Vol. 513 No. 6
11 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the number of occasions on which the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Infrastructural Development and Public and Private Partnerships has met; when the committee last met; and if he will make a statement on its progress to date. [1347/00]
12 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the number of occasions on which the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Infrastructural Development and Public and Private Partnerships has met; when the committee last met; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2356/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11 and 12 together.
The Cabinet Sub-committee on Infrastructural Development and Public Private Partnership, which I chair, includes the Tánaiste, the Ministers for Finance, Public Enterprise, Environment and Local Government, Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Attorney General. The general purpose of the sub-committee is to oversee the delivery of key infrastructure in the context of the national development plan.
The Cabinet sub-committee is assisted by a cross-departmental team drawn from the Departments involved. The terms of reference of the team are to develop and oversee the implementation of a framework for action and, in particular, to bring forward proposals to deal with planning approval issues to reduce delays in infrastructure delivery. These could include proposals for legislative and constitutional change; support for the development and implementation of public private partnerships; and support for the ongoing work of the Cabinet committee.
The Cabinet sub-committee has held meetings with CIE and the National Roads Authority to discuss the two agencies' plans to ensure the timely delivery of the priority objectives in the national development plan. The committee will consider the recommendations of the cross-departmental team on statutory approval and legal issues at its next meeting. To date, the Cabinet sub-committee has met five times including its last meeting on 1 February.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. I understand that since this question was previously answered on 30 November, the sub-committee has met on two additional occasions. In that initial reply and in today's reply, the Taoiseach stated that the Cabinet sub-committee, which comprises seven people, including the Attorney General and almost half the Cabinet, is supported by a cross-departmental team. Does the Taoiseach have details of the composition of that team? Has he taken steps to ensure the over-runs which characterised the previous national development plan will not occur during the course of the current plan? If so, what are they?
I do not have the names of the members of the cross-departmental team with me but I will forward them to the Deputy. The officials involved are senior people in the Departments.
In other words, they are all very busy people.
Although they are busy people, they deal with infrastructural issues in their own work. The head of roads and head of transport are involved and I have assigned someone in my own Department to the team. By and large, these people are not involved in other non-infrastructural issues and are not Secretaries General in their Departments.
There were two major projects under the previous national development plan, namely the C-ring around Dublin and the port tunnel and, by extension, the Luas project, which are hopelessly behind schedule. Those projects are also included in the new plan together with new major infrastructural proposals. What steps have been taken to ensure those projects will be completed within the timeframe of the current plan?
First, we are trying to deal with the planning issues which created many of the problems and make the necessary legislative changes in that regard. The sub-committee provided a detailed presentation last week which had been in preparation over the previous six or seven weeks on the types of issues which must be tackled. Some of the issues are administrative, many are legislative and none of them is constitutional. I stated previously that we might need to consider how particular matters would be dealt with in the courts and how compulsory purchase orders and planning development issues would be tackled. A memorandum will be forthcoming to Government on these matters next week or the following one. We can learn from what happened in the past five or six years in regard to the issues which resulted in planning delays.
What has been done to involve the private sector in these discussions? We are talking about public private partnerships. Someone contacted me over the weekend who knew nothing about them. Has any information has been given to the private sector? Has it been involved in any of the discussions which will hopefully contribute to the success of these partnerships?
The private sector is closely involved. About two years ago IBEC produced a report on public private partnerships. The Cabinet committee is dealing directly with IBEC which has a public partnership committee. A number of people are interested in the projects. The Department of Finance has also set up a public private partnership section. A conference on public private partnership was held in Dublin Castle. There is great interaction between the public and private sectors. Areas of interest to the private sector have also been identified. I am hopeful the private sector will take up a number of the projects because there is considerable scope in them.
I wish to raise a matter previously referred to by Deputy Quinn. The National Roads Authority is not really an authority. As far as roads are concerned, local authorities have the real authority. There is a multiplicity of local authorities on any given route which leads to constant procedural and planning delays. As a result, it is difficult to have the predictability and speed of delivery which attracts private money. Legislation is required to change this so the full potential of PPPs is achieved.
That issue has been discussed at some length. Subject to correction, we have been advised that legislation can be changed to give the NRA the power to deal across local authority areas. It will be possible to deal with a project in one piece. Breaking roads into small sections will not attract funds. A legislative change would allow the NRA power across local authority boundaries to deal with a project as one contract and that would cut down on administration and legal objections.
When will that be done?
Shortly.
The Taoiseach referred to a report recently obtained by the committee and two specific issues have been discussed by a number of people, including the Attorney General. The first is to give effect to the commitment to have a motorway or dual carriage between Dublin, Limerick and Cork – the N8 and the N7, if my references are correct. At present this would require six or seven separate hearings as each section of that new motorway would go through different local authority or administrative areas. Does the Government intend to amend the relevant legislation to provide for one overall public inquiry?
That is correct.
Will that be covered in the Planning and Development Bill or the motorway legislation? The second issue was highlighted by a number of people and taken up subsequently by the Attorney General in a reported speech attributed to him – the desirability for a dedicated section of the High Court to deal with citizens' legitimate objections to proposed developments, as in the case of the two year delay in the completion of the C-ring around Dublin city. Are there administrative or legislative provisions for a specially designated court to fast track legitimate objections to any infrastructural proposals such as eminent domains, CPOs etc.?
I will allow Deputy Joe Higgins a brief question before the Taoiseach's final reply.
(Dublin West): Does the Taoiseach believe it is proper that a project such as the proposed second bridge over the Liffey valley on the M50, which is guaranteed to be an absolute goldmine, should be given to private operators—
That is a specific question.
(Dublin West): It relates to public private partnerships.
It is a specific aspect of it which should be the subject of a separate question.
(Dublin West): With respect, we have been dealing with motorways, including the C-ring, for the past ten minutes. Should a goldmine operation such as that be given to private operators rather than a local authority with the funds going to the public purse?
The Minister for the Environment and Local Government must give approval for the scheme referred to by Deputy Higgins. The Deputy should table a question to the Minister on the matter. I would like to see the matter being dealt with.
On the first part of Deputy Quinn's question, the intention is to legislate to allow the NRA and the process of legalities and objections to be dealt with as one issue.
A motorways Act or planning development?
I am not sure. On the second part of the Deputy's question, that matter is being examined but there are strong arguments why this may not be a great idea. There is a view that it could perhaps become an abused court.
