Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 25 May 2005

Vol. 603 No. 1

Ceisteanna — Questions.

Programmes for Government.

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of An Agreed Programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14076/05]

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

2 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the progress to date in implementing An Agreed Programme for Government. [15216/05]

Trevor Sargent

Ceist:

3 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on progress in implementing An Agreed Programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16072/05]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Ceist:

4 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on progress in the implementation of the programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16176/05]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.

Progress on the implementation of the programme for Government is kept under constant review. For every full year that Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats have been in Government, we have published an annual progress report. The second annual progress report of this Administration was published on 1 August 2004. Work is under way on the third annual progress report.

The progress reports set out the progress to date in implementing each commitment contained in the programme for Government. It is the responsibility of each Minister to ensure the commitments in the programme that fall within his or her portfolio are fully implemented.

The Department of the Taoiseach derives its mandate from my role as Head of Government. It is involved to some degree in virtually all aspects of the work of Government. It supports me as Taoiseach, and the Government through the Government Secretariat, the Cabinet committee system and through its involvement in key policy areas and initiatives.

The key strategic priorities of the Department are set out in its strategy statement. They include Northern Ireland, EU and international affairs, economic and social policy, social partnership, public service modernisation and the information society and e-Government. I, and the Ministers of State in my Department, answer questions in the House on these issues. My Department works closely with other Departments and offices. Individual Ministers are answerable the House in respect of their specific areas of responsibility.

The key areas for which my Department is responsible in terms of An Agreed Programme for Government are supporting the development and implementation of social partnership, working with the British Government and the parties in Northern Ireland to achieve the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement in all its aspects, co-ordinating the e-Government initiative to bring about an expansion in the range and quality of on-line Government services and ensuring that Ireland's key objectives in the European Union are carried forward in the context of my role as a member of the European Council.

The report on the programme for Government is a litany of failure. For example, in the area of health, the promised extra 200,000 medical cards have not been delivered. In June 2002, a total of 1.207 million people were covered by medical cards and in April 2005 only 1.145 million were covered. That is a failure.

The Deputy should address detailed questions to the line Minister responsible and address general questions only to the Taoiseach.

We were promised 3,000 extra hospital beds but that has failed and we were promised extra nurses and consultants but again the Government has failed to deliver.

The Deputy is making a speech which is not appropriate on Question Time.

Does the Ceann Comhairle expect me to confine myself to generalities?

I expect the Deputy to submit a question. The purpose of Question Time is to elicit information from the Taoiseach.

I am speaking to the Head of Government who is responsible for the programme for Government and the Ceann Comhairle tells me I am not entitled to ask him a question.

The Deputy should not misconstrue what is being said to him. If he listened to me he would understand this is Taoiseach's Question Time, the purpose of which is to elicit information from the Taoiseach, not to make a statement. All my predecessors have ruled that detailed questions about a particular Department for which the Taoiseach does not have first hand responsibility——

The first question is to ask "the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of An Agreed Programme for Government".

General questions are acceptable but detailed questions should be addressed to the line Minister.

Part of that agreed programme for Government deals with the area of health, namely, accident and emergency units, waiting lists, medical cards, consultants, doctors——

Detailed questions are out of order. The Chair is ruling as all his predecessors have ruled. I ask the Deputy to accept the ruling.

Am I entitled to ask the Taoiseach why we have no fully staffed traffic corps, which is part of the programme for Government? Why will there be no metro to Dublin Airport by 2007, which is part of the agreed programme for Government?

The Deputy knows those questions should be addressed directly to the line Minister responsible.

What is the point in having Question Time if one cannot ask a question?

Why is there no competition in the Dublin bus market, which is part of the agreed programme for Government? I could go on and on but the Ceann Comhairle is ruling me out of order. The Taoiseach might comment on the six questions I have raised about the implementation of this programme.

I have reported on the implementation of An Agreed Programme for Government across several areas.

Which questions may I answer? I do not wish to break the ruling of the Chair.

The Taoiseach should focus on his greatest failure.

There is failure on all fronts.

The Taoiseach should reform the Dáil so that we can ask questions.

He should focus on his least bad failure.

The Taoiseach should not feel embarrassed.

That is not a problem. I just do not wish to break the rulings of the Chair.

Our report details every area of our commitments in the programme for Government — health, education and the broad areas of the economy. We have covered many of them. They are not all finished but as in the last programme, we intend to get near to completion by the end of the programme's five year term.

I can go through the detailed commitments but in the broad terms of management of the economy, employment and the resources put into the health service, education and medical cards, which the Deputy mentioned, we have honoured our commitments. We continue to extend coverage to more patients, in terms of facilities, whether in general areas or cardiac or cancer services. We have honoured the specific commitments made in all those areas.

The Government has spent the money but has nothing to show for it.

I am trying to pick up the Deputy's individual questions. He focused on only one area but I can stray outside that area to say we have honoured, and continue to honour, our commitments on infrastructure through the national development plan, and the EU and Northern Ireland on which we regularly answer questions.

Whether the Taoiseach answers, he does not have to misconstrue what the Chair said. I always respect the Chair's rulings.

I was trying to stay within the rules.

The Chair told me years ago to ask those questions. He said that is the way to get information from the Taoiseach of the day.

The Deputy should ask them in a structured way to the correct Minister.

The Taoiseach's Department has line responsibility for the agreement with the social partners. The Fianna Fáil programme and the programme for Government made an explicit commitment to allocate 0.7% of GNP to overseas development aid by 2007. That is in the agreement with the social partners, the programme for Government and the Fianna Fáil manifesto and that of other parties. It was the centrepiece of the Taoiseach's speech to the United Nations in September 2000. Not only has that not been implemented but no alternative date has been announced.

Shamefully, a programme issued this morning by Development Cooperation Ireland refers to a different target about the achievement of which the Government crows. That is the development aid of 0.15% of GNP to the least developed countries. The Taoiseach, the social partners and the Government committed themselves to what is in the programme for Government.

A question please.

Is the Taoiseach not ashamed that such a clear commitment supported by the people of Ireland and all sides of the House was so disgracefully broken? Even if he is to break that promise about 2007, why does he not announce a year by which we will meet the United Nations target? That is a matter for which he is responsible. He is responsible for the agreement with the social partners. I would like an answer.

We have not and we are not going to reach 0.7% of GNP by 2007 as I certainly would have liked.

The Taoiseach promised to do it.

I take the Deputy's point that we have to work to set a new target and we will do that. The Deputy will accept we have put enormous resources into this area. One of the few downsides of the high economic growth in recent years is that even though we have put in record sums of money it still has not done much in terms of the percentage figure.

We knew that in September 2000 when the Taoiseach made the commitment.

We had it worked out when I made the commitment. Let us remember what happened in 2002 when economic growth fell back to 1%. The lower the rate of economic growth the quicker one reaches the target. If there were four or five bad years in the economy and we still put in the resources the percentage would bounce back up the line as happened in a few countries. The fact is we have put in record sums of money and we have committed to putting in record sums of money in the next few years. We will have put in €1.8 billion over the three year period. I have spoken with the NGO organisations as has the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Conor Lenihan, in preparation for the White Paper to try to incrementally fix a target. While we have not reached the percentage — I have made that clear time and again in the House and outside — we have put in enormous resources and in regard to our development aid programme we have added additional countries. That we have been able to put in several hundred millions of euro into those programmes is hugely beneficial. We rank seven in the world in terms of our aid which is an extraordinary achievement. We will continue to put in resources because it is money well spent and it is the right thing to do. We do not tie aid and do not do what many other countries do, nor should we but our resources are hugely beneficial. I am still committed to the figure but——

We became too rich to keep our promise.

I ask Deputy Higgins to allow the Taoiseach to reply without interruption.

It is not a question that we have got too rich. Over a three year period we have put in €1.8 billion which is an extraordinarily large commitment. While that is not the figure we want to reach, this country is contributing huge amounts of money and rightly so and in the consultation process we have to take account of what is happening in the European Union.

My apologies to Deputy Joe Higgins who should have been called second.

I graciously accept your apology, a Cheann Comhairle. On the timescale for the delivery of the commitments in the programme for Government, what is the Government's view on how flexible it is? The Taoiseach is completing the third year of his second term of office, a total of eight years, and has two years to go. Assuming the second term continues for the full five years, 60% of the time has elapsed but 60% of the commitments have not been achieved by any stretch of the imagination. While I cannot go into precise details, let us take the 3,000 beds that should be added to the health service, those ripped out in the 1980s. What is the timescale in regard to the health service?

Detailed questions should be addressed direct to the line Minister.

I have to illustrate briefly the point I am trying to make. Does the Taoiseach envisage that in two years there will be no persons languishing on trolleys in hospitals? That is a question on the timescale. There is also the question of class sizes and other issues.

Obviously the Government has two years to run and we have to try to achieve as much as possible. In many areas we have already achieved our commitments in full while in others we have not. On the issue of beds, a further 200 are being put in place. We are using also an enormous amount of private beds which are already built. That is not what we had envisaged but it is a more effective way of putting beds in place. We bought in several hundreds of private beds rather than the State building them.

On the issue of schools we have exceeded the expenditure we envisaged putting into the capital programme. I gave the figures yesterday. We put in approximately €2 billion in recent years into the schools building programme, far more than we envisaged at the time. In recent years, under the national development plan we spent €19 billion, €3 billion more than intended. In regard to the projections for the period ahead, admittedly the five-year envelopes in the Department of Finance are rolling and go beyond the life of this Government, expenditure of €36 billion is provided for in the capital programme up to 2009 which is way ahead of what would have been envisaged in the economic model of 2002.

It is clear that An Agreed Programme for Government is not being fully implemented while movement on some of the commitments is in the opposite direction. I will not speak about specifics. Will the Taoiseach indicate whether in the remaining two years the Government will reduce consistent poverty to below 2%? Will that be an achievement or a level hoped for in the same way as the 0.7% of GNP in development aid? Will an evaluation be carried out on how much of An Agreed Programme for Government will be implemented and has been implemented and the areas in which the Taoiseach must apologise for misleading people? For example, there was a commitment to plant 20,000 hectares per annum in forestry while only 11,000 hectares were planted. Therefore, that commitment does not stack up. Will an evaluation be done or will there be an amended programme for Government which will be more honest rather than this one which is fictitious in many ways? How can people judge the Government other than on the programme for Government which does not stack up?

In an honest and transparent way every year we carry out an analysis of every decision and provide an update on the position. Many of the commitments have been implemented. For example, we have far more in employment than we envisaged, we have more in third level education than envisaged and we have done far more in the schools building programme than envisaged. In terms of houses, many more houses have been built than envisaged. In other areas, for one reason or another, we have not reached our commitment. In the forestry programme great efforts are being made by all concerned. I read an IFA document recently on forestry which urged farmers to co-operate to build up the number of hectares under forestry. While one cannot plan accurately what will happen in a given year there are commitments to develop forestry. The Deputy and I agree that far more forestry is needed——

It is the Taoiseach's figure.

The figure relates to what could be generated. The Deputy will recall only a few years ago it was suggested we were doing the wrong thing and should not have given over so much good agricultural land to forestry. There were criticisms at the time of the number of incentives I negotiated in an effort to develop forestry. The Government is not the only influence. We have surpassed our targets on many occasions. Sometimes the available funding is not utilised for one reason or another. It is therefore not always a question of resources but it is in many cases.

Does the Taoiseach recall one of the main pillars of An Agreed Programme for Government is the development of a world-class health service and the implementation of the Government's health strategy? I know it is hard to believe it now, but does the Taoiseach remember that one of the main commitments of the programme was that it would encourage an end to the two tier system of health care delivery?

I have already ruled on that matter with Deputy Kenny. We cannot have a separate ruling.

I am dealing in broad brushstroke terms.

Detailed questions relating to any particular service shall be directed to the line Minister responsible.

These are broad brushstroke terms, with respect. I have not specified the detailed position that Deputy Kenny articulated earlier. I am entitled to complete my question. All I ask is the opportunity to put my question.

These are the broad brushstroke commitments in the programme for Government. Will the Taoiseach affirm if the points to which I have alluded in respect of the programme for Government regarding the overall health care configuration remains the Government's commitment? Will he also confirm that an essential means of achieving equal access for all citizens to our health care system is the renegotiation of the consultants' contract?

That question should be addressed to the line Minister.

It is a specific commitment in the programme for Government; I am not going into the detail of what should be renegotiated, only that it requires renegotiation. It is one of the bold, enlarged type——

The Chair has ruled on the matter, Deputy. It has been the practice since the establishment of the State that questions appropriate to line Ministers should be addressed to line Ministers.

I want to talk about the programme for Government. I am asking a question about the detail which the programme for Government states regarding health care delivery. One of the essential pillars——

The Chair has ruled on the matter. I call the Taoiseach to reply.

Let me conclude, Ceann Comhairle. I asked the Taoiseach to confirm not only the Government's commitment in respect of the areas I have addressed but also that he will advise the House it is also his commitment to ensure that all citizens have equal access to all care provision under the aegis of the Department of Health and Children. I speak specifically about cancer services.

The Deputy need not go any further.

In answer to the Deputy, that is precisely across the range. Without going into detail, the question of the consultants' contract is the central issue.

In terms of staff, resources, capital, the professions, nobody in the House can argue against the significant funding increases the Government has invested in those areas. There are 5,000 or 6,000 extra nurses. The Deputy referred to the cancer service. A significant number of additional consultants and related paramedical staff have been brought into the service. The statistics show an improvement in the survival rates for people under 65 by 15% in recent years. The units have been set up on a nation-wide basis.

They are not set up.

Eight of the 14 units are in existence and six are being developed. There have been significant achievements in those areas.

Radiation oncology.

It is very expensive which is the reason an additional €1 billion is being given to the health service this year. Most of that money will be expended on staff. A recent survey showed that nine out of every ten additional health service staff are in front line positions, dealing directly or indirectly with patients. Those commitments are being honoured.

What disagreements exist between the Taoiseach and his partners in respect of fully pursuing An Agreed Programme for Government?

That does not arise on this question.

I often disagree with my colleagues but not on policy issues and not today anyway.

The PDs agree with the Taoiseach; I will accept that.

Public Private Partnerships.

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

5 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. [15215/05]

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

6 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach when the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public private partnership last met; when the next meeting is due; if he will report on the progress made by the team; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16045/05]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Ceist:

7 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the cross-departmental team on housing, infrastructure and PPPs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16177/05]

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

8 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent work of the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public private partnerships; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16998/05]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 8, inclusive, together.

The cross-departmental team on housing, infrastructure and PPPs has met once since I last reported to the House on its work.

At the meeting of 27 April, the team's discussion focused mainly on the progress report, which will be laid before the House this week. This report provides an overview of progress during 2004 within the main policy frameworks and in the physical delivery of projects.

The team also considered the Atlantic way proposal within the wider Atlantic gateway context. It was noted that the gateways study would be completed by the summer and will be an agenda item later in the year. The next meeting of the team is taking place today. The main agenda items are ports and infrastructure delivery under the CLÁR programme.

The team serves a valuable role in progressing and resolving issues related to infrastructure planning and delivery and the House can be assured that it will continue to make an important contribution.

Has the cross-departmental team conducted any fundamental review of the very concept of so-called public private partnerships, considering public projects to be delivered in this way will be much more expensive for the taxpayers than need be the case? In regard to construction and housing, did that recent meeting to which the Taoiseach referred, discuss the delivery of the thousands of social and affordable homes that are guaranteed and promised by the Government in the recent partnership agreement? The Taoiseach is pressing ahead with many projects of public private partnership in one form or another in regard to toll roads. Has he not had pause for thought considering the ongoing disaster of the existing public private partnership, if we can call it that, known as the West Link toll bridge over the Liffey. I passed it the other day at 10.30 a.m. or 11 a.m. which is not rush hour and the traffic was backed up to Finglas. What lessons has the Taoiseach learned from this? Can he do something to end the suffering of our heavily taxed motorists who need to use their cars and use this facility?

In reply to the first question on PPPs, any PPP project must be able to show it is more efficient and more cost effective. The Department of Finance has a process for approval of projects. The Department of Finance takes the view that in the majority of cases, the capital programme is a better way, which is the reason it has increased the capital envelope significantly in recent years. There are instances where it makes economic sense to use public private partnerships and in those cases they are examined. The NRA is examining the position regarding the toll road. PPPs have worked effectively in other developments. The capital programme is undertaking most of the roads programme. The NRA budget is almost totally controlled by the capital programme and by Exchequer resources. An Bord Pleanála has made a decision on the M50 and as I understand it the work will commence immediately after Christmas. I am sure the Deputy is familiar with a number of developments on that road both on the airport side and on the Naas Road side. As I understand it, two large sections will start early in the new year on completion of the port tunnel.

What about housing?

On housing, the 10,000 sites were not discussed at the recent meeting, but I reported and answered questions here on the matter since then. The 10,000 sites have been identified. In some cases housing is under construction and in many others planning arrangements need to be considered. Land swaps are also being considered because it is believed that some very good deals can be effectively achieved. While I am not involved in the detail, I understand that many of the houses have been built and that by swapping some of the strategic land in good locations the units can be acquired immediately which would mean that the people on the local authority affordable housing list could get accommodation straight away. In other areas a group is trying to fast-track the development of these sites. However, most of the sites are very good for any housing and would be beneficial for affordable housing where the costs would be considerably cheaper.

When will we see houses?

There are houses in some cases. Some of the land swap deals that have not gone through are going through now. While I do not have the information today, I recently gave the list of ones that are being considered for land swaps and are under construction. There are a number of them in Inchicore and Finglas. I know that planning permission is being sought for the Gormanstown lands, which should not be a difficulty. There are a number of other ones outside the Dublin region where I am not as familiar with the sites. However, all of them are available and the group is concentrating on working with the local authority to get on with building them.

I did not know that houses had been built.

In Finglas.

There are some in Finglas.

Land swaps have taken place on the——

Are these part of the 10,000 committed under Sustaining Progress?

Yes, although not many admittedly.

Will the Taoiseach indicate the number and character of PPP projects in prospect as a result of the work of the cross-departmental team?

Is the Deputy asking about the ones that are in progress?

They may be in progress or contemplated.

As the Deputy knows, the education project is finished. I do not believe there are any additional ones in the education area. A number of PPP projects are envisaged to deal with waste water, including those in Dublin and Cork, which are completed. These involved local authorities and the Department and it is intended to do a number of others in which the State will put in substantial money. They are considered to be good projects for PPPs and are considered by the Department of Finance to be very beneficial. There are some difficulties with the Ringsend project, which is a PPP, but I hope that will be resolved. It is still considered a good way to deal with waste water plants.

Regarding roads, to the best of my knowledge, the Waterford project, which is a very large PPP project, is held up in planning. A number of other large road projects are considered to be good, but unfortunately I do not have a list of them. The biggest PPP project under construction is the Kinnegad road.

I asked the question because the information we have in terms of the kind of project that traditionally would have been done under the capital programme, for example schools etc., seems to indicate it would be far more efficient and cheaper for the taxpayer in the long term for them to be done in the traditional way. While I do not rule out PPPs absolutely, the examinations we have seen of those completed to date does not make pretty reading. When one considers in detail a project like the Cork School of Music, it is a horror story. Last week the Minister of State, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, was reported in the Irish Examiner, as rallying to the cause and saying that matters will proceed in the context of Cork as the European Capital of Culture etc. However, it is a horrific story. On the other hand the private sector indicates that it is very difficult for it to commit to the terms and conditions in the template now agreed by the Department of Finance. Given that we have the capacity to do so, the normal project that would traditionally be completed with normal capital expenditure should continue to be done that way.

There may be an argument regarding waste water treatment plants. I am not an expert on what may have gone wrong at Ringsend and I doubt if that is related to the fact that the project is a PPP. Certainly most taxpayers would say that the PPP experience leaves much to be desired in terms of value for money.

That is exactly what has happened. At the start of the capital programme there was a view that the private sector would wish to be involved in many of the infrastructure projects. In many cases private partners did not become involved and in those cases where they did so, while I do not agree with their case, they argued that if they tender for a project and lose out, the cost of tendering, preparing design specifications etc. is very high. However, we cannot just pick a company and give it the contract; there is no way around that. Perhaps in a bigger country such as the UK, which has some experience of this, or other European countries it may have worked better. Portugal has made considerable use of this method, as has Spain. However, conditions in these countries are different. These countries decide to build a road and they get on with building it. They operate to very different time-lines and without constraints.

For many of those reasons they are not interested. Many of the companies that showed an interest at the start are not as interested now. The Minister met them earlier in the year and listened to their complaints about the present system. He has considered revising the system to at least streamline it in the areas where there is an interest.

Even though the roads programme has greatly increased since 1999 when it was laid down — roads completed and roads started total approximately 580 km — only a small number of them are PPPs. I do not see that position changing except in the niche areas in which there seems to be considerable work and interest. I do not believe people want toll roads throughout the country. Not many companies tender for PPPs in any area. Even with the regulations being eased, I do not believe many of them will be taken up. Unless it makes absolute sense, the Department of Finance would rather complete these under the traditional capital programme.

We have convinced the Department of Finance, and everyone is agreed, to extend the programmes into multi-annual programmes. It was not that many years ago, as the Deputy will recall, that there was an annual programme and one never really knew where one was going. Now there are multi-annual, five-year programmes. In transport, it makes great sense to do things over a longer period, and the Department has been convinced of that. It makes far more sense and achieves far better value for the State to do it on a five- or ten-year basis, and that has been agreed.

Regarding the Taoiseach's indication that some completions have taken place as part of the additional 10,000 affordable housing units promised, he will recall that only a fortnight ago we asked him to clarify a statement made at a recent CIF-sponsored conference in Killarney that there had been no starts at all, let alone completions. I wonder and marvel at how quickly house construction has taken place, and perhaps the Taoiseach might be more specific and advise us of the number and details in that regard. He will recall that, last February, he gave us a number.

The Deputy should confine himself to questions. We are coming to the end of questions to the Taoiseach.

These are questions. I am asking the Taoiseach to recall and clarify something.

The Deputy is imparting information.

I am seeking information, since last February——

The Deputy will not get any information this way.

The information is clearly wrong, and the Taoiseach should acknowledge that to the House.

In the context of its work on housing, has the cross-departmental team examined the report of the National Economic and Social Council, which states that 73,000 new units of social housing will be required between now and 2012? If it has not done so, will the Taoiseach undertake to the House to encourage it to address the NESC report with a view to its implementation? That is the critical point.

Given that some 40% of people in the private rented sector receive rent supplement or allowance — money that goes directly into the landlord's coffers, into a very——

That does not arise on this question. I suggest that the Deputy submit a question to the relevant Minister.

If the Ceann Comhairle allowed me to finish the question, he would be in a better position to judge.

I am sorry, Deputy, but——

The Ceann Comhairle should not pre-empt what I am going to say and instead allow me to finish the sentence. I am at least entitled to that courtesy.

Does the Taoiseach agree that the money might be better invested in the creation of new social housing units, and is that something that his cross-departmental team might also address?

Before the Taoiseach replies, I call Deputy Kenny.

Regarding major infrastructural projects and the PPP system, we have evidence from the Committee of Public Accounts of cost over-runs totalling €9 billion. When one talks to designers, architects and builders, one sees that the pricing element seems very much askew. In his capacity as chairman of the infrastructure sub-committee, where does the Taoiseach feel that the mistake is being made? Is it at the architectural or design stage that the costs are underestimated? It appears that is where the fault lies regarding the determination of the costs in the first instance. The pricing element included does not appear to be relevant to the outcome. Builders nowadays can build practically anything and anywhere from an engineering perspective, but the cost indicators appear to be very much askew at an earlier stage. Perhaps the Taoiseach might comment on that, based on his experience of projects that have literally gone very much off the rails.

In reply to Deputy Ó Caoláin I again make the point, as I have done several times, that 10,000 sites were available. Most developers will tell one that the process takes six years and it was never the intention to make the sites available and to build in the same year. However, the sites are now available, and there are people to get on with it. The quicker they do so, the better. Some of the sites have been used in land swaps where the developer is given the land and people get their houses straight away. Others are under construction, and I hope the local authorities that have now been given this land, which they did not previously have, can get on with it. There seem to be plenty of builders in the country who are very fast at doing this. One hopes that they will simply get on with it. My task was to try to get the State to give those sites from its own land banks. I gave that commitment, which I have now been honouring for almost a year. I have totally fulfilled my commitment, and I would like to see them built, but I am not much help in that regard as I am not a builder — I might not be much good if I tried.

It is not too late to start.

The land is there and I hope they get on with it.

In reply to Deputy Kenny, we spent much time discussing this issue, and there are many reasons for increases in costs. Let us take the National Roads Authority. Several lessons have been highlighted, and the NRA has taken them on board. I am not saying that everything is perfect, and many of the comparisons are nonsensical. It has appointed a cost estimation specialist whose job it is to review all cost estimates, tender and system outturn costs that have been benchmarked and the design and construction standards now in place and when a change is made to take account of it. Often someone decides to build something from A to B and comes up with a rough costing, which ten years later becomes a real cost. Someone comes back to it and says he or she thought we would only spend €10 million but have spent €100 million. Some of the figures used in a recent programme were 1989 rather than 2003 costs. That is like if I asked the Deputy the cost of his house in 2003 in comparison with 1989. It is nonsense.

There have been over-runs and we must ask why they happened, why people change specifications and whether there is a need for certain standards. When there is a change, it must be costed and built in rather than done without reference to the fact that someone must pay for it. In fairness, recent contracts, for example those in 2000, have improved significantly, and the experience of both projects and increases has been very good. Cost-benefit analyses are carried out as projects progress through the planning stages so the impact of cost increases is taken into account. Several independent evaluations of the NRA have shown that it has got its act together in comparison with what happened before.

In fairness to road-builders, they are now completing roads far more quickly. The Monasterevin bypass was a year ahead of schedule. The Sligo inner relief road will be several months ahead of schedule. The road project in Carrickmacross has been well ahead. The Glen of the Downs was not, but there were other problems in that case. We are getting far better estimates now, changes are being dealt with and planning is better. We have also built up a very good team, and that is why it is very important that we have a five- or ten-year programme. Many of the people now working for us, who come from South Africa and other parts of the world, will stay if guaranteed continuity of work. The transport budget alone for the next five years is €10 billion. That is a great deal of money and the work on estimates is very important, since the savings that one can make on that kind of money are very large.

In my experience, as a country we were too slow in moving from someone identifying the route, with the initial costs, to drawing up a proper specification and deciding what kind of materials and standards we would have and whether it would be a dual carriageway or two-lane route. Everything changed because of the length of time, particularly in recent years.

One of the points unfairly omitted from those programmes is why people change specifications. Consider the number of cars and the population. As far back as 1993, people were saying that by 2010 we would have 3.3 million or 3.4 million people. Now the same experts are saying we will have 4.5 million people. For a person trying to design a road, much will have changed over that period, with a million extra people and a multiple of the estimated number of cars. Those are the reasons. We now have experts that are monitoring the situation more closely. Time will show it to be more effective.

The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is hoping to bring forward a memo on the housing issues that were in the NESC report, the all-party committee report and the report by PricewaterhouseCoopers. It will take the three reports together to develop a series of measures that deal with affordable and social housing.

Barr
Roinn