Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 19 Feb 2003

Vol. 561 No. 5

Ceisteanna – Questions. - Interdepartmental and Cabinet Committees.

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

3 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public private partnerships will meet next; the number of meetings of the team planned for 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27093/02]

Denis Naughten

Ceist:

4 Mr. Naughten asked the Taoiseach when the last meeting of the Cabinet committee on infrastructure was held; and if he will make a statement on the matter [1147/03]

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

5 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public private partnerships; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1246/03]

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

6 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the progress made by the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public private partnerships; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1705/03]

Trevor Sargent

Ceist:

7 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public private partnerships; the number of meetings planned for 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2415/03]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Ceist:

8 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public private partnerships. [2774/03]

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

9 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on social inclusion and drugs last met. [1710/03]

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

10 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the number of meetings of the Cabinet committee on social inclusion and drugs held since June 2002; and when the next meeting is scheduled to be held. [3392/03]

Tony Gregory

Ceist:

11 Mr. Gregory asked the Taoiseach if the Cabinet committee on social inclusion and drugs has met to date in 2003; and if not, when it last met. [4460/03]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Ceist:

12 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on social inclusion and drugs last met. [4523/03]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 12, inclusive, together.

The Cabinet committee on social inclusion last met on 28 January 2003. The practice is for the committee to meet once a month. The next meeting is scheduled for 26 February.

Regarding the cross-departmental team and Cabinet committee on housing, infrastructure and public private partnerships, 11 meetings are planned for this year with the most recent meetings having taken place on 11 February and 28 January respectively. The next meeting of the team is scheduled for 12 March.

The team has agreed a work programme for the year, the overarching aims of which will be developing priorities under the various national development plan infrastructure headings for the remaining lifetime of the plan; working to secure better value for money outcomes, especially against the background of significant reductions in construction and tender price inflation; exploring the potential for greater use of non-Exchequer sources of funding, including PPPs, in the roll-out of national infrastructure priorities; and assessing the scope for the speedier delivery of outputs. I am confident that the agreed work programme for this year will contribute to building on the significant progress already made in implementing the infrastructure agenda set out in the national development plan.

Cabinet committees are an integral part of the Cabinet process. Questions about the business conducted at Cabinet or Cabinet committee meetings have never been allowed 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. As always, questions on particular policy issues should be tabled to relevant Ministers.

Am I missing something? Why are public private partnerships and the Cabinet committee on social inclusion and drugs being lumped together in one answer?

The Chair has no control over questions taken together.

The Chair certainly does not. I call Deputy Kenny.

Can we agree to deal with PPPs first and then social inclusion? It is ridiculous.

Questions Nos. 3 to 12, inclusive, are being taken together. Questions Nos. 3 to 8, inclusive, relate to infrastructure and Questions Nos. 9 to 12, inclusive, deal with the Cabinet committee on social inclusion and drugs. The Taoiseach said he will not answer questions on Cabinet committees because their proceedings are confidential, yet the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public private partnerships is not a Cabinet committee, rather a team of civil servants chaired by the Taoiseach's Department. Similar questions used to be answered by the Taoiseach and it is grossly unfair to lump Questions Nos. 3 to 12 together, along with questions on infrastructure. It is just not right and makes a mockery of being accountable, open and fair, which is what we are trying to do here. The Taoiseach can answer that along with my question. Can I ask—

I have a question about procedure. Previously we had very useful exchanges during Taoiseach's Question Time, when the Minister of State responsible for the social inclusion and drugs policy deputised for the Taoiseach when these questions came up. Useful information was elicited and valuable contributions by way of question were made by Opposition Members who have experience in dealing with the scourge of drugs. Can we revert to that? The Taoiseach should now just take the questions about public private partnerships and leave the Cabinet committee on social inclusion and drugs for separate questions.

We should acknowledge that there has been a mistake here. Questions on the work of the Cabinet committee on social inclusion and drugs are quite separate from those on public private partnerships. The issues are so serious they should be separated. Can the Taoiseach acknowledge that there has been a mistake in grouping them together? The Taoiseach should respond accordingly and deal only with the PPPs at this time and let the people, who are expecting to have the issue of drugs dealt with separately, given the opportunity to get into the House. Some of them were not expecting the questions to be grouped as they are.

I do not have responsibility for the grouping, nor do I ever get involved in that. However, I see the point that Members are making. The only answer I would give to Questions Nos. 9 to 12 would be to give the date of the meetings. I do not answer questions on the details. Deputy Joe Higgins is absolutely right. In the last Government the then Minister of State, Deputy Eoin Ryan, used to come in. We stopped using that time because for two years, unfortunately, I took up all of the time and the Minister of State never got in. I know Deputy Gregory and others rightly said they never got an opportunity to ask any questions.

Those questions moved to the new Department under the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív and Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern. I was only answering Questions Nos. 9 to 12 to say when the meeting took place. I was not going to answer any other detailed questions. However, I see the point. If Questions Nos. 9 to 12 were dealt with under the old system, they would never be answered during Taoiseach's Question Time, because, unfortunately, I take up the hour and a half every week.

Perhaps the communications unit might look at this.

I am trying to be helpful.

We used to get an opportunity every four or five weeks.

There is nothing to stop Deputy Higgins tabling a question to the relevant Minister to deal with the detail on drugs.

On a point of order—

I will ask the Department to look at it. However if we do it this way, I can just give the dates. The question can then be asked of the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív and Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, who has been assigned responsibility for the area. At least they are answering every month. If they are grouped with Taoiseach's questions, they will not get in at all. They will sit here but never get answered. I believe the Minister of State, Deputy Hanafin, got in during the last session for three minutes just before Christmas. It does not matter to me; I will be here anyway.

I assume the Taoiseach is not speaking hypothetically in saying he will be here anyway. I am sure the Taoiseach has taken note of the comments made by Members on how serious this is. What work has been done by the cross-departmental team in respect of a revision of the national development plan given that the original costings are grossly out of line with the assessed cost now? Is it true that in order to save money the National Roads Authority is proposing to narrow the width of motorways, which will eliminate central reservations from those motorways? As a consequence of not having central reservations, many fatal accidents have occurred when people have travelled on the wrong carriageway. Is that a cost saving measure related to escalating costs in the plan in general?

Although your first question is in order, the Chair has some difficulty with questions, which need more detailed answers. They might be more appropriate to the Minister—

This is public knowledge.

Yes, but the question might be more appropriate to the Minister with responsibility rather than direct to the Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach is overseeing implementation of the plan.

Yes, but on the detail—

The Taoiseach was able to answer about it in the Irish Examiner. The communications unit is obviously briefing him very fully in all these matters.

That may well be, but there is long standing precedent here that questions are addressed to the appropriate Minister with responsibility.

The Taoiseach might know.

I am really sorry I read the Irish Examiner late last night.

The Taoiseach got the name wrong unfortunately.

I am sorry if I got it wrong. I think I said Loraine Lee, but it was not bad since I read it at 1 o'clock this morning.

How did the Taoiseach miss "Primetime", no disrespect to the Irish Examiner?

I was still in my office when "Primetime" was on.

We are moving a considerably away from the questions.

If the Taoiseach paid his licence fee, he could watch "Primetime".

What was on that I missed?

It was about Alex Ferguson throwing the boot at Beckham.

There is a match on tonight.

In answer to Deputy Kenny's question, the work programme for the year has been agreed. In the weeks ahead, there is a particular focus on financing for the infrastructure priorities over the remaining lifetime of the programme. Key to that will be the aims and overall thrust of the national spatial strategy. In relation to the road priorities, possible non-Exchequer sources of finance are being examined by the sub-group, chaired by the Department of Transport. I understand that work will be completed shortly. A cross-departmental team is working on a paper on public transport, which is also due by the end of March. It is looking at priorities, targets and non-Exchequer funding options for 2003. There are other priorities in the areas of waste management, broadband and energy. If Members want, I can give an outline of what is being done in those areas.

Does the Taoiseach agree that investment in infrastructure is key to regaining the competitiveness we had until recently? Can the Taoiseach comment on statements by the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, reported in the newspapers today, that we may have to cut back on infrastructure funding because of the stability and growth pact we have signed with the European Union? Has the Cabinet committee met the board of the National Pension Reserve Fund to discuss the possibility of investment being diverted into roads and infrastructure projects? In relation to public private partnerships, have any alternatives to tolling roads been considered? Is anyone on the sub-committee considering utilising the existing capacity within our road and rail networks, for example Operation Freeflow and rail lines in the north inner city of Dublin that are lying idle? With that in mind why is the Dublin metro proposal missing six and a half inches? The metro proposed for Dublin is based on the European gauge, which means that we cannot run DART carriages on it. Does that not sound ludicrous?

The Deputy is getting into detail on his last question.

I know the Taoiseach has a vested interest in it, as it will be going through his constituency.

He may well have, but it would be more appropriate for the Minister for Transport.

I will answer a good few of the Deputy's questions without going into detail. With regard to his last question, the project is still at design stage and has not yet proceeded to tender. At this stage, none of the many groups involved is prepared to get into detail until it has seen details of the planning process, which would still be some years ahead. The preliminary costs have to be discussed by the group which will be given a presentation on the metro project when it meets today or tomorrow.

Does the Taoiseach not agree it would make sense to have one standard rail line throughout the country, rather than different gauges?

I do. We had a presentation on the rail issue at the committee a few weeks ago at which a detailed report, which, I understand, has not yet been published by the Minister for Transport, was presented. The report contains a full examination of rail projects as they currently stand and also looks at rail in the long-term. There are short-term, medium-term and long-term priorities, with which the Minister must deal. It is a comprehensive and detailed report.

The Deputy asked a question on roads. A report is being prepared by the cross-departmental group, which is looking at all non-Exchequer sources of finance for infrastructure projects, not just tolling. The group must produce a report on whether alternative financing mechanisms have been found. As the Deputy will be aware from one of my previous answers, tolling is the mechanism which keeps coming up as it provides a stream of finance.

The Deputy will also be aware that the new National Development Finance Agency may set up companies. These will only be effective if they can raise money and generate streams of money from projects. The committee has not had meetings with those responsible for the national pension fund. If the NDFA has financial proposals which would be of benefit to the national pension fund, it is a matter for it to explore them. I have given my view on this matter previously. There is no reason the national pension fund should not finance some of the long-term capital projects. It is a matter for the NDFA to present a proposal which would be a good investment.

This year some €5.3 billion is being spent on infrastructure here, around twice the GDP ratio of other European countries. The only other EU state which spends anywhere near what we are spending on infrastructure is Luxembourg, which spends about 1% less than us. In GDP terms, we are spending about twice the European average on infrastructure. As we are investing significant resources, the question of the growth and stability pact does not arise. While it prevents countries spending more than the specified figure, we are already spending double what everybody else is spending, with the exception of Luxembourg.

Without going into detail, the main issue now facing the cross-departmental committee and the committee is that tender prices are returning to more realistic levels, which means we can get better value for money. Our problem in recent years has been that although we spent about €300 million more than projected on the roads programme by the end of its third year, we did not get the output we wanted due to construction price inflation in the first three years, which was about 38%. We also lost significant time due to the long delays caused by foot and mouth disease, threats by farmers not to comply with CPOs and archaeological surveys. There was an astronomical increase in costs from tender prices.

Specifications on the original tenders were also changed.

That is correct. When the NDP was being drafted, many projects could only be specified in outline, as the Deputy correctly states. As these progressed through detailed planning, considerable re-specification took place, especially in the case of the national roads, which led to higher costs in all the projects. It never works the other way for some strange reason.

Has the cross-departmental team done an assessment of the economic cost of the traffic congestion directly attributable to the West Link bridge, especially at peak times? Can we expect proposals to do a deal with the toll bridge company to throw open the barrier at least at peak times in the morning and evening? The position is intolerable. The tailbacks are directly attributable to the barrier across what is now a distributor road and tailbacks stretch for miles.

The Deputy should put a general question to the Taoiseach. I repeat that more detailed questions are more appropriate to the Minister responsible. I will allow the first question.

Without breaking the rule by going into detail, the matter has been discussed at length and the Minister and his officials have done an amount of analysis on it. The Minister would be glad to provide the Deputy with details.

The Deputy is correct that the barrier is creating major difficulties. The State has invested hundreds of millions in the M50 to date – I think the figure is €1 billion – yet the stretch of road in question, which is the part on lease that does not belong to the State is creating enormous difficulty. The Minister has examined the legalities of taking action. However, he has not come to a conclusion for obvious reasons, namely, cost factors and the fact that there are a number of years left on the lease. He has done a full assessment of this matter of grave concern to the cross-departmental team. While we are now close to finalising what is an excellent road and extraordinary piece of infrastructure, the part of it which is not in the hands of the State is creating a difficulty.

The question is whether it would be economical for the State to pay to throw open the toll bridge for two hours at peak times each morning and evening to allow traffic to move. The economic costs to business and industry, not to mention the aggravation to motorists, is so acute—

The Deputy's comments would be more appropriately directed to the Minister.

The Minister has considered the matter and the terms of the full contract to see if anything can be done in this regard. He would be glad to answer the Deputy's questions.

I have raised this issue with the Taoiseach over the past five years. Does he agree that the disaster of the toll bridge is indicative of what so-called public private partnership means, namely, that it is operated for the benefit of big business to the cost of the ordinary taxpayer?

A question, please, Deputy. There are a number of Deputies offering to speak whom we want to facilitate.

With respect, a Cheann Comhairle, this is a very profound question.

The Deputy was not asking a question, he was making a statement.

I was asking a question. I am asking if the Taoiseach agrees—

A Cheann Comhairle, we have reached the stage where we are not being allowed to ask questions. You are a control freak. The Deputy should be allowed to ask a question and the Taoiseach should be allowed to answer it.

Deputy Higgins was making a statement. If Deputies were to ask questions in the manner in which they are supposed to, namely, to elicit information from the Taoiseach, we would be able to hear all Deputies.

To put the question in a nutshell, does the Taoiseach agree that the point of the frustration and suffering experienced by motorists for hours every morning and evening at the West Link toll bridge is simply to produce a massive profit for National Toll Roads? Is that not the principle of public-private partnership? For what, in the Taoiseach's view, does public-private partnership stand? Does he agree, for example, that the deal the Government made with regard to five post-primary schools, which handed over their running and construction to a private company for the next 25 years, does not make economic sense from the point of view of the State?

Will the Taoiseach agree that the rush to public private partnership is because the Government wishes to dance to the tune of IBEC, which has called for transport and energy markets, and as many Government services as possible, to be out-sourced to the private sector, in other words, privatised? It does not make sense for the Taoiseach to commit €244 million to this post-primary school project, only €60 million of which is for capital with the remainder covering operation and maintenance costs for 25 years. Will the Taoiseach agree that that company has to get a substantial profit from that but if the money was maintained in public management it could go towards further improving the maintenance of those schools or even upgrading some of the schools that are disgracefully neglected in the State? How can the Taoiseach say public private partnerships will give us better services when it is resulting in less money being made available for those services?

Without going outside the ruling, in the case of the M50, I was in the Department of Finance at the time that was proposed. There is a difficulty now, which Deputy Rabbitte has described and which we understand, but at the time that road was proposed the view was that nobody would build it. Local authorities were happy at the time to get somebody to take on the risk but in the early period the concern was that it would not be used. That is almost funny now but the concern at that time was that it would not be viable because the large tracts that have been opened up now did not exist. The risk the individuals took at the time was a substantial one, although obviously that is not the case now. As the Deputy knows because it is his area, it was a major and costly engineering feat at the time and there was a risk involved. Who was to know that the State would build all the other roads, including the road to the airport, the one to Tallaght and the road to the south-eastern motorway. I assure the Deputy that was the issue, and it is well recorded. The issue of public private partnerships is to transfer the risk.

Deputies from all parties in this House ask me every day why can we not complete more of the schools programmes under PPPs.

What is the risk in building five secondary schools and running them for the next 25 years?

Deputy, please allow the Taoiseach to reply without interruption.

The five schools are built and if the Deputy goes to Tubbercurry or to the other locations and asks the people involved if they were prepared to wait for the capital programme to include them in the normal way or get public private partnerships to build the schools, I know what they would say. They would say that was a good system.

As I have said here before, and this is the point of principle, within the context of a comprehensive framework of PPPs, the central PPP unit and the Department of Finance have stated that they will develop the projects in consultation with the interested people and give detailed guidelines on all aspects of PPPs to State authorities. Those guidelines will provide a clear, consistent and coherent process of State authorities' development projects under PPP arrangements. In cases where the risk can be transferred, PPPs are of benefit. In other cases, the State can do it cheaper. It might not do it quicker but it can do it cheaper, and that is the issue. The Minister for Finance and the unit are prepared to look at PPPs where there is a risk that is passed on to the private sector.

In regard to other cases, the Deputy is right, we will not see too many projects like schools completed. Some pilot schemes were carried out but the Department of Finance will argue they are costly. They get the job done efficiently and achieve a higher standard, but it costs an amount of money.

I want to ask some brief questions and I hope I get brief answers. First, given that spending on the national roads programme is greater than spending on health and education combined, is the Taoiseach concerned that there has been no independent economic or transport analysis of the €22 billion roads programme, particularly as it goes against the NRA's recommendations in its 1998 roads study? Second, is the Taoiseach concerned about the current public private partnership process, where contracts are being signed almost as we speak? Despite the wasting of enormous amounts of public money by the NRA over the past five years, there is no public scrutiny of the nature of the public private partnership contracts currently being signed nor is there access from the Oireachtas or elsewhere to the details of that contract.

Third, in relation to the Taoiseach's comments about having one committee analysing priorities in the roads programme and a separate committee analysing priorities in the public transport programme, will he not agree it would make more sense to have the one committee analysing our transport priorities and trying to redress the balance where we are spending six times more on new roads as against public transport? Fourth, to assist the Taoiseach, I caution him against arguing against the introduction of European gauge rail lines given that that is what are being laid as we speak on the Luas lines which will form part of the metro. It is a bit late to change Government policy on the type of rail track we should use.

Some of those issues about the future were raised in Deputy Naughten's questions when we talked about 2006 to 2010, 2014 and 2015. Thankfully, Luas will be up and running in about 12 months from now so it is a different issue.

Can we hold the Taoiseach to that?

I accept I mentioned other dates. It keeps getting dearer and the dates continue to be put back, but we will get there. I hope I did not mislead Deputy Ryan. The committee is working on two separate reports but they are the same individuals. If I led the Deputy to believe otherwise—

One report would do in terms of priorities.

Obviously it concerns their own working methods but it is the same committee which is preparing—

How does the Taoiseach analyse priorities in the public transport system as against—

Please, Deputy, allow the Taoiseach to reply without interruption.

They are bringing them forward as two separate reports—

Why not have one report?

—but the same people are working on them. The Deputy can take up the reason they do not do the two together with the Minister. I presume it is just their own order to complete the work.

The argument about the NRA was put here before. It is public money and the NRA is answerable to the Committee of Public Accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Minister is answerable for matters regarding its contracts or procedure because he is the Minister with that function. We had an argument here some years ago that the NRA was not meeting public representatives. I raised that matter with the NRA at the time and I understand that problem has been resolved in that it now meets public representatives.

I call Deputy Gregory.

A Cheann Comhairle—

Sorry, Deputy, I will come back to you if we have time. I call Deputy Gregory.

My question has not been answered, a Cheann Comhairle.

I have called Deputy Gregory. Deputy, I will come back to you if we have time.

In relation to the analysis of the—

Please, Deputy Ryan, we are running out of time rapidly and Deputy Gregory has submitted a question.

A Cheann Comhairle, this is a €22 billion programme on which there has been no analysis and the Taoiseach has not told me the reason for that.

Deputy Gregory has been called.

This is one of the biggest investment decisions the State is making—

Deputy, if you resume your seat and allow Deputy Gregory to come in, we will come back to you.

—and the Taoiseach is not allowed to answer my question.

The Taoiseach has answered the question. I have called Deputy Gregory.

On my Question No. 11 on the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Social Inclusion and Drugs, I am aware I can only ask about the meetings of this committee and not about what went on at them, but given the flood of cocaine in the city, in addition to the appalling heroin crisis with which the Taoiseach is very familiar, does the Taoiseach believe there is an essential need for this Cabinet committee, which he chairs, to meet more regularly and come up with a more effective strategy? Given the flood of heroin on the streets of the centre of Dublin and the many gangland murders associated with the increasing wealth of criminal gangs, will the Taoiseach agree that any strategy that has been put in place, particularly the Garda strategy—

The Taoiseach pointed out earlier that these were purely statistical questions and the Minister responsible might deal with them.

Does the Taoiseach agree that the Cabinet sub-committee he chairs meets too irregularly to deal with a spiralling crisis in cocaine and heroin, particularly in Dublin, but now emerging in other cities?

The full committee meets monthly but the individuals involved in the drugs programme meet very regularly and I will make the Deputy's views known to them. I picked up information about the cocaine issue elsewhere in the world some months ago and unfortunately I predicted what is happening now. Deputy Gregory is correct and I will pass his views on to the individuals concerned. If they need to meet as a full committee more often that would not be a problem but the drugs group meets very regularly.

Regarding assessment of the roads programme, it is not that I did not answer but it is an issue for the Minister concerned. It is not true to say there has been no assessment of that funding.

Some weeks ago the Taoiseach raised doubts about the long-term cost and value of public private partnerships. Is he now fully behind that concept or does he still have doubts about public private partnerships?

Is there conflict regarding the return to the State from these public private partnerships and are certain projects being held up as a result? For example, the development of the Cork School of Music has been held up for six months because of the lack of decisions.

It is important to get an answer from the Taoiseach on the €22 billion road investment programme and on why there is no analysis of the cost effectiveness of that programme. This is particularly true in view of the 82% increase in greenhouse gas emissions in the last six years.

We are running out of time.

Will the Taoiseach announce a holistic cost benefit analysis of the roads programme? There is an imbalance of six to one between private road construction and public transport.

I am a member of a local authority which is becoming involved in public private partnerships. I was advised by officials at a meeting that the property involved would be licensed to the authority rather than leased. In other words, if the State is investing money in public private partnerships and the development reverts to the local authority after 25 years, why is it being licensed rather than leased? Will the Taoiseach explain the difference?

I will take the questions in reverse order. Not every public private partnership is on the same basis and the one Deputy Sherlock refers to is a licence arrangement where the investor takes responsibility for the project and for the area, giving it back to the State at the end of the agreed period. The investor carries the risk and the benefit involved is based on the risk factor. There are different types of public private partnerships but the assessment is based on the risk factor.

This leads to the questions of Deputies Stanton and Allen. There is no difficulty involved with this issue as it is a factual position. The Department of Finance contends that the cheapest way to borrow money is for the State to do so and, therefore, unless the area involved is one where the risk can be quantified and one can say that that is a risk the developer is taking, a public private partnership should not be attempted. That is the bottom line.

The issue of the NDFA and pension funds being invested in projects is slightly different. Under new legislation the NDFA can have companies where it can secure an income stream into those companies; that is slightly different but the same point. The idea of the State using a public private partnership to carry out a project it can do cheaper is opposed, as there is a significant mark-up involved. The State can do it cheaper and that is what causes confusion. People want public private partnerships to be used to get the job done because the State does not have a capital programme but it does not work like that. EUROSTAT has long realised what other countries are doing in this regard and Portugal got into grave difficulties through using this mechanism. When doing the figures on public private partnerships, unless the risk factor can be proved the figures come into the general Government balance. Maybe Members do not get confused but many involved with this system get confused. However, the idea that a public private partnership is an alternative system of getting money is not true. It is part of the general Government balance unless there is a clear risk factor to remove it from the balance and even then EUROSTAT determines that for all countries. That is done very rigidly so that countries cannot have items off the balance sheet.

Regarding Deputy Sargent's question, the Minister has made presentations to the committee on this and it is untrue that there is not a cost benefit analysis of every project and that each project is not scrutinised as to whether it is being done properly. The technical staff of the NRA give advice and projects are scrutinised. The Minister made a presentation to the committee recently on that issue.

Will the Taoiseach answer regarding the cost overruns—

Deputy Sargent asked the question.

What is the success rate of the overall programme apart from the independent cost benefit analysis? If there is an overall assessment will the Taoiseach give the details?

The overall assessment is what the committee has been looking at – the roads programme for the long-term and the rail programme, on which we have now received a report. The value for money aspect of these programmes is being examined as this is a value for money issue, given that the roads programme in the NRA plan is worth €10 billion. Every project is assessed on its merits and regarding the benefit analysis. That is done professionally, both on an overall basis and on an individual basis.

Barr
Roinn