Vol. 533 No. 6
3 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach the number of times on which the Cabinet committee on infrastructure has met; the number of meetings planned during the remainder of 2001; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8757/01]
The Cabinet committee on infrastructure and public-private partnerships has met 13 times since January 2000. It will continue to meet monthly throughout 2001.
The Cabinet committee on infrastructure and PPPs is an integral part of Government and, as with any Cabinet committee, its meetings are an integral part of the business of Government. The practice has grown up over time of allowing questions in the House as to the date and number of meetings of such committees. Questions as to the business conducted at Cabinet committee meetings have never been allowed in the House on the grounds that they are internal to Government. The reasons for this approach are founded on sound policy principles and the need to avoid infringing the constitutional protection of Cabinet confidentiality.
A great deal of work is being done on all aspects of the infrastructure agenda. Questions on particular aspects should be tabled to the relevant Minister.
Does the Taoiseach agree that key national development plan targets will not be met in view of the cuts in capital allocations in the revised Estimates published last week? For example, the Department of the Environment and Local Government has lost £40 million, of which some £20 million was for housing and £15 million for water and sewerage provision. The schools and hospital buildings budget has lost £45 million, as a consequence of which it will, certainly, run behind schedule. The Department on which the Taoiseach is relying to deliver a child care service, the Minister for which is sitting beside him—
The Deputy is moving outside the scope of the question.
I am not.
Supplementary questions may not seek to raise matters discussed by the committee. Such questions would impinge on matters internal to the Cabinet.
Clearly, what I am asking about was not discussed by the committee.
It is not appropriate. The question is statistical in nature—
It is not.
It relates to the number of meetings planned during the year and the number of times on which the committee has met.
No, the question asks if the Taoiseach will make a statement on the matter. As part of that statement I want to know by how much he will miss the national development plan targets since he has slashed the budgets—
That does not arise from the question. I call Deputy Clune.
—particularly for child care. The Taoiseach is relying on the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to deliver such facilities—
I have called Deputy Clune.
—exactly the area which has been cut.
I have called Deputy Clune.
On a point of order, that is a legitimate supplementary question.
The Deputy cannot broaden the scope of the question beyond that submitted.
I am not doing so.
The Deputy is broadening the question.
This is precisely the reason the committee was established.
The Deputy asked a statistical question. The question relates to the number of times on which the committee has met, the number of meetings planned for the remainder of 2001, and asks if the Taoiseach will make a statement. The Taoiseach has done so.
May I rephrase the question so as to be in order? Will the Taoiseach arrange a special meeting of the committee to ensure the budgets, which have been slashed, are restored in order that housing, water and sewerage, schools, hospitals and child care facilities can be adequately provided for?
Again the Deputy is speaking about issues to be discussed.
I am in order.
Before the Taoiseach replies, I want to again draw attention to this question. Supplementary questions may not be raised on matters discussed by the committee or not discussed by it.
It is a matter of public record.
Four or five Deputies are offering and I will call each of them, but I ask them to be specific to the question before us.
It is a matter of public record.
To save the time of the House, I wish to raise a matter on the same issue.
I am sure everyone offering wishes to speak on the same issue, and they may do so as long as what they say is within the terms of the question.
It will take me merely half a minute to point out one salient fact. According to the PCP published last week, in terms of capital spending, the Government unspent some £650 million last year, which is an indication, and this is relevant to the work of the committee—
That does not arise under this question.
—of the incapacity of the Government to spend that money and meet the targets set.
I ask the Deputies to stay within the Standing Orders.
I will try to answer the question and stay within the Standing Orders as best I can.
The Taoiseach cannot talk about anything the committee discussed or did not discuss. That is what the Leas-Cheann Comhairle said. The Taoiseach will have to walk a very tight line.
I will not talk about the committee.
The Taoiseach should not mention the committee.
The Government remains fully committed to the delivery of the NDP infrastructural programme within the timescale of the programme, which is 2007. Expenditure on the infrastructural programme this year will represent an increase of almost 30% over the out-turn for last year. Deputy McDowell's point is that expenditure in the first year of the programme was about 95% of the target set.
Some £650 million was not spent.
Deputy Noonan's point is that the post-budget revisions on the public capital programme will have a marginal impact on overall NDP capital spending on the infrastructural programme, which covers the issues the Deputy raised, namely, roads, public transport, health, housing and child care. It amounts to 3.5% of the total expenditure allocation. Last year expenditure was about 95% of the target set. In terms of that 3.5%, there were capacity issues involved, but they will not create a difficulty in 2001.
The national development plan was published in 1999 and I presume the costs of infrastrutural works are in 1999 prices. Given that inflation in construction projects is running at approximately 15%, has the plan been revised? How has the capacity of the construction industry to deliver the national development plan and planning, environmental impact statements etc. impacted on the progress of the plan?
As I said here previously, the Government has been concerned with the level of capacity in the construction industry. The level of tender price inflation is a little lower than what the Deputy said. It is 12.5%. It is not sustainable at that level, as it would eat into the programme. The Deputy is correct in that analysis.
We established a high level group under the Department of the Environment and Local Government and an action plan will be published shortly by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to deal specifically with these issues. In the meantime a number of actions have taken place, one of which included actively encouraging foreign contractors to tender for projects under the NDP. We discussed these a number of times last year, but what has been happening since the beginning of the year is encouraging. Quite a number of competitive tenders from foreign companies have come in. A large number of contractors have registered their interest in bidding for large road and rail projects under the NDP. There are a number of large ones in terms of PPPs for the next period. There is the PPP aspect to the Limerick by-pass, the Kilcock-Kinnegad road and Waterford bridge and road. In all of those there is significant interest by the contractors. The Kildare by-pass is due to start one of these days, if it has not already started, and there is also the south-eastern motorway and the port tunnel.
All of these have significant contractors or sub-contractors from abroad. The second point is the recruitment of key building professionals and town planners from abroad. The FÁS jobs Ireland campaign has proved very effective in that area.
I have a question about the remit of the committee following the Taoiseach's reply where he listed a number of largescale road projects. Is it correct to assume the committee will follow European standards in relation to infrastructure works? I have raised this issue with the Minister for the Environment and Local Government in relation to the National Roads Authority. Will the committee insist that EN1317, a European standard, is applied to the national development plan so that crash barriers are installed on the roads on which people drive at speed? Should that standard be applied rather than the National Roads Authority standard which is an old 1960's British standard? Will the Taoiseach ensure the committee brings its remit and authority to bear on that matter so that money is not misspent and European funding jeopardised by the fact that the standard applied is not the highest European standard?
It is a fair point and I will take it up. I assume they are the highest standards but I will certainly raise the issue.
In view of the remarks made by the Taoiseach on the capacity problem shortly after the setting up of the Cabinet sub-committee, is he satisfied the average length of the national road construction projects is a mere seven kilometres and does he feel that is sufficient? That clearly does not attract the large construction firms from abroad with their resources, equipment and labour to release Irish capacity. They come as financial partners but they do not bring the extra resources we need. There is a need to release—
I draw the attention of all the Members to the fact that we are going well outside the scope of this question.
Crash barriers were included.
This is why this sub-committee was set up.
The question was submitted by Deputy Noonan and is very specific in what can be discussed. I will allow the question to the Taoiseach.
There will be no need for crash barriers around the city because the national development plan is moving so slowly.
Is the Taoiseach happy with the current situation and is there the capacity to deliver on the national plan considering the high wage inflation within the industry and the current difficulty with a particular union?
I am well aware of that. The national roads programme is progressing well but we are worried by what is eaten away by inflation. The Deputy mentioned the average length of road projects and is correct in saying they do not attract contractors, but following the changes in planning legislation the situation will be more attractive for all major roads. The Waterford road will now involve just two contracts and will be tendered as such. The same will hopefully go for the five routes so they will create interest among foreign contractors. It is the intention of the National Roads Authority that the length and distance on the five major road structures will be of a significant length to attract the interest of the international market. They now have the power under the Planning and Development Act to cross county and local authority boundaries so they will be able to seek tenders for substantive stretches of road.
This must be the only area of Government expenditure that is underspending. Does the Taoiseach agree there is a need for new legislation to streamline some of the processes, including the environmental impact process and compulsory purchase? Is the committee considering new legislation?
I cannot say what goes on at the meetings, but listening to organisations and agencies in various locations it seems they do not have those constraints. The Planning and Development Act removed the difficulties they previously encountered.
I put it to the Taoiseach that a key component of the national development plan is regional development, a fundamental pillar of which is the choice of growth centres to act as engines for economic growth in the regions outside Dublin. A grave deficiency on the part of the committee, on the part of the Taoiseach and on the part of the Government has been the refusal by the Government to choose appropriate growth centres in the regions. When will the sub-committee consider this matter, or will it ever do so?
The Deputy would find it useful to table a question to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government as he could provide the information. The group within the Department of the Environment and Local Government working on this hopes to have its work completed by the end of the year. It has the work well advanced and it has also discussed it with many other organisations and agencies as part of the spatial report.
I notice from some of the magazines in the professional world of architects, engineers and surveyors that they have already worked out some of the areas, so it is not a secret as to where some of these centres will be. The group is trying to adopt a holistic approach to regional development. The process, which has continued for a year or two, is very detailed and it is hoped the work will be fully completed this year. Much of the interim work has already been done.
Will the Taoiseach explain how the Planning and Development Act is removing the constraints to which he referred given that most of the provisions in the Act have not yet been commenced?
The Act ensures the planners and the NRA do not have to stick to the previous rigidities under which they could plan and design schemes only within local authority and county boundaries. They can now work on equal stretches on the five major roads – Dublin-Waterford, Dublin-Cork, Dublin-Limerick, Dublin-Belfast and Dublin-Galway. This has allowed them to bring in one project team, one planning team and to assemble the CPO structures and all necessary arrangements in one sequence. This will quicken the process from design, to planning, to CPO and, hopefully, to construction. This is how the Act has improved things.
(Mayo): Given that some of the key elements in the plan, for example, the Luas project and the port tunnel, are way over budget and time, and given that commentators reckon that between 55% and 60% of the national development plan will be achieved within the timescale set out, is the Taoiseach satisfied the Cabinet committee and the various sub-committees have the necessary capacity to manage the infrastructural section of the plan? Does he agree that what is needed is a more dynamic new institution working directly to his Department and which would work within a specific timescale and strictly within budget?
They have to work within budget and within the NDP and the Community Support Framework. A discussion document will shortly be issued on co-operation and co-ordination among the eastern regional groups, namely, the local authorities in Dublin and surrounding areas. The national roads programme is well ahead of schedule; the QBC network and additional buses are in place and nine of the 11 bus corridors will be in place by the end of the month; Luas is on schedule for two years' time and work on the design for the metro is under way, though it will take a long time.
The legal reforms provided for in the Planning and Development Act are being or, as Deputy Gilmore said, will be implemented shortly. The proposals for a radical reform of public transport structures have been published while good progress is being made on the PPP programme in respect of which monitoring arrangements have been established for detailed project tracking. There is also development of the communications strategy under the NDP. The committee, which I chair, is doing very good work. The civil servants, the NRA and other groups help to make it one of the most effective of all the Cabinet committees.
Will the Taoiseach consider putting some mechanisms in place in order that the Dáil will be regularly informed when allocations to Departments for capital spending are not being spent? For example, for the past two years, a very big allocation has been given to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform for the provision of child care facilities. While they were announced with great élanand publicity, they have not been spent. Last year, out of a total of £60 million, about £120,000 was spent. I have asked the Taoiseach if he will put a procedure in place in order that the Dáil will be regularly informed when Departments are not doing the job the Government has asked them to do, that is, to spend capital moneys in a way the public requires. Certainly, there is no more pressing issue facing young people than the issue of child care.
It was for that very reason that on two occasions last year the Government increased the allocation for child care—
It was not spent.
—for which the Minister responsible is sitting beside me. It took time to get most schemes up and running. Many of the groups concerned had to be formed and constituted before money could be drawn down. We gave a commitment under the PPF to provide more resources for this area. There is a budget committee in my Department. The estimates committee can also be used. I have no difficulty in saying that the committee should discuss with individual Ministers any shortfall or planned shortfall in expenditure.
I can understand the Taoiseach saying that he is reasonably happy with the work of the committee if he confines his travel to road only. He may not be as impressed if he had to travel by rail. Does the Taoiseach agree that there is a trend which witnesses a quicker roll-out of road projects due to the efficiency of the National Roads Authority and the fact that engineers are likely to be snapped up for road projects that can be contracted out more easily? Does he agree that there is a difficulty in acquiring engineering expertise and staff for the rail infrastructural aspects of the national development plan? Will he ensure there will be more balance at committee level given that there is no body equivalent to the NRA for railway infrastructure on which more emphasis needs to be placed if the gridlock and bottlenecks are to be relieved?
Regarding the infrastructural goals of the national development plan, does the Taoiseach agree that it is necessary to offer special tax concessions or other financial packages to entice foreign workers and engineers to come here?
As the Taoiseach is aware, a key component of the Planning and Development Bill was the ability of the State to designate strategic development zones. Given the get up and go attitude of the committee to date, how many such zones have been designated?
That question should be directed to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. I have an interest in one particular zone, Abbotstown, with which I have asked the Minister to proceed. I accept Deputy Sargent's point about the rail system on which more progress is required on a number of lines. It has huge potential. Seven or eight lines are being studied.
On the question of incentives for foreign workers, if the contracts are big enough they are definitely interested, although they must also comply with trade union regulations. They will not be interested in small projects, as Deputy Mitchell pointed out. When the value goes over a certain figure such as £60 million to £70 million they will be interested, whereas a smaller contract valued at perhaps £30 million to £40 million would not have the same attraction. That seems to be the indication after the first 15 months.
That concludes Taoiseach's Questions.
