were going within his party and with his Ministers — there was an announcement about that some time ago. Did I hear correctly that Deputy Fox, Deputy Healy-Rae and Deputy Blaney are the only Deputies receiving this type of special attention? I wonder if that is due to a fear on the Taoiseach's part that he might require their services.
With regard to the official involved, is this a part-time nixer during the day whereby he or she contacts the trio involved and inquires if they want anything done in the constituency or otherwise? What is the nature of the contact? Is it about constituency problems or issues the Deputies bring to the attention of the official? There are other Independent Deputies in the House. Are they considered as second in line for special attention on the basis that the Taoiseach might require them at some time in the future?
This happens because we had a close daily association with the Deputies during the lifetime of the last Government. We have continued the facility, although it is not used nearly as often now. In fairness and courtesy to the Deputies, I felt an obligation to them because they had supported the Government throughout its term. For the official, this is just part of an assistant principal's work. It is not the same level of assistance, obviously. The last time we kept them informed of business in the House but those issues are not dealt with now. However, it is useful when they have problems and seek access to a Minister or Minister of State. Needless to say if other Independent Deputies or any Deputies seek assistance, as they do, on a basis of courtesy we always try to assist them.
While it was a special arrangement during the term of the last Government, it is not so much now.
On 22 November, there was a report in The Irish Times which appeared to indicate that the type of approaches being made to a number of Independent Deputies was far from normal. Deputy Finian McGrath and Deputy James Breen were mentioned in the report. Both described being “love bombed” in November by the Government.
They wish.
That is far from what would be considered normal discussions. Given that Deputy McGrath said he would not support a Fianna Fáil Government unless Aer Lingus remained wholly in State ownership, will the Taoiseach go further with this love bombing? Has Aer Lingus been parked for Deputy McGrath and does the Taoiseach have plans to launch further love bombing raids on the Opposition benches?
The House will have noticed that during this session I have been working particularly hard on Deputy Joe Higgins but I am not getting far.
Deputy McGrath is safe.
He even went so far as to join his party.
The Taoiseach said the facility is not being used as much now. Perhaps he would explain further why that is so. Is it that it is not useful? What is the reason? It would appear to Opposition Members that an advantage is being given to certain chosen Deputies by the provision of a fast track into Departments. If the Taoiseach says this facility is available to all Deputies, is he willing to forward to us the name of the contact person so we can avail of it?
Is the Deputy thinking of supporting us?
The last Government lasted its full constitutional term and the Deputies who supported that Government were enormously helpful in helping us achieve that. We would not have achieved it without them. Obviously, on a basis of courtesy to the Deputies, as has happened many times during my time in this House, parties will help those Independents who support them. Otherwise, let us be honest, they would not support them. The numbers in the House are different in this Dáil and that is the reason the facility is different.
In my experience, the age old practice of Members waylaying the Taoiseach and Ministers in the House to seek assistance or to get them to meet delegations probably works more effectively than going through an official. It happens here daily. I was caught twice yesterday and was asked to meet people by Opposition Deputies. I would not be doing my job if I did not do that. It has always been a courtesy of the House. It should not be seen as a big deal or special arrangement.
Surely that is a waste of the civil servant's time. Can we really afford——
That civil servant has other jobs to do. He does this as well.
This is a facility the Government has provided to ensure that it has insurance in case there is a bust up between the parties in the Government. If the Taoiseach is saying it is no use to anybody and that we are better off to lobby the Ministers in the House, does he not accept that this is a waste of a civil servant's time and that the civil servant should be responsible for something that has more of an impact?
The civil servant who is involved at any particular time has plenty of work to do. We should not make a big deal of a Member who supports the Government being able, from time to time, to get assistance. It is not a big deal. The Deputy should try supporting the Government and see if it helps her.
7 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his Department’s Estimates for 2005. [32017/04]
View answer8 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the Estimates for his Department for 2005. [33212/04]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 8 together.
The total allocation for my Department for 2005 is €37.444 million, of which €18.869 million is for administration and €18.626 million is for other services. Details of the Estimates are set out in the Abridged Estimates for the Public Service, which were presented to the Dáil on 18 November 2004. I look forward to addressing specific issues relating to the Estimates provisions when the Committee on Finance and the Public Service considers them in the usual way. I also look forward to responding to questions Deputies may wish to table separately about specific aspects of the work of my Department.
The Taoiseach commented yesterday about an individual consultancy case. When a Department appoints consultants and they travel abroad in the course of their work, is it the procedure for the consultant to travel to the destination and then invoice the Department for the flight or does the cost of the trip come from the Department's fund automatically?
I can only speak from my own experience. I do not have anybody contracted to the Department. My staff are staff of my Department and in the case mentioned by the Deputy, if the staff were approved to travel somewhere, the Department would pay the bills. It is certainly not the case that they would send a bill to the Department. That is the norm in my experience and Deputy Noel Dempsey, who is here too, says that it is the norm in his Department as well.
There are some interesting figures in the Estimates on which the Taoiseach might elaborate. The sum for consultancy services has increased by 23%, a significant amount. Ireland held the EU Presidency this year and people would assume there would be additional costs for consultancy services but it is hard to see why there is such an increase for next year. The fact that the Government has spent enormous amounts of money commissioning consultants is a matter of some concern. Will the Taoiseach elaborate on that?
The Forum for Peace and Reconciliation has served a very useful function. Does the increase in the subhead result from the fact that the Taoiseach intends to reconvene the forum following recent difficulties relating to Northern Ireland? On the commemoration initiative, what will we commemorate in 2005?
The forum subhead is kept in place in the event that it may be required to reconvene, as has happened a few times in the past five or six years. We do not have a particular plan in this regard, but we bring it back from time to time. We keep the structure in place, though no costs arise from that.
Almost all the funding available under subhead 10 is for the e-Cabinet initiative. While the initiative is still within budget, it has been extended across Departments. The timing difference relates to expenditure which will occur in 2005. A great deal of the work has been done, but the billing period will be in 2005.
The commemoration initiative subhead is a small budget held in the Department of the Taoiseach. Most of the provision for next year is accounted for and will be used to pay off the remaining bills of the Robert Emmet commemoration, which is complete. The Department has arranged to fund the organisers to help them to defray the costs. Department payments were issued last year and this year and will also be issued next year. I might be wrong, but off the top of my head there will be no major commemoration in 2005.
When looking at the Estimates for the Department of the Taoiseach, it stands out that consultancy services will increase by 23% next year. Is there a particular reason for that? As one would expect, consultancy costs accrued as a result of the EU Presidency, but why is the figure being increased by 23%?
That is the subhead on which I replied to Deputy McManus. It covers the information society e-Cabinet project. While the project is operating across Departments, the billing period will be in 2005 rather than 2004. That accounts for most of the money, although there may be other projects.
Will the Taoiseach tell me the total cost of the e-Cabinet project? Will he consider holding further sessions of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation this year rather than keeping it on ice? The House will have a debate on Northern Ireland tomorrow, which inevitably will be limited. The current scenario deserves full, open-ended debate for which the forum provides.
The Deputy is going outside the realm of these questions.
I do not think so. Do you?
I do.
I will move on to the last point in my question then. Under subhead J on the inquiry into Dunnes payments, we appear still to be paying for the McCracken tribunal, which is well over. Will the Taoiseach explain why there continues to be a cost involved as we move into 2005?
I have checked my notes and confirm that funding under subhead E relates to the Robert Emmet commemoration. An amount of €65,000 is provided for suitable projects, most of which will be used to meet expenses incurred by the organisers of the Robert Emmet commemoration.
The provision for the tribunal of inquiry into Dunnes payments is a contingency provision to meet costs which may be awarded to parties represented at the tribunal. While the majority of costs have been paid, two parties have not yet claimed costs. As Deputy McManus stated correctly, it is some years since the tribunal completed its work. While the likelihood that the costs will be claimed decreases with time, the advice has been that we must make provision for costs that could arise.
I do not have full details of e-Cabinet costs, though I outlined them to the House recently in response to a parliamentary question. I can send Deputy McManus a note containing the information.
I thank the Taoiseach.
9 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the November 2004 meeting of the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public private partnerships; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32018/04]
View answer10 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the meeting of the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public private partnership in November 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33157/04]
View answer11 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach when the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public private partnership last met; the number of meetings held during 2005; when the next meeting is due; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33215/04]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 9 to 11, inclusive, together.
Since I last reported to the House, there have been two meetings of the cross-departmental team on housing, infrastructure and public private partnerships. The meetings took place on 17 November and 1 December. Discussions at the November meeting focused on public private partnerships and broadband technology. The team noted major progress in the public private partnership programme in the roads and water services areas and considered how it might be improved in terms of deal-flow and capacity at Government level. In its discussion of broadband, the team focused on the significant progress made during the past year. Improvements have included reduced prices, increased demand and, crucially, a major expansion in supply, especially through the ongoing roll-out of the metropolitan area networks programme.
To date, experience has shown the cost of public private partnership projects to be between 8% to 30% more expensive than traditional methods. Have we learned anything from the experience in the education sector? I was in Clones recently to visit a new school built through public private partnership which emerged very quickly and is a beautiful building. However, I understand that as the company which built it has the maintenance contract, the cost incurred for relatively small items can be excessive. Has the cross-departmental team examined the nature of the costing of the public private partnership process? In the Estimates and multi-annual budgetary envelopes for the next few years, provision is made for a number of public private partnership proposals.
Has the cross-departmental team considered the response received on foot of 13 expressions of interest in a second terminal at Dublin Airport? Has the team examined the expressions of interest and will it make a decision on the provision of a terminal under the public private partnership system?
As the Deputy knows, we have not been using public private partnership to the extent we should. There are not many companies involved and, as happened in other countries, the process has been pressed back. We have learned a great deal from partnership projects. We benefited from the recent report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and made modifications as a result. The ongoing maintenance of schools must be dealt with in the context of the contracts issue. The project has been successful in terms of providing schools.
Public private partnerships have a valuable contribution to make in delivering the ambitious infrastructural agenda set out in the national development plan. Progress has been good on roads, water services and schools, but slow in other areas. The Minister for Finance acknowledged openly in his Budget Statement that targets set last year for public private partnership projects funded by unitary payments from the Exchequer will not be met. The Minister adjusted the figures accordingly and the process is being examined to discover what changes might be desirable to achieve an accelerated level of delivery of public private partnership projects.
Already, the Government is pursuing a number of initiatives designed to achieve greater efficiency and improve cost-effectiveness in the delivery of the project. In particular, we have made modifications. New guidelines are being developed covering process auditing and stakeholder consultation. The capital appraisal guidelines, which have been in place for some ten years, are being revised. Steps are being taken to improve integration between the national development plan and expenditure review processes. At the end of the day, however, the PPPs, as with all forms of procurement, have to be considered in the light of factors such as value for money, affordability, quality of output and speed of delivery. All of those issues are under way.
On the issue of the terminal, while it is not being dealt with in this particular committee, the Minister is making progress with the new board in Aer Lingus in trying to come to a resolution on that matter.
Will the Taoiseach indicate whether the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public private partnership is proceeding on the basis that a critical infrastructure Bill will not now be in place, given that it has been taken off the agenda? I am aware the Taoiseach talked about it yesterday but as we speak it is off the agenda. Is that the basis on which the cross-departmental team is proceeding?
In addition to the lessons the Taoiseach says have been learned from the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, will he indicate whether any further lessons can be learned or information gained with regard to the €60 million project for the Cork School of Music, the construction of which under the PPP process was planned by Jarvis plc., although I understand that contract has been sold on to a German group, Hochtief Developments, which is expected to make a proposal before Christmas? Is the Taoiseach confident that proposal will be received before Christmas?
The Deputy can askgeneral questions to the Taoiseach but specific questions are more appropriate to the line Minister.
I understand that but the Taoiseach has a knowledge of this matter because we discussed it previously and the Cork School of Music is seen as representing the PPP way of working. Perhaps the Taoiseach might refer to it as an aspect of PPP policy.
On the Cork School of Music, the Government has approved it. The company has faced its own difficulties and it is trying to restructure but from a Government perspective, we had approved this project. That one has experienced a long delay and difficulties. Others, including the Maritime College, have worked very well. As I said, we are reviewing the issue.
The Deputy asked about the critical infrastructure Bill. As I stated yesterday, we remain committed to that Bill but the Minister has stated clearly that he is examining the various aspects of it. I am not clear what that review is, but he is to report early in the new year. What was the other question?
Is the Taoiseach confident that the proposal will be received before Christmas, given the difficulties with the Cork School of Music? Does he expect it to run according to plan?
Yes. I hope when that is resolved — I am not sure if it is resolved — we can get on with it. It is a very good proposal which the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, and I worked on and approved after some considerable time. If I recall correctly, the issue was discussed in one of our final meetings before Christmas last year and we gave it the green light but the company ran into its own problems on it. It was committed to it, however, and I hope it will be taken up again because it is a good project management——
As the song goes, "What's another year?".
The Taoiseach will accept that our experience of building schools is that the schools have been of very good quality but will he agree that there is a significant cost involved in using the PPP process, which does not denote value for money? Has the experience not shown that? The Taoiseach said that in some areas progress has been made at various levels of speed but in the health area no progress whatsoever has been made. A total of 850 long-term nursing beds were promised by way of a PPP process. That proposal has been with the Department of Health and Children for years. Will the Taoiseach accept that it has not delivered on the promise given, that this is having a direct impact on the failure of the Government to tackle the accident and emergency crisis in that there are not sufficient acute beds available, many people continue to be inappropriately placed and the capacity promised under the PPP method was not delivered? Those 850 long-term nursing beds would have made a huge difference and perhaps the Taoiseach——
That question might be more appropriate to the Minister for Health and Children.
I would like to know the Taoiseach's view. Does he accept that whatever promise was made, it has not been delivered upon? Will he now accept that he needs to do the business in another way?
A general question on PPPs is in order.
Some of these schemes are extremely good and their value is obvious. To give the example of the schools, the maintenance of the schools continues for 25 years at the end of which the public sector takes over. It is obliged to do that. It puts the maintenance contract in writing and hands that function back to the State at the end of that period. That is the benefit of it. Many of these schemes have a much longer life than others throughout the country. Major problems arose with schools built 25 years ago using asphalt roofs in that the schools do not appear to get even ten years out of the roof.
There are downsides to PPPs, but the real benefit is that projects can be done speedily. In my constituency, I turned the first sod on a site for a very large hotel on the first working day in January 2003. I opened a 200 bed hotel in September——
I am talking about nursing beds.
Will the Deputy listen to the point?
I am not interested in hotel beds.
Will the Deputy listen to the point? Within 20 months the hotel was built. Under our structures working on the capital programme we will not achieve that type of progress.
The Taoiseach said we would under the PPP process.
The Tullamore Hospital and other hospital projects were completed quite speedily, but they will not reach that timescale, and that is the difficulty.
The Taoiseach promised them under PPP.
Deputy McManus, please allow the Taoiseach continue.
They were to be provided under PPP.
If the Deputy listens to contributions on Question Time, most people criticise the PPP projects. I am saying the benefit of them is speed. The redevelopment of St. Vincent's Hospital is not being done under the PPP process. We are not using PPPs to build our hospitals.
A total of 850 nursing beds were promised.
We are building the hospitals but we are not using the PPP process because of the issues that arise here time and again to the effect that we get much better value if the State does it.
Where are the nursing beds?
The hospitals are being built. Tullamore Hospital is finished.
I call Deputy Joe Higgins.
We are talking about nursing beds.
Deputy McManus, I have called Deputy Joe Higgins. There has to be order to Question Time.
The St. Vincent's redevelopment project is almost finished. The project at Blanchardstown is finished. They have been built but not under the PPP process.
The Taoiseach did not answer the question I asked.
I ask Deputy McManus to resume her seat and allow Deputy Joe Higgins to speak.
There will be more use of the single tender contract.
We will probably get them built quicker.
How can the taxpayer have any confidence in so-called public private partnerships when the so-called experiment implemented by the Minister sitting beside the Taoiseach, Deputy Dempsey, will cost the taxpayer much more than would be the case had those buildings been maintained publicly? We now face the incredible vista of private companies speculating on the maintenance of our public services? Does the Taoiseach agree that if structures are cumbersome, it is his responsibility to make those structures flexible and democratic so that they can move much more quickly? Reference to the quality of buildings is a red herring because the building specifications are determined by the instructions given to whoever carries out the contract.
Does the Taoiseach agree that taxpayers will regard with dread further public private partnerships for the delivery of major road projects given their incredible experience of National Toll Roads' management of the West Link bridge over the River Liffey? Does the Taoiseach know that €1 billion will have been taken at that location by 2020 and, despite the huge profits taken by the company and the huge stealth taxes taken by the State, the toll will be raised to €1.70 within the next 12 months? How can taxpayers not regard the prospect of further such examples with dread, especially given that the result is the greatest traffic blockage in the State at the West Link toll bridge?
In medieval times it might have been appropriate to pay a ha'penny to take one's ass and cart across London Bridge. In 2004, with tens of thousands of workers trying to get to their places of work via the M50 toll bridge, it is——
If the Deputy had had his way, the bridge would not have been built.
The Minister should allow Deputy Joe Higgins to submit a final question to the Taoiseach.
If the county council had been funded by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, it could have built the bridge.
If Deputy Higgins had had his way, the bridge would not have been built. It would have been left to private sector speculators.
Deputy Higgins should be brief.
I would not mind if the Deputy were asking a question.
Deputy Higgins should be brief and not allow himself to be deflected by interruptions. The Minister should allow the Deputy to speak.
The Government has given carte blanche to private sector speculators. That is the point.
Does the Taoiseach not agree that motorists, who have paid high taxes and are trying to get to work——
They do not have to use the bridge.
——to make more tax for the State, are being subjected to the indignity and frustration of an hour's delay each way to make more money for a private company?
Deputy Sargent raised the question of PPP schools building projects. Those five schools would not have been built without PPPs, despite arguments that procedures should have been changed or things done differently. Nevertheless, a bundle of schools were built by the private sector and are up and running. Traditional procedures would have taken years, as every Deputy knows. Over a long period, the private sector will look after the maintenance of the schools and the cost will be recouped. I accept that the cost of those PPPs was higher than traditional procedures but their speed and efficiency was greater.
Can the structures not be changed?
Existing structures are much slower. I do not say the processes of accountability are not wrong but the stages which must be gone through make them slower. The private sector would have ten schools built while we were looking at the drawings. That is the reality and it will not change. It was the way when I came into the House 25 years ago and it will be the way when I am 25 years dead. A review or procedures will not change that. Let us be honest about that.
We are not using PPPs to the extent we had thought. In the budget for 2004 we examined five-year multi-annual financial envelopes for different infrastructural projects. We extended that in the recent budget to a ten-year timeframe in the area of transport. We have earmarked a proportion of capital envelopes for special projects and have tried to improve project management techniques. We have done that well and the Monasterevin bypass is a good example of this. It came in on budget and a year ahead of time. Under the Planning and Development Act 2000, we have improved timeframes and compulsory purchase order issues and we now have PPPs managed by local authorities and single tier projects. An Bord Pleanála has adjusted its procedures for dealing with projects. We have made considerable improvements in a host of areas and they are working well. Projects are coming in on budget and ahead of time, there is better transparency and construction standards have been developed.
We all want to see the M50 improved. We need to see it widened, working well and the toll bridge working better. Modern technology is being developed throughout the world and we hope to see some of that used sooner rather than later on toll roads so that people can get through more speedily. There are problems on the M50. Deputy Higgins is probably right in saying that if there had been local taxes and charges, as there are in other countries, Fingal County Council might have had sufficient money to build the road.
I did not say that.
They did not have the idea. In other countries that is how things would have been and Deputy Higgins is probably correct in saying it would have been done more efficiently.
I was referring to the money the Taoiseach's friends were sending offshore.
